Dazed and Confussed
I just got out of my speech 1050 class (trying to fill that CI requirement). Today we had the assignment of giving a persuasive speech. It was definantly interesting. Of the 40 class members around one third talked about the environment in one way or another. The most interesting was a talk about why we should not drill in ANWR. I was amazed because every fact presented was quoted from the Serria club. Listening to the speech you would have thought that drilling would cause the entire collapse of the ecosystem there. One fact that was mentioned was that we could only get enough oil for the equivalence for one days use in the U.S. I have heard conflicting assessments. The guy who gave the speech is not a hippie tree huger either, he is a yokal cowboy, he seems like a really good, normal guy with no agenda. That is the most disturbing part of the evening. So I guess my question is how are we to make policy that is effective and realistic if the only information that is spread around out there is subjective and only used to persuade people to one side of the debate.? Don't we need objective facts to make decisions? Or maybe the facts that I have are wrong because I got them from Jim Hansen and the Cato institute? I am up for enlightenment.
posted by J.S. Westbroek @ 11:18 PM
5 Comments:
Jared, I don't know that I have a perfect answer to this question but I do have an idea. I think that informatin from all sides is presented but information that is spread from groups like the Sierra Club and other environmental groups is more effective for two reasons. One is that it appeals more to the emotions than any economic or scientific argument does. Second for the average Joe that doesn't have a sound understanding of economic principles these other groups' arguments are much easier to understand and therefore are excepted as the truth. There are objective facts out there but people choose to follow what they understand the best and what feels best emotionally. It's a terribly inefficient way to make decisions but sadly it is the most common method which would explain the speeches in your class.
To obtain objective information, you need to look at more than one source of information and you must be aware of the leaning bias of that particular side. Drilling in ANWAR makes economical sense, if you research it out in depth. Most individuals in Speech 1010 probably just did a google search and picked the very first site that seemed relatively educated. The Sierra Club does a great job appealing to emotions and a persuasive speech has a tendency to be biased because you need to persuade someone. Telling someone that the polar bears might die but we could still drive our cars sounds heartless. Who would agree with a plan like that?
Jared,
Drilling in ANWR will have virtually no effect on our economy. I did a research paper on it, and used states from the U.S. Geological Survey. Preparation for drilling (technological, not environmental red tape) would take about 10 years- so it's not a solution to current problems.
Drilling in ANWR would do virtually nothing to offset our dependence on foreign oil and would reduce the price of gas for consumers for only pennies on each gallon.
http://www.kolob.org/anwr.html
Sarah brings up a good point, it sounds better to save polar bears than to drive a car.
Ill use my father as an example, he was a hippy. Not that he believed or cared at all about the 'hippy' cause, he proudly admits he was a hippy solely for the girls. It’s really sounds like such a noble cause.
Its not that people actually look at the evidence (I am not saying in any opinion about Vietnam either way) they are usually after some sort of gratification or acceptance. If you say you don’t care about ANWR and let them build there is just sound good. Saving the environment at the moment is a good noble thing to say. Few will ridicule you, because they really don’t know either. Society at any given moment has certain more acceptable views and right now the ‘Birkenstock’ view is more socially accepted.
I think that with all issues you need to look at both sides and definitely with an open mind. People like this student most likely did or do what sarah said, look up a site on google and picked one that sounded good for the time being and end with that. The problem is is that now people in the class might agree with what the kid said without getting any facts from both sides. Maybe it is not a good idea to drill in ANWR or maybe it is, I don't know, what I do know is that people agree too quickly with the first thing they hear and like. I have a friend that is not a big fan of President Bush, when he hears something negative that the bush administration is doing or wants to do he atomatically agrees without looking at both sides and finding out the facts. I also think that often it is too hard to put in the extra effort of looking up all information about the subject so that too makes people be one sided. I don't really have a solution for your question but I agree that it is a problem.
Post a Comment
<< Home