The Grey Truth Between Black & White
0 or 1? Neither.
We tend to think in extremes. In 0 or 1. In black or white.
Basically everything we experience in life is part of a complex system. To fully account for this complexity, we would need to
perfectly distinguish correlations from causes,
reason through higher order consequences,
identify hidden variables,
comprehend dynamic feedback loops, and
thoroughly understand different relevant frames of reference for any given issue.
Obviously, all of this is very hard and — even more so — not practical to do. That’s why we simplify.
Putting everything into small buckets of right and wrong or good and bad is easy. It's human.
Black and white are easier to handle than different shades of grey.
And more often than not, such simplification is necessary to maintain sanity and not become overwhelmed.
At times, however, the challenges we face require nuanced approaches.
Sometimes, it's worth trying to add a few shades of grey to our black or white perspective and asking what am I missing here?
Even, and especially if you don’t really like hearing the answers.
Whether we talk about climate change, (not) killing animals, nuclear energy, capitalism, any issue in politics, global pandemic emergency measures, or any other topic that sparks controversy and heated debates* — if you find yourself at the black or white, left or right, 0 or 1 end of the spectrum, you are most likely missing something.
When everything about a complex topic seems to point in one direction and it all appears very clear to you, you are very likely not grasping the full picture.
That doesn't necessarily make your opinion wrong — but it detaches it from ground reality. Which is never a great way to reason and find solutions.
And sometimes, that backfires. Badly.
Phil
*If you're interested in a few more nuanced ideas about some of the topics mentioned, below is a selection of perspectives, arguments and thoughts that usually neither find their way into mass/popular media nor into discussions among friends.
I don't specifically support any one particular argument, but I find all of these interesting to ponder, because they add much needed nuance. And that’s what it’s about.
🏭 On Climate Change
There are two general ways of reducing our carbon footprint:
We can either reduce energy consumption by
using "stuff" that requires energy less (cars, electronics, heating, planes, etc.), or
making the "stuff" that requires energy more energy-efficient (e.g. energy-saving light bulbs),
or we can reduce the carbon footprint of energy production (e.g. solar, wind, etc.).
On the face of it both the consumption and production part of the equation should be improved. But we could challenge if the payoff of making progress in these categories is equally great. For instance, does using less electricity in your home matter as much as making the production of that same amount of electricity greener?
Slogans like “We must reduce our energy consumption to save the planet!” might sound good on Instagram memes or at demonstrations, but not only are they factually untrue, they might also prevent a more nuanced discussions about where we need to focus our efforts technologically, economically, politically, and societally in order to make the most improvement.
What the most practical message is to spark momentum in either one positive direction is yet another question.
🐄 On (Not) Killing Animals
The most common argument I hear from vegetarians (I am one myself) or vegans is that killing animals is wrong because they want to stay alive and we don't need to kill them for any reason other than the pleasure of taste.
Both is very likely true.
But here's a more complicated issue:
The alternative world in which humans don’t kill so many animals each year for food doesn’t just have that same number of animals alive and happy.
In this alternative world, the vast majority of these animals arguably would have never been born in the first place. Because if it wasn't for the purpose of eating them at some point, no farmer would keep thousands of animals just for the sake of them living their lives.
So the more nuanced question is whether there is a way in which we can still bring many conscious lives into existence and provide lives worth living (assuming that more conscious life per se is good)?
Because if everyone went vegan, we would likely end industrial farming — which would be ethically right (I think) — but we would also prevent billions of conscious lives from ever coming into existence.
So, is there an optimal scenario we would miss if everyone went vegan? Wouldn't it be better to have many conscious lives worth living even if it meant to end them at some point?
If yes, why?
If no, why not?
By the way, I've been eating vegetarian for 15 months now and I don't intend to change it any time soon because I personally believe that it might be the right choice for a transition phase to a more sustainable system (if one is feasible at all).
☢️ On Nuclear Energy
The problem of nuclear waste is real.
But how big is it in contrast to a carbon-triggered climate collapse?
What if nuclear energy is the only economically viable way to provide energy at scale to many regions of the world? Would we choose a climate collapse over nuclear waste with semi-good storage solutions?
The nuanced approach here is not to ask whether or not we want nuclear waste and risk. No one wants that.
The question is whether we are willing to risk that we fail at creating an economically viable system that creates clean energy at scale.
What if nuclear energy is necessary for that to some degree? How would we think about it then?
Also, the danger of nuclear power plants is real. (If you haven't watched the show "Chernobyl" yet, do it. It's fantastic — and scary.)
But are they the same as they were in the 60's and 70's when the vast majority of such plants was built?
Not even close. So how does that factor into the equation?
When discussing nuclear energy, we have to bear in mind the second and third order consequences of rejecting such technology — not only its first order benefits (no nuclear waste).
💰 On Capitalism
Capitalism has created people who have more money than they could ever spend — even if they tried.
It has created a vast gap between the richest people and the average Joe — not speaking of poorer people around the world.
And many argue that capitalism causes social and economic injustice — which it likely does. So it’s easy to paint it as the devil and take a stance against it.
But there's a more nuanced perspective we miss if we fail to ask (and answer):
Between whom exactly does social and economic injustice matter?
And compared to what?
From the perspective of who has more, the gap between you or me and a multi-millionaire is a lot smaller than the gap between that millionaire and a billionaire.
And yet, from our perspective, both are just the rich people.
It gets a lot trickier, though, if we ask about the global standards of living.
Because the gap between our billionaire and you or me is a lot smaller than the gap between both of us and the poorest three billion people on Earth. Think about the implications for a moment — from the perspective of the poorest people on Earth, you have a lot more in common with a billionaire than with them. And so do I.
So, where and how is social and economic inequality really being created? And where does it really matter?
Are billionaires really the problem (as Bernie Sanders likes to say)?
Or is it the gap between you and me and large parts of the rest of the world?
Where does that gap come from? Capitalism? How exactly?
What is capitalism in fact? Do you really know what it means — and what it doesn’t mean?
And what's a viable alternative? Every alternative that has been tested so far at scale has failed miserably and created high percentages of deaths within a few decades.
So what are we talking about here? Is big C Capitalism the root problem or the fact that humans like you or me just don’t really seem to care that much about the suffering of people far far away? I mean, we all know by now that smartphones are only affordable because they aren’t really produced ethically.
And yet, we all have them.
Again, I am not supporting any particular view and I am struggling to wrap my head around most of them myself. But these nuances and realities exist. Pretending they don’t for the sake of making it simpler to form an opinion is ignorant.