Denial

 

A good fantasy -

     beats reality any day;

So why trust logic?

Why rely on science?

Irrationality leads to Denial;

     momentary comfort.

 

          The human animal, more than any other creature on Earth, is imbued with the power of logical thought. At least this is the belief of most humans. There is undoubtedly some truth to this belief. We do have the ability to reason - this is the rational side of our nature - but strong irrational forces are also operative. While some people are largely rational, basing their actions on logical thought and available factual information about the world provided by science, others are largely irrational, basing their actions on emotional responses and belief systems that have no scientific basis. The rationalist, then, is one who bases his decisions largely on what is KNOWN, while an irrationalist bases his decisions largely on what is NOT known, that is, on what is not established fact but instead is conjecture, or based on mystical beliefs that have no basis in science. However, the situation is not so simple.

         Everyone probably falls on a rationality spectrum scale from 1 to 10. Thus, no one is fully rational or irrational. We incorporate elements of both the rational (derived from conscious thought) and irrational (often due to more subconscious reactions). However, irrationality is not entirely illogical. After all, a good fantasy beats reality any day! But it gets in the way of decision-making processes that are likely to provide the best solutions to a person's or the world's most important problems.

         Irrationality can hinder the evaluation of scientific data. I will cite two examples from my recent personal experiences. When in Cuernavaca, Mexico a couple of years ago, I presented a seminar in which I mentioned dogmatically that HIV is responsible for AIDS. Two Mexican physicians in the audience who were not convinced that this is true questioned my conclusion. They further claimed that since I would make such a statement, this threw the conclusions of my entire talk into doubt.

         The evidence that HIV is the causative agent for AIDS is overwhelming. That HIV causes AIDS is now generally accepted by almost everyone in the medical and scientific communities. The lack of recognition of this fact had delayed treatment of thousands of sick people in Africa and hindered the implementation of preventative measures long after such measures were justified. Yet there are still some who are in denial. In order to maintain this fantasy, one does not have to create a totally fictitious situation. One can merely cling to the few elements of contrary evidence while neglecting or downplaying the overwhelming amounts of evidence supporting the involvement of HIV.

         Another example arose this summer when I presented an environmental seminar in Paris, France. I presented the view that the activities of man since the industrial revolution have been largely responsible for global warming. The evidence is now overwhelming but not airtight. An American physician in the audience got up after the talk and offered the alternative explanation. He proposed that global warming is due not to our activities, but to an increase in incident solar radiation. Reports have appeared supporting both views, but the evidence for the latter is meager compared with the evidence for the former. In order to remain in denial, one merely needs to believe in one set of results while discrediting or disbelieving in the contrary evidence. Irrational thought, therefore, can result from the application of logical deliberation to a tiny fraction of the evidence while neglecting the rest.

         More than the people of any other developed country, Americans in general seem to be in denial. When President Bush claimed, on the basis of one faulty report, that global warming was not documented and that the Earth is actually cooling, millions of Americans breathed a sigh of relief and concluded that there was no need to worry. Few of them were in a position to evaluate the evidence, so accepting the word of their President seemed logical. After all, the President should be informed!

         Americans are in denial about many things: overpopulation, global warming, species extinction, pollution, the risks we have created to the health of ourselves and the other inhabitants of planet Earth, and many other problems that face mankind. As my friend Professor Jack Paxton says, "Denial is not just a river in Egypt." It is a major problem, a disease facing irrational people who cannot or do not evaluate and accept the logical conclusions derived from the available scientific evidence. These people may not want to face reality, may feel overwhelmed by the immensity of the problem, or may find reality in conflict with their religious beliefs. Alternatively, they may simply be too ignorant to recognize that the problem exists, or they may cling to a hope or belief that this is not their concern. Regardless of the cause, irrational people in a democratic society are a threat to the entire society because they have an equal vote with the less numerous rational members of society. The frustrations of a rationalist in an irrational society are like those of a sane person in an insane world.

The two most important questions are: (1) Why are Americans delusional when most people in the other developed countries, such as the European and Asian countries, are not, and (2) how can the problem be corrected?

Regarding the first question, it has been noted that the richest members of American society tend to be right-wingers. Because of their wealth, they have the capacity to exert a disproportionate influence on society. This is accomplished by investing hundreds of millions of dollars in the media and right-wing think tanks that are designed to reveal effective means of influencing public thought. Their propaganda provides an explanation for the strong tendency of the average non-analytical American to drift towards mysticism and irrationality. How is the problem to be corrected? Counter-propaganda provides a potential solution. However, many pessimistic intellectuals are convinced that a major disaster will be required to convince irrationalists of the truth. The only trouble with this resolution is that by then it may be too late. The possibility of taking preventative action may have been lost. Under these circumstances, hope for a promising future for the Earth and mankind may be a thing of the past, and the basis for optimism will be gone.