Have we abandoned rationalism?
By: Geir Agustsson
Tags: Rationality, Plastic Bags, Economics, Environmental Issues, Martin Luther King

I am a man of the natural sciences and as an engineer I work every day with concrete problems that cannot be solved without using knowledge about the actual, real world. This keeps me grounded and rational in a world that feels like it has abandoned rationalism, and I want to explain why with a few examples.

Plastic pollution

We are constantly being told that plastic pollution in the ocean is a real problem and that we need to solve it. This is true but only in a very special sense: Certain parts of the world, not all, are producing more or less all of the plastic pollution in the oceans. In fact, a study showed that the “10 top-ranked rivers transport 88–95% of the global load into the sea”. And guess what: None of these are in Europe or the United States, and not even South-America for that matter. So why can’t we continue to use plastic bags and straws in parts of the world where waste is handled and treated, and is even a source of energy? Why are we being asked to use much inferior paper-based straws and reusable grocery bags that accumulate food waste and can become breeding ground for harmful bacteria?

Because we are not thinking rationally, that’s why. We have been swept away by politicians and special-interest groups, that’s why.

Oil and gas

Oil and gas as energy sources have long been talked down. They are not “green” and contribute to climate change when utilized, it’s said. This completely ignores that fact that not a single country in the world has become rich without ever-increasing use of oil and gas, up to a point. Yes, only up to a point. Because once people become rich enough they begin care about their environment and afford more expensive energy sources. An excellent discussion on this can be found in the book A Thousand Barrels a Second by Peter Tertzakian.

A starving and freezing man only thinks about food and shelter. With fossil fuels, he can generate electricity and move around in a car. Fossil fuels are jetpacks for economic prosperity, and economic prosperity is the source of environmental conscience. Furthermore, as the world has generally been getting richer for the past few decades, the planet is getting greener. There is reason for environmental optimism, and oil, gas and coal are to thank.

That said, of course we as humans are constantly looking for alternatives — for everything! Energy sources are no exception. So while Pakistan wants more gas (for many reasons), Europe wants more wind mills (for completely different reasons). For some parts of the world, the energy transition is from having no energy at all to having some energy, and for others its going from dirty energy to cleaner energy. Fossil fuels as either the goal or a stepping stone, and we need it for at least a few more decades.

Economics

Economics is a topic ripe in irrationality in the public and political debate. I won’t go into detail but point out a few absurdities:

If printing more money generates wealth, why don’t we just double the supply of money every day?

If going into debt can secure prosperity or relieve economic hardships, why don’t we just borrow as much as possible all the time?

If increased public spending is a good thing, why don’t we just hand all of our money to the government?

If debt-financed private spending spurs the economy, why don’t the authorities ban caps on borrowing so we can spend some more?

What is generally missing is any consideration for the unseen and the long-term. It feels as we for years have been thinking like a kid in the candy store: If only I could stay here forever and eat candy I will have a good future. It’s nice for a few minutes, but that’s it.

I am no economist but I know that printing money does not generate wealth, think that debt should only be incurred for productive investments or few, large and important purchases (such as a car) and see public spending as just some guy A spending the money of some guy B, which generally is a recipe for disaster.

Conclusion

We have a problem. There is the “main stream” narrative and the “fringe” narrative, and these are widely disconnected. Instead of an open debate where all opinions are considered, we just accept the manuscript handed over to us by the media and authorities and special interests with access to these. We rarely self-educate ourselves on complicated topics and rarely bother to break the line, or we don’t dare to.

This is bad.

We need more independent spirits like William Lloyd Garrison, Albert Einstein, Martin Luther King, Ludwig von Mises and Rosa Parks — individuals that dared to break the line, think for themselves and speak out, even though the majority thinks they are wrong.