Remarks to the Commonwealth Club Michael Crichton (Theme: Environmentalism is really Urban Atheism)

Michael Crichton ^ | September 15, 2003 | Michael Crichton

[FreedomPoster]

I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.

[RadioAstronomer]

Keep in mind he's talking about the characteristics of religions in general - all religions.

With good reason.

[Oatka]

Farmers know what they're talking about. City people don't.

That's it in a nutshell.

[RadioAstronomer]

Let me qualify this:

With good reason (referring to fanaticism)

[PianoMan]

BTTT! Brilliant!

[liberallarry]

sThe general theme of the piece is worthwhile nonetheless

Better than worthwhile.

I know from personal experience that his critique of the environmental movement is correct. It's riddled with know-nothings who've made it "the great cause", their life's work - and with people who care nothing about the environmental issues and a great deal about the political and economic consequences of "environmentally friendly" laws.

But I've never been able to succinctly state the case the way he has.

It's important to note that the criticisms apply equally well to anti-environmentalists - and to pay attention when Crichton says there's a real need to analyze, as best as possible, our effects on the environment.

I am also quite comfortable with his critique of religion and the religious mind-set - keeping in mind that it's a generalization.

[cornelis]

Crighton commits a fallacy or two. You all know the one, "guns don't kill people . . ." A fallacy is an error in reasoning. Here's his error in process:

There are two reasons why I think we all need to get rid of the religion of environmentalism.

First, we need an environmental movement, and such a movement is not very effective if it is conducted as a religion. We know from history that religions . . .

And so it runs. Environmentalism is a religion; religions kill people; therefore environmentalism is evil. This one is called guilty by association. If this one is in your bag of tricks, no doubt you've used this one: "Adolf Hitler believed that 1+1=2. So, you shouldn't believe it."

The claim that religions "know it all" is such a sweeping generalization that perhaps Crighton might try this one some day: "women are all feminists, so don't marry."

[avg_freeper]

Wow! This is a keeper! Thanks

[cornelis]

keeping in mind that it's a generalization

Generalizations are indispensible. But why should we put up with fallacies?

[jocon307]

bump

[Bear_in_RoseBear]

Interesting read!

[Mike Darancette]

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism.

AMEN.

[liberallarry]

We all would like to find certainty, meaning, and security in an uncertain, confusing, and frightening world. In some this need is so great that they seize upon an idea or a way of viewing the world as "the truth" and refuse to countenance any challange or contradiction.

It is this mindset that Crichton says cannot be eradicated, which he criticizes as dangerous in the extreme, and which he characterizes as religious.

Of course, there are plenty of believers who are tolerant and open-minded. Of course, there are plenty of non-believers who aren't. Of course, there are plenty of people who treat non-religious ideas in a religious way - that's the point of Crichton's article, isn't it?

Anyway, that's how I read it.

[Maria S]

In case you missed the ‘questions’ page that followed the article (on the original website), his answer confirms my belief that he DOES have a little common sense in addition to his book-learning smarts:


If Hollywood were destroyed by a freak accident tomorrow and you were asked to rebuild it, what changes would you make?
I wouldn't rebuild it. It's already an anachronism, and so is its product. Does anybody believe that in 50 years we are still going to go to cinemas to watch big computer-generated light-shows that make no sense, bear no relation to real life and are accompanied by earsplitting noise? Or that we will want to watch this product at home on our screens? No, this too shall pass.

[keithtoo]

Re: Fundamentalists (religious): "They are totally rigid and totally uninterested in opposing points of view."

I disagree with regards to Christianity. I consider myself a Christian fundamentalist, but I hear, live with and am interested in other points of view.

I've been a news and history junkie most of my life and guess who has controlled most of the news and history I have been exposed to? Libs, from my college days, to Time and Newsweek, to CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN and Hollywood. The list goes on and on.

People who dont know - or think they dont know - any Christian fundamentalists are naive about what we believe.

[PoorMuttly]

Muttly need Footnotes.

Best if we have the data he is referring to...like DDT...so this presentation could have some teeth...harder to run away from.

It is, however, THE best roadmap - into the past, throughout the present, and into the future - that I have ever read...and I will use it. I just need the Science, or it'll just make people mad at me, and I'll seem prejudiced, politically...which is the big Spoilers' trick. I'd rather stay quiet, than offer that.

[cornelis]

That's a worthwile discussion, but hardly an excuse to be fallacious.

There is no doubt that even religious people are prone to impose certainty for the sake of banishing the fear of our limited knowledge. And if environmentalists shouldn't make this kind of error, where does Crighton obtain the priviledge to call this error religious? Crighton commits a fault and he should be called on it.

[KC_for_Freedom]

Michael writes like this in his non-fiction work "Travels" and having had a similar experience as him in Jamaica, I believe he does his research well, and is spot on about environmentalism. He is also right not to treat the GOP with any great favor, however, the environmentalist movement is a child and co-ally of the Democratic National Party. It is socialist in its dealings with the people and environmentalist plans to correct the situation certainly include government control of all our actions. He could have said all these things as well.

[SpeakLittle_ThinkMuch]

The other speeches and articles on the Crichton site are also a good read. The one from April 1993 seems particularly good.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

ping

[liberallarry]

You can - rightly - criticize Crichton for characterizing rigid and intolerant insistance upon the "truth" of one's beliefs as "religious". But it's not his error alone. Too often, that's the way of the secular world. It will take some work to undo it.