A Good Old Cartesian State of Doubt

I would like to start my post by noting that Michael Crichton joins quite a few other thinkers we've seen this semester in linking his opponents' thinking to the Holocaust - Pinker, Friedman... did Lewontin do this too?  It seems to have become a classic tactic: just show how your opponent's thought patterns caused the Holocaust, and you've won the debate.  In addition, I'll admit that I just read the entire book, front to back, in one go, over the course of about eight hours.

Embarrassingly, Michael Crichton successfully got me doubting what I think of as the "scientific consensus" on climate change, forcing me to reevaluate how exactly it is that I "know" what I know.  How did this happen?  Am I so gullible that trashy pop fiction can change my mind on important global issues?  As I scan the internet for responses to the book and read more about Michael Crichton, I can't help but notice the same tendencies toward bad thought in myself that annoy me in the character of Peter Evans.  Rather than starting from a "neutral point of view" and building my beliefs based on scientific evidence, I find myself reading Crichton's personal history hoping to discredit him, and searching mainly for scientists who refute Crichton's assertions.  Despite my strong inclination to disagree with his framing, premises, and interpretation of data, Crichton won me over bit by bit as he positioned his argument as that of the rational, bold, and honest characters, in contrast to the corruption, hypocrisy, and weak naturalistic arguments of villains like Bradley and Drake.  I still feel as if I know that he's wrong on many levels, but he's made me doubt my own ability to reason.  How did he do this?

In his discussion of environmentalism in general, Crichton has characters like Jennifer, Kenner, and Professor Hoffman bring up many interesting points worth thinking about in building an environmental philosophy and theory of environmental activism.  I have thought before about the story of how banning DDT led to farmworker illness and injury as farmowners switched over to Parathion, a much more acutely toxic pesticide.  As well as the argument that DDT is still one of our best defenses against the spread of malaria (Kenner, p. 613).  Through Kenner, Crichton mobilizes some of the best of current environmental and ecological theory in support of his argument: complexity theory, a critique of the idea of wilderness, chaotic ecology.

In terms of characters, John Kenner is Michael Crichton's John Galt, and I like him.  A Randian hero with all of the trappings, Kenner has the smarts to sidestep the plague of blindness that has befallen society and the conviction, competence, seriousness, and sheer manliness to go up against it and get the job done.  Alternating between bold action, Socratic dialogue, and educational speeches, Kenner is that perfect mix of intellectual and rugged that makes for a sexy older man.  His competence and intelligence, the way he constantly cites research to back up his claims, and his fearlessness in the face of danger all make me want to be on his side.  Peter Evans, on the other hand, I found to be childish and supremely annoying.  From his reliance on public opinion for his own opinions to his adolescent attitude toward women, Evans struck me as a blithering coward for whom I feel little sympathy.

It's interesting to try to pull out Crichton's theory of evironmentalism from his characters' statements.  For instance, look at this passage on page 610 (sorry I'm a little ahead of where we were supposed to stop), which occurs while Jennifer and Kenner are explaining the travesty of early attempted ecosystem management in Yellowstone Park to Ted Bradley.

"So what you have," Kenner said, "is a history of ignorant, incompetent, intrusive intervention, followed by attempts to repair the intervention, followed by attempts to repair the damage caused by the repairs, as dramatic as any oil spill or toxic dump.  Except in this case there is no evil corporation or fossil fuel economy to blame.  This disaster was caused by environmentalists charged with protecting the wilderness, who made one dreadful mistake after another - and, along the way, proved how little they understood the environment they intended to protect." (612).

Having studied the history of ecology and environmentalism in the U.S., I find it easy to see Kenner's point.  A lot of things done in the name of the environment have turned out negatively for both the humans and nonhumans they were meant to protect.  If you add in the blatant hypocrisy of wealthy environmentalists with private jets and SUV limos, it's easy to see environmentalism as Crichton wishes to portray it: at best, well-intentioned but misguided, and at worst, a thin, greed-driven excuse for the continuation of a life of excess in the developed world.  Crichton's critique of this sort of celebrity environmentalism is sharp and easy to agree with.  As is his suggestion that perhaps we should focus more energy and resources on solving pressing issues like extreme poverty rather than creating computer climate simulations.

I am not actually convinced by Crichton.  I dislike his patriarchal portrayals of women and people of color, and I strongly suspect that his interpretation of climate data is incorrect (I feel like I should "know" rather than "suspect" this, as I'm taking a climate sciences class right now...).  As we continue thinking about the book, I hope to further articulate my critique of his thinking.  However, Crichton puts up a formidable challenge, and gets me to seriously question my beliefs in a way that I haven't for a while.  It will be fun to articulate and pick apart his theories on knowledge, human nature, the economy, and the environment, as well as his assumptions about culture, nature, and progress.  His book is dangerously effective.