I give you an interview. But only if you write the truth.
The comment I often hear when I do gatugallupar in Moscow. When people demand me to write ”the truth” refers to something else than faktakoll. What they want is the person reading my text will bibringas just their perception of reality.
things really are is a thankless job. Not that the truth does not exist, but because it is always incomplete. There are always circumstances we do not know. We never have the whole picture.
Overconfidence is therefore not our friend when it comes to understanding the world. It does not mean that facts do not exist.
When the cult of the Hans Rosling was the strongest I felt sometimes like a living question mark. Not the face of rosling's world-view. It is, admittedly, one-sided, but gives an important perspective. But because so many people felt admiration for his overconfidence.
”this is not something you can discuss. I am right and you are wrong”, said Rosling in a tv studio to a Danish journalist. The video was shared wildly on social media and got many to consider Rosling as a rhetorical master.
environmental issues and climate change made me skeptical of his message from the beginning. But, above all, made me feel the doubt was that he himself never seemed to feel any doubt.
Should we not have learned by now that just overconfidence almost always lead us wrong? To search for truth is an ongoing process, which always entails a certain degree of doubt, uncertainty and ruelse?
To give people hope, to show things that have actually become better is important. But that does not give the whole picture of how our technical and medical progress go hand in hand with an unprecedented environmental degradation and climate change that threatens our entire civilization is to lull us into a false sense of security.
You can beat each other in the head with ”facts” how much you want to. The fact remains that most of the facts is possible to interpret in different ways. Therefore, they cannot be understand fully without to be put in context.
rosling's antithesis, the american writer Roy Scranton, says that mankind does not have a chance to survive. Climate change is a fact, the world goes to perdition. What remains is palliative care. Scranton suggests that we instead of resistance should devote ourselves to meditation. He is just as cocksure as Rosling, but in the other direction.
on the basics of climate change knows that it is no longer possible to stop, but slow down - but why would we not do our utmost to curb it?
Why would we not resist?
When Stalin attacked Finland on 30 november 1939 the Soviet union had 1500 tanks behind the lines. Finland had 32.
the Commander in chief, Mannerheim, had warned the government throughout the fall of the Russian attack. He had demanded more resources for the army, but refused.
According to the Scrantons philosophy, he should have put himself in a Finnish birch and meditated in anticipation of the withdrawal of Russian troops.
Instead, he led the war.
It turned out that the fight was not hopeless. It was namely the factors that the finns did not know. You know, for example, not how ill-prepared Red army was. Their soldiers lacked clothing, that winter would be smällkall.
On the basis of what you knew right then fought against better judgement.
global threats, is not comparable with the Stalin's Soviet union in 1939. To get all humanity to join in a contract that infringe on their medelklasslivsstil is more difficult than that justified a small country fighting for its survival.
But that is not the point. The point is that we never have a complete picture of how reality looks like.
It always pays to make resistance.