Hidden Away

There are a lot of concepts that float around in American politics that make things difficult, and one of the big ones is: "It's okay when we do it." Consider the following exchange from a recent episode of Radiolab:

Hank Green: There were people who were like, "Shh, don't tell people about this."

Lulu Miller: There are some people, including climate scientists, who say we shouldn't even talk about geoengineering, like, at all.

Hank Green: Yeah. That—the main thing is you don't give the fossil fuel industry a way out that's not, don't burn fossil fuels anymore.

This is a sentiment that I've heard before. Public discussion of geoengineering, especially in forms that can be implemented today, is bad, because it leads people away from the idea that the production and use of fossil fuels must be halted as quickly as possible. In effect, the only acceptable answer to anthropogenic climate change is a massive overhauling of the energy infrastructure; accordingly any ideas that may lead people to believe that there are other solutions to the problem are bad on their face, and should be effectively suppressed.

I understand the logic here, even if I am more than a little dubious of the idea of decreeing that there is only one allowable answer to a problem; mainly because it raises questions about what problem is being solved. In this case, is atmospheric carbon the problem, or are the changes to the climate the problem? In any event, one could look at things this way; there is a moral imperative (reduce the introduction of man-made greenhouse gases into the atmosphere) and there is a concern that certain information (knowledge of viable geoengineering technologies) would lead people to believe it's acceptable to not obey that moral imperative.

Where things become wonky is when people have different moral imperatives that they seek to protect. Consider Florida's "Parental Rights in Education Act" colloquially known as the "Don't Say Gay" law. One could look at the legislation this way; there is a moral imperative (people should live within "biblical" idea of sexuality and gender norms) and there is a concern that certain information (discussion of sexual orientation or gender identities in classroom settings) would lead people to believe it's acceptable to not obey that moral imperative.

Although I suspect that the people that support the two positions would disagree on the similarities, in no small part because the discussions in question have taken on partisan valences, and Liberals and Conservatives tend to see their own positions as legitimate, and those of others as being taken in bad faith. (And to be sure, it's not a completely apt comparison. But it is, as they say, close enough for government work.) But the idea that one of the ways that moral imperatives are enforced is by withholding information concerning alternatives is a more common one than it is often given credit for. And one of the things that drives it is the idea that the stakes are too high to allow everyday people to make choices based on their own understanding of the situation and their interests. The perception that things must be a certain way, or a catastrophe will result that does not respect political ideology.