In an ideal world, everyone would have perfect information and have the same goals. In this perfect world (in terms of decision making, nothing else), even agrees on the best decision or course of action and everyone gets what they want.
I think it safe to say that we do not live in a perfect world. Many groups have such radically different positions on various topics that they cannot be reconciled. There is just no possible way to both allow and not allow abortions (for example). There isn’t a partial abortion. Some of the people on both sides of the policy or decision are not going to compromise in any way. When you throw violent responses into the mix, you basically get a war.
What’s even worse, in a lot of cases, one party is willing to compromise, but another party isn’t. This can result in a situation where the compromising party either doesn’t get anything that they want or they are manipulated or controlled by the other party.
Finally, we have the situation in which one group is using another group or idea for their own agenda. They are not promoting a policy because it’s a good policy, they are promoting it to get attention (the “Buy my book.” type of policy discussion). These kinds of people will say whatever they have to, in whatever circumstances, to get what they want. cough-politicians-cough
Now take a group that has unwavering belief in a policy, add in another group with an unwavering belief that the policy is wrong, toss in some people who are only in it for the money, mix with a large variety of culture and socioeconomic baggage and it’s a wonder that anything gets done at all.
A few recent examples have all been combined in my head.
There are people who are perfectly OK with slavery, because it’s in the Bible. They are fine with slavery as a way to resolve debt issues. I doubt that they would go so far as to sell their children (at least in the US), but it does happen all over the world. On the other side are people who believe in the dignity of the person. The concept of owning and controlling another human being is wrong to them.
I’ve already mention abortion.
Even something as fundamentally simple as electricity is the subject of massive problems in negotiation. Everyone knows that fossil fuels pollute and are damaging to people and the environment. But we can’t just decide to switch to clean energy. Nuclear is obviously safer than fossil fuels, but because the accidents are ‘bigger’ it has a bad political dimension.
Whether Firefly should come back or not.
Gun control, the war on drugs, religion, education… well… everything.
Everything has its adherents, its detractors, and the ‘who cares’ group. We can perform all the risk analyses, economic analyses, and research about anything, but we will not convince everyone of the right decision. We might not even be able to convince two groups that there is a right decision.
How do we know that the position we advocate for is the correct one?
Here’s how I do it.
First, I do the research. I look at peer-reviewed research on the topic at hand (when available). The whole point behind scientific research is to be as unbiased as possible. So, it’s a good place to start.
Second, I look at the reasons behind the various positions. Very often, we can find some monetary or other biased reason for a certain group to believe a certain thing. For example, the pressure for California’s GM labeling law came from organic farm collectives. Is that a reason to not label GM foods? No. But some personal benefit to being on one side of a decision is an important point to consider.
Third, I think about the issue in terms of maximum benefit for minimum harm. Let’s compare rising sea levels, deaths due to pollution, and increasing environmental damage to another few million for a multimillionaire corporate CEO. hmmm…
Fourth, I leave myself open to change. This is critically important. New information is coming out all the time. It’s good to make a decision and it is NOT a sign of weakness to change one’s mind. It’s really a sign of intelligence and strength. Any idiot can parrot the same thing for years on end. But someone who truly thinks about the issues and is willing to change their mind when new information comes out is the best possible person.
If my decisions on certain policies are not correct, then I can change them. But it takes more than bluster and piles of BS to make me change my mind.
Then, I try to promote my decisions. I provide the evidence as I can. My goal being to educate rather than browbeat. My research into the GM labeling law, for example, convinced some people to not vote for it. It was a poorly written law, whether or not you think GM foods should be labeled or not.
But some people will not be swayed. No amount of harm caused by their decisions will sway them. No amount of evidence will alter their perception.
The only thing I can say for these people is that we must make an effort to stop them from being formed. Teaching critical thinking, even in elementary school, is a way to start. Teaching children the process and value of science, instead of just some random facts, is another way. Finally, teaching kids that they don’t always get what they want is important too.
