[PREV - REALITY_GAP] [TOP]
OVERTON_OUTLANDS
October 19, 2014
It's a tricky businsess, writing A version of material
persuasively about complex subjects posted to the dailykos.com.
where your conclusion puts you
outside the bounds of commonly "From outside the
accepted opinion (at least for a Overton Window."
big subset of the target audience).
One of my favorite examples:
nuclear power considered as a key
component of our solution to the
global warming crisis...
Suppose I wrote yet-another
pro-nuclear FAQ, something
like this, from the NEI:
[link]
Or maybe this old favorite, from JMC:
[link]
I might list the half-dozen issues that everyone seems to
worry about: safety, waste, cost, potential vs the
competing power sources, and so on, then I'd need to try
to answer them quickly, without getting bogged down in too
much detail...
That would all lead up to a statement of a case I would've
hoped would be obvious at this point: the problems with
nuclear power may seem big at first glance, but they're
small compared to the quantity of clean, on-demand power it
can generate, and the global warming problem makes it
critical for us to increase it's use.
Maybe I could try some analogies: letting dramatic events
like Fukushima dominate your imagination can warp your
decision-making, much in the same way dramatic events like
the murder of some reporters by Isis can encourage us to
engage in ill-advised military adventures.
Or maybe I would compare expert opinion on nuclear power to
expert opinion on global warming, and suggest that nuclear
hysteria is a cognitive failure much like climate change
denial.
Would any of this work? Many things like this have been
written before, and they don't appear to sink-in.
Looking around at some of the pro-nuclear material out
there, I think you can see some good examples of the bind
you're in if you need to argue a position that's outside the
Overton Window (i.e. outside the bounds of the range of
commonly acceptable opinion).
I've seen some attempts at distilling things down to sound
bites, but it doesn't seem plausible they're going to
impress anyone-- I expect they just look like cranky
propaganda.
[link]
[link]
To really nail down any of the half-dozen questions people
always have about nuclear power, you need to drill down into
the material pretty far-- it's pretty likely that eyes will
glaze over before you reach an understanding of any one of
the points.
In my experience, the way the discussion actually goes is
that you can't get people to focus on any of the individual
issues in isolation-- just when you're getting rolling on
how the risk of nuclear accident isn't really that bad,
they're still looking at you in incredulity when they want
to shift to talking about nuclear waste disposal and then
while you're trying to explain that that's not really such a
big deal, they're looking at you like you're insane, and
they want to to change the subject again to "but why not
just go with solar?".
In effect the issues aren't really independent: If you don't
get that the potential of wind & solar are exaggerated by
enthusiasts, then you don't see why anyone would think about
nuclear safety or waste disposal at all. If you start by
trying to dial back expectations for wind and solar, that
turns into a morass of it's own. E.g. you can spend a long
time discussing different aspects of solar power before even
getting near the conclusion that it has some inherent
limitations that make it unlikely to be the sole solution to
climate change.
[link]
This is the bind: When what you need to say isn't regarded
as a seriously acceptable opinion, supporting the opinion
requires a lengthy exposition that no one will engage with,
because you haven't met the standard to be regarded as
serious yet. I don't mean to sneer at this phenomena as
necessarily close-minded or irrational: we all operate this
way to some degree, we have to. Time and energy will never
allow close engagement with every voice, you need some form
of "triage" to decide what's worthy of close study. The
problem is for us rational and intelligent supporters of
outlandish opinion to distinguish ourselves from the crazies
who genuinely don't deserve to get through the not-serious
filter.
So, what strategies are there to deal with that situation?
I'm gradually coming to the rather unsatisfactory conclusion
that if what you beleive to be true is not acceptable as a
truth, you need to tone it down, you need to make it sound
like it's at least not that far away from what's regarded as
acceptable. You have to tug gently on the edge of the
Overton Window: avoid saying things that you figure people
aren't ready to hear yet, even if that means saying things you
don't quite believe.
The reason this is unsatisfactory: if you give people the
sense that you're disingenuous and not quite playing it
straight, you've handed them an excuse to ignore you
completely. It's very tricky to get it right-- and I doubt
I'm temperamentally suited to it (I'm happier being a
Cassandra than a politician).
To take one example, consider the number of deaths
attributable to Fukushima-- they're much lower than most
people are willing to credit: you can argue that the correct
figure is zero.
[link]
The temptation is to just say this out-right, because it it
makes a striking, eye-catching statement, but I fear that
this will just make most people shut-down. It might be
better to use a high figure for estimated deaths-- even if [link]
you suspect it's wrong-- and then try to argue that the
overall average for the industry as a whole is still rather
low.
But that kind of argument in itself runs up against problems
for many people-- there's at least a very vocal sub-culture
that seems to feel that in an area like industrial safety no
casualties are allowed (though there are other areas, like
military adventures and auto transportation where human life
is apparently much less valuable... humans are funny that
way).
Another strategic issue: should you repeat the talking
points typically raised by the opposition? Anti-nuclear
folks make some very strange assertions on occasion -- the
idea that nuclear reactors are net-C02 emitters is one,
another is that there are no suitable sites with available
cooling water ("Haven't you heard of global warming! It's
just thermodynamics!").
The question then is should these be included in this
hypothetical pro-nuclear FAQ, or are they so obscure (and
frankly, crazy) that the cause would be better served if you
never raised these points yourself, but rather waited to see
if someone else does?
The anti-nuclear faction is so vocal, it's entirely possible
it warps our perceptions about mainstream opinion on the
subject. Consider this from one of the FAQs mentioned above:
[link]
"A February 2013 national poll of 1,000 adults by
BiscontiResearch Inc.-Gfk Roper found that solid
majorities have favorable opinions about nuclear energy
and building new nuclear power plants. Sixty-eight percent
of Americans favor the use of nuclear energy—up from 62
percent in September 2011."
"Fifty-five percent of respondents agree that the industry
should build more nuclear power plants in the future and
two-thirds said that a new reactor would be acceptable at
the nearest operating nuclear power plant site."
--------
[NEXT - NUCLEAR_DERANGEMENT]