Science and Market Fundamentalism

Questions have arisen on why the world is slow to deal with climate change. After all, scientific knowledge has advanced than in the past in addition to technological capacity. The question that begs is why the world has not be fast in replacing outdated technologies with sustainable ones. There are different answers to this question including corporate greed and market failure. However, this paper seeks to establish that one major reason that has caused this slowdown is culture.
Modern culture has attained a number of remarkable things. However, it also appears prone to some errors in thinking compared to the previous cultures. This is the main argument that has been presented by Oreskes and Conway (p.1). Here, emphasis has been laid on some of the modern cultural beliefs including the principles of the free market. The main focus is on the sacrosanct 95 percent confidence interval. This is a major barrier which justifies the reason why humanity is slow to address the effects of climate change. The 95 percent confidence interval is described as difficult to understand. In addition, it is a major impediment against one particular type of error. Despite the fact that the 95 percent confidence interval has been drilled into science students in numerous ways, most of them have not stopped to question way. Perhaps it could be that there is no justification than an 85 percent confidence interval would work perfectly in practice. Oreskes and Conway write that ‘‘we have come to understand the 95 percent confidence limit as a social convention rooted in scientists’ desire to demonstrate their disciplinary severity’’ (p.17).

If 95 percent is considered good, it means that 99 percent would be better. At this confidence level, not many results would be accepted as satisfactory. This would in turn make publication difficult. The question that begs is whether 80 percent is low and whether it would be logical to have a low threshold in the event that the repercussions of failing to deal with climate change due to uncertainty change were immense. Some have operated by the 1% doctrine. In other words, even if there was a one percent chance of an attack taking place, they would work as if it were a hundred percent likely to take place. All this comes as food for thought even as the world led by the scientists analyzes the details of the major threat humans have to contend with since the end of the Cold War: climate change and increased levels of greenhouse gases.
Focus is then directed to free market fundamentalism (Oreskes & Conway 38). It refers to the notion that there can only be individual liberty when the market is allowed to make all economic decisions. In such case, government’s intervention is limited. The causes of this are well identified in the US reaction to communism. The same reaction has been misused when it comes to environmental issues. The main argument is that communism is wrong and evil and interfered with the free markets. For this reason, climate regulation which interferes with free markets should also be considered evil. During an interview with Oreskes about the anxiety that surrounds free market fundamentalist, it became clear that “today we control greenhouse gas emissions, tomorrow we give up the Bill of Rights” (p. 73). This hyperbole can be taken too far. In the same vein, the important role played by the government on issues of the environment has also been presented. This fact has not been considered by the current Tea Parties.

The fall of the Soviet Union made the West boast over their dominant political economy. However, even as creationists believe that they are able to prove or confirm their ideas right by dismissing evolution, free market fundamentalists commit the error of assuming that given the inability of communist led economies to operate, unlimited capitalism would work perfectly. As has been evidenced since the Great Depression, a period when the United States fell into the economic crisis, it has become clear that systemic collapse, financial woes and widespread suffering are not just challenges faced by the command economies alone. The truth would be that there is no system that can be said to function well. It is submitted that western civilization where denial founded on free markets, led to the collapse of the most powerful nations in the world amidst the tragedy (Oreskes & Conway 37). The world will hope that this information helps scientists develop the ability to work on what is already known.
In conclusion, individual and cultural obstructions working together have made it difficult for many to clearly see, conceptualize and act to alleviate the risks posed by climate change. Most of these obstructions are in existence and cannot be seen by many. This makes the work of addressing climate change an uphill task. In a nut shell, the world knows the enemy and that enemy is humanity.

Work Cited
Oreskes Naomi & Conway Erik. The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View from the Future. Columbia University Press, 24 Jun 2014