Unrealpolitik

[imomus]

On 11th August Science magazine, under the low-key heading "Public Acceptance of Evolution", published research by Jon D. Miller, Eugenie C. Scott and Shinji Okamoto which showed that only 14% of adult Americans think the theory of evolution is "definitely true" (around 40% give more qualified consent to the idea). In Europe and Japan, in contrast, around 80% of the adult population believes that human beings developed from earlier species of animals. (There's a more accurate graph than the New York Times one I've used here.)

In the days that followed, the story got picked up by National Geographic Magazine ("Evolution Less Accepted in U.S. Than Other Western Countries, Study Finds") and the New York Times ("Did humans evolve? Not us, say Americans") before spreading waves of amusement, despair and disbelief through the blogosphere ("Americans not developed from earlier species of animals").

The researchers, who found that American anti-Darwinism is growing quite quickly (from 7% of skeptics to 21% in the past 20 years), blamed "widespread fundamentalism and the politicization of science in the United States" for the difference between the US and Europe and Japan. But by most measures the US differs quite radically from other advanced nations. Back in the early 90s Bantam Books published "Where We Stand", a comparison of the US with other wealthy nations. In table after table, the US ranked either at the top or the bottom, revealing its fundamental difference from European nations. Here's a brief summary (based on this page) of the factors on which the US was either the lowest or highest ranking (it's probable that most of these differences have only become more extreme in the intervening 15 years). The US has the:

Lowest overall tax rates as a percentage of GNP
Highest purchasing power
Highest individual worker productivity (but in both cases, other nations have been catching up)
Highest percentage of families earning two paychecks
Highest average household debt (double next nearest, UK)
Lowest average household savings
Biggest trade deficit
Biggest current account imbalance
Lowest investment levels as a percentage of GDP
Highest inequality of income (Gini)
Highest disparity between CEOs' pay and other workers' pay
Lowest percentage of unionized workers
Smallest middle class
Highest percentage of people below the poverty level
Highest percentage of below-poverty-level children
Most deaths from malnutrition per million
Highest healthcare expenditure as percentage of GDP
Highest doctor's incomes
Lowest percentage of population covered by public health care
Highest infant mortality rate
Highest toddler death rates
Highest rate of death in 15-24 year olds
Highest premature death rate
Highest number of people who think healthcare system needs fundamental change
Highest percentage of single-parent families
Lowest percentage of girls who are still virgins aged 20
Lowest percentage of sexually active single 15 to 19-year olds using birth control
Highest teen pregnancy rates
Highest teen abortion rates
Highest rates of reported police brutality
Biggest percentage of its population in prison
Largest number of death row inmates
Largest percentage of houses with a handgun
Largest number of handgun murders
Highest murder rate
Highest rape rate
Highest armed robbery rate
Lowest percentage of people using public transport
Highest annual air miles per person
Lowest average price of gallon of gas
Most oil energy used
Most carbon dioxide per person released
Most carbon monoxide per person released
Most CFCs emitted
Most major oil spills
Most forests cleared
Most coal burned
Most debris inhaled per person per year
Most municipal waste produced per person
Least glass recycled
Least paper and cardboard recycled
Shortest paid vacations
Least news as percentage of all TV
Most manufacturing employee turnover
Most employees fired
Lowest voter participation levels
Lowest number of referenda (zero)
Largest number of political scandals

A more up-to-date account of fundamental differences between the US and Europe appears in The Economist magazine. In an August 3rd story headed "To Israel With Love", the magazine reports a gulf between American and European perceptions of the current war in the Middle East.

"A USA Today/Gallup poll conducted on July 28th-30th," the Economist says, "showed that eight in ten Americans believed that Israel's action [in Lebanon] was justified... Americans are far more likely than Europeans to side with Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A Pew Global Attitudes survey taken between March and May found that 48% of Americans said that their sympathies lay with the Israelis; only 13% were sympathetic towards the Palestinians. By contrast, in Spain for example, 9% sympathised with the Israelis and 32% with the Palestinians."

This, says the magazine, is because Americans have strong cultural affinities with Israel; the average American is much more likely to find something in common with the attitudes of Israelis than the attitudes of Europeans:

"Americans are staunch nationalists, much readier to contemplate the use of force than Europeans. A German Marshall Fund survey in 2005 found 42% of Americans strongly agreeing that “under some conditions, war is necessary to obtain justice” compared with just 11% of Europeans. A Pew survey found that the same proportion of Americans and Israelis believe in the use of pre-emptive force: 66%. Continental European figures were far lower."

The article points to the power of the AIPAC (Israeli) and Christian fundamentalist lobbies on the American political system, and says:

"The Christian right is also solidly behind Israel. White evangelicals are significantly more pro-Israeli than Americans in general; more than half of them say they strongly sympathise with Israel. (A third of the Americans who claim sympathy with Israel say that this stems from their religious beliefs.) Two in five Americans believe that Israel was given to the Jewish people by God, and one in three say that the creation of the state of Israel was a step towards the Second Coming."

Which brings us back to the refusal to believe in Darwinian evolution. Isn't there something tremendously dangerous in this combination of stubborn irrationality and tremendous geo-political power? Unrealpolitik, we could call it.

Comments

[ex-newironsh15.livejournal.com]

Is this (http://www.ezrpm.com/momus/) something you're aware of?

I actually read this article on there first, thinking it was some zealous momus fan picking up on your themes, but then scrolled down to find the "bathos" post.

[verlaine.livejournal.com]

Isn't it the mark of more advanced thought to give "qualified" consent to the theory of evolution? I mean, last I checked that's what a theory was, something we're *not* sure is definitely true.

[bricology.livejournal.com]

*sigh*

There you go again.

Honestly, Nick -- do you really think that anyone reading this is going to be surprised that there are is a large percentage of Americans that have wacky beliefs, or that ? And honestly -- I don't know how this data was gathered (Magic 8-ball?) but some of these "points" are patently absurd. The US has the "smallest middle class"? Can you even quantify "middle class"? And did you notice that this "study" was done in 1991 -- 17 frickin' years ago?

Has it not occurred to you that it's pointless to compare the US to northern European countries, Canada and Japan? I mean the fact that the US had the lowest income tax and also had the lowest percentage of the population covered by health care is kind of a heavy clue, but if you missed it, here you go: the US isn't a socialist state, as opposed to France, Sweden, et al, where health coverage is socialized. Stop comparing apples and oranges already.

The US is financially based upon the crazy notion that people should be responsible for their own success or failure. We don't tax people at 55% of their income like other nations on that list, so we can't spend that nonexistent tax revenue on healthcare, nursery school puppet shows or belly-button lint patrols. We're just fundamentally different than Europe, Canada and Japan, and we're also much bigger than any of those countries, and far younger than any except Canada.

You quote "Americans are staunch nationalists, much readier to contemplate the use of force than Europeans." Well, maybe at the moment, but surely your knowledge of history goes back far enough to know that just 60 years ago, 'tweren't so. Remember when Germany was clamoring to take over Europe, and the US wasn't interested in getting involved in a "regional dispute"? France, Britain, Italy, Germany/Austria -- European history is heavy with nations electing to use force against their neighbors. I don't think that a 60-year lull is enough to prove much of anything. And European football matches seem to produce a remarkable level of nationalism.

You say "Isn't there something tremendously dangerous in this combination of stubborn irrationality and tremendous geo-political power?" And, no doubt, you wait for the loyal readers to echo back in the affirmative. America = bad. Ho hum. Yesterday's post of originality and substance was nice while it lasted.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

Mirroring is the sincerest form of flattery!

[imomus.livejournal.com]

We're just fundamentally different than Europe, Canada and Japan

Exactly the point I'm making here.

and we're also much bigger than any of those countries

If you're counting the EU as a "country", it outstrips the US both economically and demographically.

Back to "substance" as soon as I have some more pop records to review, Bricology!

[33mhz.livejournal.com]

A common argument, and one that's flawed because it misunderstands what "theory" means in a scientific context.

From wikipedia:
"A theory is an attempt to identify and describe relationships between phenomena or things, and generates falsifiable predictions which can be tested through controlled experiments, or empirical observation. Speculative or conjectural explanations tend to be called hypotheses, and well tested explanations, theories."

[imomus.livejournal.com]

You're right, the Christian fundamentalists' refusal to take Darwin's theories on trust are indeed a mark of highly advanced thought, exactly the sort of skepticism that scientific progress itself is based on. Darwin, were he not dead, would feel his heart swelling with pride. But what am I talking about, of course he's not dead, he's burning in hell.

[georgesdelatour.livejournal.com]

Hmm, you should read this:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,,1844264,00.html

Richard Dawkins notes, however, that 93% of the scientists elected to the US National Academy of Sciences are Atheists.

I remember Gorbachev saying he'd feel safer if the only people with nuclear bombs were people who believed that this world was the only one we had - that there was no "next world". But soon a man of "stubborn irrationality", Ahmadinejad, will be enjoying precisely such "tremendous geo-political power".

[kineticfactory.livejournal.com]

I just read a book titled "Right Nation: Why America is Different", which made similar points. Its claim is that for a number of reasons (cultural, historical and geographic), America is greatly culturally different from Europe (and typically more "right-wing"). The authors (two Britons who work for the Economist) came to the conclusion that, the forces of conservatism being as deeply bedded in American culture as they are, there is no chance of America coming around to the European way of thinking on, say, work-life balance, capital punishment or secularism any time soon.

Btw, I wonder how many Israelis believe in evolution.

[verlaine.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying that there aren't idiots who will have voted for "qualified support", just that some fairly bright, decent people probably did so as well. I don't see unquestioning acceptance of anything rubberstamped by "scientists" as being that much more attractive than Biblical fundamentalism. In a world where you can petition in the street to ban dihydrogen monoxide (for being deadly when accidentally inhaled) and get thousands of signatures, it seems that worrying ignorance cuts both ways.

[ex-newironsh15.livejournal.com]

I'm ashamed to say that I fell for the DHMO scare when I was younger. But only briefly.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

Interesting.

America is greatly culturally different from Europe (and typically more "right-wing").

Yes. I don't often spell it out, but it's glaringly obvious. The US and Israel are extremely right wing in the sense in which I'd understand the term. (I see you put it in scare quotes!) But what's interesting is that people who defend the US and Israel don't often want to say they're right wing. They use leftish arguments to justify "the democratization of the Middle East" or "the spread of universal human rights", and they tell me I'm right wing on cultural issues, for instance my defense of traditional societies.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

I see one of the Amazon reviewers (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0141015365/202-9747386-1555016?v=glance&n=266239) of The Right Nation says of the authors: "Their point of view is that of moderate conservatives who like America but find some aspects of American conservatism a bit strange."

[ex-newironsh15.livejournal.com]

The study was done based on data from 17 years ago so that a clear contrast could be made between the many years of leftish governments in Europe and the Nixon through Bush era (briefly broken up by moderate Jimmy Carter).

Has it not occurred to you that it's pointless to compare the US to northern European countries...

Isn't that where most Americans derive their heritage? So at least we know it's not genetics...

The US is financially based upon the crazy notion that people should be responsible for their own success or failure.

More John Locke / Thomas Hobbes crockery. Man is an isolated individual, wearing breeches and wandering alone in the woods, apparently without a mother or extended family. He fights evil nature by chopping trees, mixing his labour into them and thereby making the products his. Man fights against fellow man, eventually tiring of this, and they decide to form an evil mafia government to take their money in exchange for protection from each other.

This "rational" account of the origin of society, which carries so much weight in the US, predates evolution! I love it.

The problem is (as demonstrated by the study) it isn't working out for the common man, which is supposedly the foundation of society after the enlightenment. Hmm.

[kineticfactory.livejournal.com]

Well, "right-wing" and "left-wing" are, unless one is talking about the French Revolutionary assembly, largely dependent on context. By themselves they mean so many different things that they have little precise meaning. (Would any two "right-wingers", or "left-wingers", necessarily share a position?) A lot of points of view combine elements which are "right-wing" and "left-wing", and can look like either, depending on which ones one emphasises (and which angle one sees them from). The fact that these labels are often applied as a sort of form letter for dismissing a point of view one disagrees with makes them also less useful as an analytical tool.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

Quite frankly, Verlaine, the fact that morons like Bush are in charge does not mean we have to go back and re-invent the wheel, intellectually speaking, just because some of his fan-base doesn't like the way it looks. I hope you're aware of how your arguments play into the hands of some of the worst, meanest and lowest people ever to have dragged their knuckles across "God's" Green Earth.

[kineticfactory.livejournal.com]

Moderate conservatives or moderate "liberals".

It's me butting in again

[ex-newironsh15.livejournal.com]

Whoa, I was just thinking that. The bit about the seating arrangements in the French assembly.

I like the system proposed by political compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/index) and other sites, it's more descriptive.

Re: It's me butting in again

[kineticfactory.livejournal.com]

Isn't the Political Compass a propaganda tool to convince people that, deep down, they're Libertarians like all other decent human beings?

[georgesdelatour.livejournal.com]

European countries are in transition, and we could see Darwinism decline there too. Large-scale Muslim immigration will probably stop well short of the Eurabian scenario anticipated in certain paranoid right-wing blogs. All the same, it's now highly likely Europe will have several Muslim majority cities within ten years. We don't know whether the new Europeans in these cities will get their facts from the Koran or the Origin Of Species. But if their preferred badge of identity is religion rather than race, I can imagine pressure to "tone down" biology teaching in the name of multiculturalism.

I would like the UK to adopt the 100% anti-multicultural stance taken by France in education: forbid parents from imposing religious dress on their children, strict Laicité at all times, no creationism in the classroom. But it may become politically impossible to do that once virtually the entire school intake is of Muslim background, as it already is in much of Malmo and Bradford. Needless to say, I agree with Sarfraz Manzoor that faith schools are a very bad idea.

Re: It's me butting in again

[imomus.livejournal.com]

Wow, it's pretty weird that the BNP is on the left of that plan and all the mainstream UK parties on the right! Alice in Wonderland!

Another problem with the Political Compass is that it has no dimension for cultural intervention. I believe in leaving other cultures be and respecting their difference, Hitler, Blair and Bush believe in intervention. Am I to the right of Hitler or is he to the right of me on that intervention / non-intervention dimension?

Re: It's me butting in again

[ex-newironsh15.livejournal.com]

Beats me. If anything, it convinced me I'm something of an authoritarian (both economically and socially).

There's one on okcupid.com that puts you next to funny pictures of world figures. I got Gorbachev.

Re: It's me butting in again

[ex-newironsh15.livejournal.com]

Tilt it to the right 45 degrees for the standard left-right continuum.

"The difference between the BNP and the Greens in economics isn't great, but there's a huge gap on the social scale. Neither scale, however, reveals enormous distances between the Conservatives and New Labour."

I'd suppose cultural relativism would be measured on the "social" scale. But yeah, that's one point where it breaks down. Because, as you've stated, you've defended traditional society.

Eventually all these graphic models break down at some point, whether it's one dimension or two.

Re: It's me butting in again

[(Anonymous)]

Since the main question here is creationism/faith/antiscience versus science/reason/progress, this diagram is very unhelpful. Many greens, believing in conservation, are naturally conservative (as David Cameron is arguing). They tend to be at best dubious about progress and science. Sometimes their environmentalism is based on a mystical, spiritual view of life. Oh, and where does the Respect party fit in?

Re: It's me butting in again

[ex-newironsh15.livejournal.com]

The diagram is only slightly more useful than "right" "center" and "left" used outside the original context.

If anything these models highlight the difference between facts and values.

Science-as-government could very well lead to a sort of soulless utilitarianism, with decisions based on killing the least number of people, or an amount of people with the less total monetary value attached to them. This might seem like a familiar theme...

We tend to overlook that within "conservatism" there's an alliance between the church (values) and business (facts).