The Return of Demagoguary and the Big Lie

'This is not an honest man. This is not a trustworthy man. The fact that people believe he’s honest is a result of a failed media that aims its sincerest critique at Clinton’s deficiencies with the truth, but applies an entertainment standard to Trump that corrects falsehoods but doesn’t castigate him for them.

There is no reasonable explanation or saleable excuse for the media’s behaviour this presidential cycle. History will look back at this period and it will not be kind to the Fourth Estate. We will all have to one day ask ourselves, "Where was I on Trump and the truth?” Far too many of us will be found wanting.'  NYT Sept 8th 2016 Opinion

Boris and Trump, Putin and Xi Jinping - the return of the liar to world leadership. A paradox - social media reveals all, yet the lies told by some notable public figures today mimic in their size the Big Lie during the rise of communist and fascist totalitarianism. But Boris and Trump live in functional democracies so how come?

In these democracies, ordinary voters, they who were once the lumpen-proletariat, are now mostly literate,and have vastly improved access to information in comparison to the fascist and communist masses that came before. So why do they swallow lies of the magnitude now widely propagated by both professional and social media? Does this mean that the great C20 liberal experiment has failed; the idea that universal education would produce a rational polity? 

Too many people still seem unwilling to distinguish between hyperbole and falsehood, and demonstrable fact. In an era of increasing secularism where dogmatic belief is more frequently confronted by conclusions drawn from rigorous analysis, how is it that so many are willing to believe and vote for those who base their speeches solely on desired outcome? 

Is it too much information, the feeling of being overwhelmed by complexity so that we are willing to trust anyone who can make it simple? Is it frustration with the search for evidence when having an opinion provided by an admired public figure or celebrity makes for an easier existence? Are there just too many places to look for data and too few hours in a day? Why are decisions so often complex today when they seemed so straightforward 100 years ago? Is the person-on-the-street today just too soft-minded to cope with the nuances of navigating a civil community in the C21st?  

Is the degree to which we choose to trust those to whom media gives exposure a marker for our civilization's integrity and likely longevity? The social order building since the Enlightenment, is it now in self-destruct mode? 

It could well be so.

The Retreat of Science from the Place It Began

'Beginning with Scotland’s prohibition on domestic genetically modified crop cultivation on Aug. 9, Europe’s scientists and farmers watched with mounting dismay as other countries followed suit. Following the Scottish decision, signatories from numerous scientific organizations and academic institutions wrote to the Scottish government to express grave concern “about the potential negative effect on science in Scotland.”

The appeal went unheeded.

Without a trace of embarrassment, a spokeswoman for Nicola Sturgeon, the leader of the Scottish National Party, admitted that the first minister’s science adviser had not been consulted because the decision “wasn’t based on scientific evidence.” Instead, the priority was to protect the “clean green image” of the country’s produce, according to the secretary for rural affairs, food and environment.'

NYT Sunday Review Oct 25th p.6 - 'Europe Turns Against Science'

As both a Scot and a former biotechnology entrepreneur it is hard for me to watch the Nationalists who form the current Scottish Government descend to the idiot level. No GMOs, no Trident atomic submarines, nothing tech if the English or Americans find it useful.... These rustics remind me of the "nuclear-free zones" that socialist municipal  councils created in Britain, or the "niqab-free" municipalities Canada now has in rural Quebec.

'The historical irony is that Europe once led in biotech: in 1983, Marc Van Montagu and Jeff Schell at the University of Ghent in Belgium introduced the world to modern plant genetic engineering. Today, however, no rational young scientist interested in molecular techniques of crop breeding would choose a base in Continental Europe.'

The 'must be organic and GMO-free' craze long plaguing European food production has now resulted in nations as stable and scientifically sophisticated as Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Scotland using new European Union rules to announce bans on the cultivation of genetically modified crops. They either see no reason to take senior science advice in agriculture or, like the Scots Nats, choose to forgo it for populist reasons.

It is eerie for one such as I, born in Europe but now a resident of the Developed New World, to see the populations of advanced New World countries like America, Canada and Australia retain a respect for the evidence-based view of technological development we inherited from the European Enlightenment, while much of Old World Europe's present-day leadership slips away from relying on modern science for deciding what to believe when it comes to food production and nutrition.