Michael CrichtonMike Rappaport

An interesting interview with the novelist, Michael Crichton.  I found much that he said compelling. 

First, he writes movingly about classical liberalism.  In response to the question, “What is the most serious threat facing our civilisation?,” he writes:

Loss of classical liberal values in those western societies that embraced them.

England was the first modern state, the first superpower, the firstnation to deal with moral issues around the world, and the first nationto install the benefits of what we might now loosely term a liberalsociety. I mean that in the 19th century sense of liberalism.  Thatnotion of liberalism was also present in America, but made it to theContinent only in a pale and limited form.  It is a wonderful socialconception that must be vigilantly guarded.  It is not shared by othernations in the world.  Nor is it shared by many citizens inEnglish-speaking countries.  Peculiarly, many of our most educatedcitizens are least sympathetic to classical liberal ideals.

I had not realized that Crichton was “of the body.”

Second, he writes of what we know and don’t know about global warming.  Consistent with other statements on this blog:

There has been so much disinformation about my position that I feelobliged to repeat what I said in my book.  Yes, the globe is warming;the greenhouse effect is real; CO2 is a greenhouse gas; it isincreasing from human activities; we would expect this increased CO2 toproduce warming. All true.

But nothing in this sequence of statements implies that CO2 is theprimary driver of the warming we are seeing.  Not at all.  It is onething to say that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is therefore causingwarming; it is quite another to say CO2 is causing ALL of the warmingthat we see.  There is good evidence (and good physical theory) for thefirst statement, and  weak evidence, primarily computer models, for thesecond.

Despite all the huffing and puffing, the truth is no one knows howmuch of the current warming trend is caused by man.  Some of it surelyis. And some of that anthropogenic warming is caused by the man-maderise in CO2.  But how much is attributable to CO2 is not known.  In theabsence of that vital knowledge, people speak of a consensus ofscientists. That’s a way to get around the lack of knowledge and theinability to predict (which is the conventional proof of scientificknowledge, hence the usual emphasis in science on testablehypotheses.)  Perhaps people and nations will choose to act on thebasis of a claimed consensus.  They have done so in the past,sterilizing their poor neighbors in the name of eugenics, gulping milkfor their ulcers, downing antioxidants to prevent cancer, and soon. But all those behaviors were ultimately proven to lack a scientificbasis in other words, they are superstitions.

Third, he writes about fear fashions, which I had referred to in a previous post.  Here is the longer version:

Most of the people I know who are anxious about GM say that theirconcerns lie with the fact that the technology is of unproven safety. They share their worries with like-minded people by use of their cellphones.  When I remind them that cell phones are a technology ofunproven safety, and that the construction of all these wirelessnetworks around the world and in our houses is a development ofunproven safety, they just shrug. They don’t care.  Even though most ofthem are old enough to remember the false fears about cancer andelectromagnetic radiation.  You’d think that fear could be easilyreawakened in them, but no.

From this I conclude fears are a matter of fashion.  Worries arelike clothing styles, they come and go, rise and fall, based on whatthe worry fashion leaders tell the herd of independent minds to fearthis year.  GM is fashionable to fear.  But that will change.

Quite a performance.  I was never very sympathetic to Crichton, who seemed to me to contribute to the bashing of science and technology, as in Jurassic Park.  But this Crichton, I liked very much.