This article made me wonder if it would not have been a more dignified passing on if the Sai Baba had been in his ashram or wherever he used to stay. Among his devotees. Being a man of God, surely he knew when his time was up?
With apologies to all followers, I mean no disrespect.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Friday, April 15, 2011
Feeling (mis)informed
So a few days back I came across this TED talk
A case against people’s apathy and blaming instead, ‘obstacles and barriers’ that are placed in our way of meaningfully engaging with our surroundings, even on issues that directly affect us. Nothing new in that, though I have to say the talk was for me interesting and informative anyway.
What I’d like to add to this list is designed and deliberate information overload. We’re living in times of an information revolution. Information is being generated and transmitted at an unprecedented pace, and is more readily and cheaply available than ever before. Especially over the Internet, which has been the vehicle of this revolution.
Here’s a video that brings some perspective to the numbers.
The most telling statistics for me (quoted from the video) are ‘It is estimated that a week’s worth of the New York Times contains more information than a person was likely to come across in a lifetime in the 18th century.’ and ‘It is estimated that 4 exabytes (4x10^19) of unique information will be generated this year. That is more than the previous 5000 years.’
The problem is that there often is too much of it, and as we well know, too much of a good thing may not necessarily be good. Even if one wants to follow an issue, the amount of information that one is bombarded with is, I suspect, designed to dissuade all except the most persistent followers. That ails much of my effort at staying informed anyway. Two recent cases in point are the debates around nuclear energy and the Jan Lokpal Bill.
For this post, I’m going to limit myself to Nuclear energy.
I’m really rather fed up of the number of conflicting articles in the media around the nuclear energy debate. And I, with my limited knowledge and interest, have probably only some across the tip of the iceberg.
Ever since the tragic tsunami struck in Japan, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant crisis has been constantly in the news. Even in the early days, when the government of Japan and TEPCO claimed the amount of radiation was below levels considered dangerous, the alternative media was full of articles advising Japanese in the vicinity of the plant to move immediately. Reports on the harmful effects of radiation from the Chernobyl disaster were quoted and claims about internal and external radiation and what constitutes ‘dangerous’ were made. There were repercussions across the world, in that nations, including India, began to re evaluate the safety measures in their existing nuclear plants, while Germany closed them down altogether. And the debate around nuclear as a viable source of energy was revived. Mostly good developments these, had there been some kind of clarity.
The proponents of nuclear energy likely have deep pockets. It would be easy to believe, and much of the alternative media claims, that they manipulate data, and put out false information to support their case. Nothing new in this either; misinformation campaigns have long been a handy tool of people in power, or with something to hide.
But when someone like George Monbiot joins the debate, and in the favour of Nuclear, I really begin to wonder. His arguments are compelling, even if the figures he quotes seem less than plausible. What is even more baffling is that he quotes the same reports to build a case for Nuclear. How IS that possible, I ask. All these learned people, experts in their fields (though Monbiot does not claim to be an expert on Nuclear, and quotes sources,) if they can’t reach a consensus, in spite of their pro people credentials, how are the rest of us supposed to make ‘informed’ decisions.
Here are just a few from the ping pong match (can’t find some others):
‘How the Fukushima disaster taught me to stop worrying and embrace nuclear power’: In which Monbiot takes a pro nuclear stance
‘Why don’t we judge other forms of energy generation by the standards we apply to nuclear power?’: In which he defends his pro nuclear stance
‘The UN Would Never Lie to George Monbiot’: an attack on Monbiot's pro Nuclear stance
‘How Nuclear Apologists Mislead The World Over Radiation’: Helen Caldicott’s attack on Monbiot
‘We have to be sure our facts about nuclear power are right, as the latest exchange with Helen Caldicott shows’: Monbiot responds
This then seems to be the strategy. Put out so much information, that it becomes practically impossible for anyone to be able to make sense of it all without losing his or her job (where’s the time for a real job with all that reading to do) and mind in the process. The other half of this strategy is to constantly keep people engaged in the business of making a living and to simultaneously keep them hungry for a better life by bombarding them with images of bigger cars, bigger houses, bigger bathtubs, expensive shoes, holidays abroad… the list is endless, or engaged in mindless entertainment (both the gaming and porn industries are big business, and TV and films are only producing formula trash.)
This country is even easier. Most of the population can barely afford two square meals a day. They can hardly be expected to know or care for global warming or the crisis in Egypt, or hell, even stuff closer to home, farmer suicides in Vidarbha or State oppression of tribals in Chhatisgarh. Forget about complex issues like Kashmir! The middle class has been suitably engaged in dreams of a better future, fueled by advertising. If that doesn’t engage them enough, the intense cutthroat competition at the workplace will. And when they come home from all that toil, bombard them with mindless entertainment. Saas bahu serials with more images of impeccably dressed and made up women and docile men, complete this fantasy picture.
The surrender of the middle class is complete.
As for the rich, they’re too busy making their millions, and spending them on flashy cars, designer wear and penthouse apartments, that the aforementioned middle class is dreaming of.
It seems almost a miracle then that we still have a few who do manage to take out time and engage with the world and its crises at all.
And for them, there’s information overload.
That brings me to the Indian context of the Nuclear debate. Most notably the Jaitapur plant. I have read literature circulated by anti Nuclear activists protesting against the plant. Of course I have no way (or maybe not the time or inclination) to actually research their sources and substantiate their claims. However I am inclined to support them. In a country like ours, where everything including morals is for sale, and human life is cheap, it is not hard to believe that dubious technologies are being pushed for kickbacks. Even more likely that corners will be cut in the actual construction and provision of safety/ emergency measures. Even if Nuclear energy had been proven to be completely safe, I would say we would need to be on our guard. In the current scenario, supporting this plant would be nothing short of madness. And if those reasons weren’t compelling enough, there’s the question of secrecy. For a more detailed view, read this.
Another thing that took me by surprise was the Greenpeace India response. They were always opposed to Jaitapur plant of course, but after the tsunami, they changed their stand to being opposed to it because Jaitapur lies in a seismically active zone. Much of the media discourse had of course already shifted to the dangers due to natural calamities and preventive safety measures.
Huh? So does that mean this plant, with the same capacity and employing the same French technology, would be ok if relocated somewhere else? That’s not what I would deduce from the claims made by the anti Nuclear activists. This development made me wonder if the movement was really a larger anti Nuclear one, or was it just concerned with the crisis at hand.
It also made me wonder whether we are ever really ‘informed’ or just humoured into thinking we are.
A case against people’s apathy and blaming instead, ‘obstacles and barriers’ that are placed in our way of meaningfully engaging with our surroundings, even on issues that directly affect us. Nothing new in that, though I have to say the talk was for me interesting and informative anyway.
What I’d like to add to this list is designed and deliberate information overload. We’re living in times of an information revolution. Information is being generated and transmitted at an unprecedented pace, and is more readily and cheaply available than ever before. Especially over the Internet, which has been the vehicle of this revolution.
Here’s a video that brings some perspective to the numbers.
The most telling statistics for me (quoted from the video) are ‘It is estimated that a week’s worth of the New York Times contains more information than a person was likely to come across in a lifetime in the 18th century.’ and ‘It is estimated that 4 exabytes (4x10^19) of unique information will be generated this year. That is more than the previous 5000 years.’
The problem is that there often is too much of it, and as we well know, too much of a good thing may not necessarily be good. Even if one wants to follow an issue, the amount of information that one is bombarded with is, I suspect, designed to dissuade all except the most persistent followers. That ails much of my effort at staying informed anyway. Two recent cases in point are the debates around nuclear energy and the Jan Lokpal Bill.
For this post, I’m going to limit myself to Nuclear energy.
I’m really rather fed up of the number of conflicting articles in the media around the nuclear energy debate. And I, with my limited knowledge and interest, have probably only some across the tip of the iceberg.
Ever since the tragic tsunami struck in Japan, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant crisis has been constantly in the news. Even in the early days, when the government of Japan and TEPCO claimed the amount of radiation was below levels considered dangerous, the alternative media was full of articles advising Japanese in the vicinity of the plant to move immediately. Reports on the harmful effects of radiation from the Chernobyl disaster were quoted and claims about internal and external radiation and what constitutes ‘dangerous’ were made. There were repercussions across the world, in that nations, including India, began to re evaluate the safety measures in their existing nuclear plants, while Germany closed them down altogether. And the debate around nuclear as a viable source of energy was revived. Mostly good developments these, had there been some kind of clarity.
The proponents of nuclear energy likely have deep pockets. It would be easy to believe, and much of the alternative media claims, that they manipulate data, and put out false information to support their case. Nothing new in this either; misinformation campaigns have long been a handy tool of people in power, or with something to hide.
But when someone like George Monbiot joins the debate, and in the favour of Nuclear, I really begin to wonder. His arguments are compelling, even if the figures he quotes seem less than plausible. What is even more baffling is that he quotes the same reports to build a case for Nuclear. How IS that possible, I ask. All these learned people, experts in their fields (though Monbiot does not claim to be an expert on Nuclear, and quotes sources,) if they can’t reach a consensus, in spite of their pro people credentials, how are the rest of us supposed to make ‘informed’ decisions.
Here are just a few from the ping pong match (can’t find some others):
‘How the Fukushima disaster taught me to stop worrying and embrace nuclear power’: In which Monbiot takes a pro nuclear stance
‘Why don’t we judge other forms of energy generation by the standards we apply to nuclear power?’: In which he defends his pro nuclear stance
‘The UN Would Never Lie to George Monbiot’: an attack on Monbiot's pro Nuclear stance
‘How Nuclear Apologists Mislead The World Over Radiation’: Helen Caldicott’s attack on Monbiot
‘We have to be sure our facts about nuclear power are right, as the latest exchange with Helen Caldicott shows’: Monbiot responds
This then seems to be the strategy. Put out so much information, that it becomes practically impossible for anyone to be able to make sense of it all without losing his or her job (where’s the time for a real job with all that reading to do) and mind in the process. The other half of this strategy is to constantly keep people engaged in the business of making a living and to simultaneously keep them hungry for a better life by bombarding them with images of bigger cars, bigger houses, bigger bathtubs, expensive shoes, holidays abroad… the list is endless, or engaged in mindless entertainment (both the gaming and porn industries are big business, and TV and films are only producing formula trash.)
This country is even easier. Most of the population can barely afford two square meals a day. They can hardly be expected to know or care for global warming or the crisis in Egypt, or hell, even stuff closer to home, farmer suicides in Vidarbha or State oppression of tribals in Chhatisgarh. Forget about complex issues like Kashmir! The middle class has been suitably engaged in dreams of a better future, fueled by advertising. If that doesn’t engage them enough, the intense cutthroat competition at the workplace will. And when they come home from all that toil, bombard them with mindless entertainment. Saas bahu serials with more images of impeccably dressed and made up women and docile men, complete this fantasy picture.
The surrender of the middle class is complete.
As for the rich, they’re too busy making their millions, and spending them on flashy cars, designer wear and penthouse apartments, that the aforementioned middle class is dreaming of.
It seems almost a miracle then that we still have a few who do manage to take out time and engage with the world and its crises at all.
And for them, there’s information overload.
That brings me to the Indian context of the Nuclear debate. Most notably the Jaitapur plant. I have read literature circulated by anti Nuclear activists protesting against the plant. Of course I have no way (or maybe not the time or inclination) to actually research their sources and substantiate their claims. However I am inclined to support them. In a country like ours, where everything including morals is for sale, and human life is cheap, it is not hard to believe that dubious technologies are being pushed for kickbacks. Even more likely that corners will be cut in the actual construction and provision of safety/ emergency measures. Even if Nuclear energy had been proven to be completely safe, I would say we would need to be on our guard. In the current scenario, supporting this plant would be nothing short of madness. And if those reasons weren’t compelling enough, there’s the question of secrecy. For a more detailed view, read this.
Another thing that took me by surprise was the Greenpeace India response. They were always opposed to Jaitapur plant of course, but after the tsunami, they changed their stand to being opposed to it because Jaitapur lies in a seismically active zone. Much of the media discourse had of course already shifted to the dangers due to natural calamities and preventive safety measures.
Huh? So does that mean this plant, with the same capacity and employing the same French technology, would be ok if relocated somewhere else? That’s not what I would deduce from the claims made by the anti Nuclear activists. This development made me wonder if the movement was really a larger anti Nuclear one, or was it just concerned with the crisis at hand.
It also made me wonder whether we are ever really ‘informed’ or just humoured into thinking we are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)