A Survey About Fear

I would appreciate as many comments on this one as possible. You might even want to post the question on your blogs and get me some additional thoughts on the subject.

The list of possible fears is long and varied, everything from public speaking to spiders and such. However, for the purpose of this survey, I'm looking for the big picture. I will list 10 that I can think of that should set the tone. If these are big for you, let me know. If there are other similar things that are bigger for you, add them.

1. The US devolving into a dictatorship
2. The rapture and God's judgment on earth
   
3. Hell
4. Global Warming
5. Islamic extremism creating global conflict
6. Nuclear holocaust
7. Depletion of critical natural resources
8. The US devolving into a socialist government
9. Overpopulation
10. Underpopulation
11. Too few culturally "Western Civilization" in the population
12. Pollution
13. Nuclear power plant catastrophe - or nuclear waste catastrophe
14. Aliens (from outer space)
    
15. Avian flu or similar disease
16. Scientific advance out of control (e.g. genetic engineering, nanobots, robots with AI)

Fear of Illegal Immigrants, Undocumented Workers, and Aliens

All the hubbub about the invasion of brown-skinned, Spanish-speaking, undereducated and low skilled men, women, and children into the US across our Southern border comes down to fear. There are many fears haunting those who are so up in arms.

The intellectuals great fear is the chipping away at national sovereignty. WorldNetDaily, the Drudgereport of the hard right, is convinced that Bush II is a One-worlder who is secretly planning to establish a hemispheric combination with Mexico and Canada not unlike the European Union.

The national sovereignty issue is not far removed from the fear of cultural decline should "White, European" Culture become the preference of only a minority of United States residents, and even citizens. (See Pat Buchanan.) This is not overt racism, but does assert that the American Culture is superior to the culture of Mexico. Buchanan goes much further in his manifesto, believing that our culture is superior to all others. It is possible to believe that the basic cultural concepts of the "West" are superior without fearing the melding of other cultural ideas into this one.

Fear of the US becoming bi or even trilingual is another huge motivator of those who are not willing to compromise on immigration issues. I can personally see huge advantages to English as the "national language." However, I am hard pressed to be fearful of the minor consequences that might come with one or more additional dominant languages. I suspect that the root of this fear goes back to fear of cultural balkanization.

The great unwashed (non-intellectuals) seem to fear loss of jobs, lower wages, higher taxes to support Mexicans who end up using public facilities, and criminal behavior. While this might be the outcome sometime in the future, it is a little hard to argue that we have these issues today. Unemployment is historically very low, incomes are up and going up more January 1 in many states, home ownership is at record highs, the stock market is in record territory, inflation is low, taxes have been cut at the Federal level and in many states.

Republicans fear that new Latin immigrants will become citizens and vote Democratic. Democrats fear that these very same immigrants will eventually become Republicans, for some of the same reasons that Cubans vote Red. Most Mexicans seem to have a bent for small business and individualism. They tend to be hard working and quick to assimilate. There are almost no barriers from either Mexican or Anglo parents for intermarriage. This seems to result in many second and third generation folks of Mexican heritage being land and business owners, thus potential Republicans.

Do I think these fears are unfounded or somehow wrong? No. I think that when a large group of folks have a similar experience, it is important to take notice, and recognize that there must be solid underpinnings to those fears. Am I persuaded that naturalizing 11,000,000 illegals that are already here will damage American in any substantial way? No. Am I fearful that another few million will create a tipping point that will do such damage? Not in the least.

But, do I think that politicians can play on these fears and create jobs for themselves? Clearly.

Shel Silverstein

The hens they all cackle, the roosters all beg,
But I will not hatch, I will not hatch.
For I hear all the talk of pollution and war
As the people all shout and the airplane roar,
So I'm staying in here where it's safe and it's warm,
And I WILL NOT HATCH!

Why Don't You Move?

I grew up in tornado country and now I live in shake and bake (Southern California.) I was scared to death of tornadoes as a child, but I don't fear earthquakes or fires. I'd be interested in what you fear. I mean, enough to move.

You see, I know lots of folks here in LA that say they are scared to death of hurricanes, but they're still here. I know others that live in gang infested areas or high crime neighborhoods, but they haven't put up a for sale sign. How about living in the path of an active volcano. Lots of folks build their homes on old lava flows.

I never saw a tornado growing up. The year after we left, one tore through what had been our back yard. I think I felt more fear of tornadoes because there is a warning. The sky turns that special gray, it gets calm, the radio is reminding you to go to the Northwest corner of your basement...and all you can do is wait.

Earthquakes, no warning there. Big fires, you can pretty much get out of their way. Tsunamies, forgetaboutit.

So what do you fear, natural disaster wise? And what are you doing about it?

Depression - A Few Thoughts

I suffered from a few hours of depression this last week. Not sadness due to loss or frustration over aging. No this was the blood chemistry kind. I had an infection that made it into my bloodstream, and one of the side effects was depression. This was a completely new and foreign experience for me, as an over-the-top optimist. I'm recording here a few ideas that have since popped into my head as a result of this walk on the sullen side. These might be jumping off points for you or me to further development later. Consider:

1. While I was depressed, the negative ideas that welled up inside of me distorted my normal reality. Half full literally became half empty for me during that time. I could resist the notion of doom and gloom to some extent, but not well and not for long. Nothing in the actual circumstances had changed, only my perception of choices, outcomes, etc.

2. Once the episode passed, I was able to look back on this "unreality" and see it for what it was. I was able to laugh it off, except for the loss of time and opportunity from those hours. But in talking to friends that go through this all the time or for longer periods, there doesn't seem to be quite the ability to relegate such times, and call them what they are. I suspect this has to do with having a spending a large percentage of time in this state. The individual begins to have difficulty distinguishing between two realities.

3. The depression dramatically effected my personality, output, other emotions. I was sullen, disinterested in others, snappy, and completely unmotivated in tasks. I am never like that. I'm not proposing that it will be some huge scientific breakthrough to psychologists that depressed people are sullen, unmotivated, etc. However, for me it was remarkable at how quickly this minor change in my chemistry, change who I was...at my very soul.

4. Not all of the changes were negative. I am generally not very tough on folks who make errors, and am not a taskmaster. I attempt to motivate others using more subtle techniques. However, I am clear that toughness sometimes works better than my methods. I was tougher, more demanding, less willing to walk away during this period. I think this was because I had this picture in my head of clear and present danger if I didn't act, and if those around me didn't come through for me. I saw that my kids might end up with problems downstream if they didn't get more disciplined about certain things today. These thoughts were pushed much closer to the front of the list than normally.

5. Might these chemical aspects of a persons make up result in substantial changes in worldview?

6. Do we want to use anti-depressents on folks who have only mild depression? Do we need their point of view and methods?

7. The Bible clearly points us to optimism, fearing not, and being anxious about nothing. God wouldn't ask us to achieve that which is impossible because of blood chemistry. Does that mean that those who are predisposed this way can overcome it? Prayer? Wise Counsel?

8. Is it really blood chemistry, totally? Could it be that our own sin sews the disease which then comes back to us as altered chemistry and "natural consequence" of our sin?

Developing

Checking Out Those Fearful Emails

I received this email the other day.

This is from an M.D. whose entire practice was Head and Neck cancer in Washington D.C.


All of the don'ts, I was doing -- no more -- never, ever, ever!!

Cancer update: Johns Hopkins = Cancer News from Johns Hopkins:

1. No plastic containers in microwave.

2.. No water bottles in freezer.

3. No plastic wrap in microwave.

Johns Hopkins has recently sent this out in its Newsletters. This
information is being circulated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

Dioxin chemicals causes cancer, especially breast cancer.

Dioxins are highly poisonous to the cells of our bodies. Don't freeze
your plastic bottles with water in them as this releases dioxins from the plastic.

Recently, Dr. Edward Fujimoto, Wellness Program Manager at Castle Hospital, was on a TV program to explain this health hazard. He talked about dioxins and how bad they are for us.

He said that we should not be heating our food in the microwave using plastic containers. This applies to foods that contain fat. He said that the combination of fat, high heat, and plastics releases dioxin into the food and ultimately into the cells of the body.

Instead, he recommends using glass, Corning Ware or ceramic containers for heating food. You get the same results, only without the dioxin. So such things as TV dinners, instant ramen and soups, etc., should be removed from the container and heated in something else. Paper isn't bad but you don't know what is in the paper. It's just safer to use tempered glass, Corning Ware, etc.

He reminded us that a while ago some of the fast food restaurants moved away from the foam containers to paper. The dioxin problem is one of the reasons.

Also, he pointed out that Saran wrap is just as dangerous when placed over foods to be cooked in the microwave. As the food is nuked, the high heat causes poisonous toxins to actually melt out of the plastic wrap and drip into the food.

Cover food with a paper towel instead.

I believe you should forward to your family and friends--anyone who is important in your life!

Are you afraida? Very afraid? Are you ready to make various changes in the way you run your life as suggested above. Well, it turns out that this is an urban rumor. It is almost 100% concocted. There are undoubtedly people who believe this, but absolutely know known research to even remotely substantiate it.

But my real reason for bringing this particular email to your attention is as a study in how to determined truth from fiction.

1. The first statement. The head and neck cancer specialist is not name, nor is the actual hospital.

2. The headline is bold and threatening. Folks who have real science to tell you about don't need to shout it. They are more likely to just give a clear statement of the findings. When the headline is clearly written to scare you, be wary, very wary.

3. They next name two sources. John Hopkins and Walter Reed. It took me less than 15 seconds to Google John Hopkins and Dioxins and I had a list of refutations by John Hopkins.

4. Next, we here about Dr. Fujimoto. Another 15 seconds and we find out that he is just a local Dr. in Hawaii that has an opinion, and regardless of multiple attempts to get him to back the opinions with science, none is forthcoming.

5. The close. A nice soft, very concerned effort to get you to pass this along. When one is reporting the truth, no such admonition will ever appear.

6. No sources. Nowhere in the letter is any reference to actual studies, articles, or other proof. Even if there were such references, they might not be real, or they may be misquoted. If you plan to pass along something like this, have some other resources to substantiate the claims.

Here is a complete review of the false rumor above

Fearing Global Warming, Terrorists, or Gay Sex

One of the main themes of this blog has to do with the intersection of fear and politics. In other words, what you fear is likely to determine you party affiliation. This article makes my point so well. Please note my comments interspersed throughout the article in red.

If Only Gay Sex Caused Global Warming
Why we're more scared of gay marriage and terrorism than a much deadlier threat.
By Daniel Gilbert, Daniel Gilbert is a professor of psychology at Harvard University and the author of "Stumbling on Happiness," published in May by Knopf.
July 2, 2006 From the LA Times Current Section

NO ONE seems to care about the upcoming attack on the World Trade Center site. Why? Because it won't involve villains with box cutters. Instead, it will involve melting ice sheets that swell the oceans and turn that particular block of lower Manhattan into an aquarium.

His very first premise is untrue. A whole bunch of people seem to care. I'm not sure how many care enough to do anything about global warming without some pretty big sticks, but many people are very worried.

His second premise is also incorrect. We don't need human villains to get people worked up, and human villains commonly don't get people worked up.

The odds of this happening in the next few decades are better than the odds that a disgruntled Saudi will sneak onto an airplane and detonate a shoe bomb. And yet our government will spend billions of dollars this year to prevent global terrorism and … well, essentially nothing to prevent global warming.

Keeping his streak going, he makes a comparison of the odds on two largely unpredictable potential future events. Where did he get this statement? On what does he base it?

Then he goes completely off the deep end with his comments on what the government is or isn't doing on terrorism vs global warming. The first is a known quantity, with loss of life virtually every day all around the world, and with individuals who keep telling us they intend to keep it up. The second is a potential threat about which we know little, and for which massive expenditures are not being proposed. That is unless you count Kyoto type economy killing expenditures.

Why are we less worried about the more likely disaster? Because the human brain evolved to respond to threats that have four features — features that terrorism has and that global warming lacks.

First, global warming lacks a mustache. No, really. We are social mammals whose brains are highly specialized for thinking about others. Understanding what others are up to — what they know and want, what they are doing and planning — has been so crucial to the survival of our species that our brains have developed an obsession with all things human. We think about people and their intentions; talk about them; look for and remember them.

That's why we worry more about anthrax (with an annual death toll of roughly zero) than influenza (with an annual death toll of a quarter-million to a half-million people). Influenza is a natural accident, anthrax is an intentional action, and the smallest action captures our attention in a way that the largest accident doesn't. If two airplanes had been hit by lightning and crashed into a New York skyscraper, few of us would be able to name the date on which it happened.

I just don't know where he is getting his data. People worry about the end of civilization, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, tidal waves, and alien invasions. I don't quibble with the fact that we are also concerned about folks like Hitler, or even a neighborhood bully, but I don't think this is evolutionary. It just makes sense. Oh! And did I merely dream all those articles about the Bird Flu?

Global warming isn't trying to kill us, and that's a shame. If climate change had been visited on us by a brutal dictator or an evil empire, the war on warming would be this nation's top priority.

He is right about this. If global warming was actually being imposed on us by an evil empire, we would get busy trying to defeat the perp. The thing he misses is that we don't have any actual results of this warming to try and defeat.

The second reason why global warming doesn't put our brains on orange alert is that it doesn't violate our moral sensibilities. It doesn't cause our blood to boil (at least not figuratively) because it doesn't force us to entertain thoughts that we find indecent, impious or repulsive. When people feel insulted or disgusted, they generally do something about it, such as whacking each other over the head, or voting. Moral emotions are the brain's call to action.

Although all human societies have moral rules about food and sex, none has a moral rule about atmospheric chemistry. And so we are outraged about every breach of protocol except Kyoto. Yes, global warming is bad, but it doesn't make us feel nauseated or angry or disgraced, and thus we don't feel compelled to rail against it as we do against other momentous threats to our species, such as flag burning. The fact is that if climate change were caused by gay sex, or by the practice of eating kittens, millions of protesters would be massing in the streets.

Now what good would it do for us to protest global warming? If a few million folks go to DC, will mother nature change her mind? Not one scientist I have seen on the subject says that global warming (such as it is) is 100% man caused. The number some suggest is 25%. How do we get all worked up and vote to stop the other 75%?

The third reason why global warming doesn't trigger our concern is that we see it as a threat to our futures — not our afternoons. Like all animals, people are quick to respond to clear and present danger, which is why it takes us just a few milliseconds to duck when a wayward baseball comes speeding toward our eyes.

The brain is a beautifully engineered get-out-of-the-way machine that constantly scans the environment for things out of whose way it should right now get. That's what brains did for several hundred million years — and then, just a few million years ago, the mammalian brain learned a new trick: to predict the timing and location of dangers before they actually happened.

Our ability to duck that which is not yet coming is one of the brain's most stunning innovations, and we wouldn't have dental floss or 401(k) plans without it. But this innovation is in the early stages of development. The application that allows us to respond to visible baseballs is ancient and reliable, but the add-on utility that allows us to respond to threats that loom in an unseen future is still in beta testing.

We haven't quite gotten the knack of treating the future like the present it will soon become because we've only been practicing for a few million years. If global warming took out an eye every now and then, OSHA would regulate it into nonexistence.

This writer offers ideas and opinions that he can only be pulling out of thin air. Where is his proof that thinking about the future is a recent phenomenon? Where does he get his data that shows that folks are more likely to worry about tomorrow then some future event? It may even be true, but I don't think he has any science to back this up.

But he is right about one thing. As stated above, global warming has not yet created any real consequences. And not a single soul can say with any degree of certainty that global warming will ever create any real consequences. But author Gilbert is a more advanced human. He not only knows that global warming will create catastrophic events, he knows what needs to be done to stop these, and the rest of us are just too stupid to get it.

There is a fourth reason why we just can't seem to get worked up about global warming. The human brain is exquisitely sensitive to changes in light, sound, temperature, pressure, size, weight and just about everything else. But if the rate of change is slow enough, the change will go undetected. If the low hum of a refrigerator were to increase in pitch over the course of several weeks, the appliance could be singing soprano by the end of the month and no one would be the wiser.

Because we barely notice changes that happen gradually, we accept gradual changes that we would reject if they happened abruptly. The density of Los Angeles traffic has increased dramatically in the last few decades, and citizens have tolerated it with only the obligatory grumbling. Had that change happened on a single day last summer, Angelenos would have shut down the city, called in the National Guard and lynched every politician they could get their hands on.

Environmentalists despair that global warming is happening so fast. In fact, it isn't happening fast enough. If President Bush could jump in a time machine and experience a single day in 2056, he'd return to the present shocked and awed, prepared to do anything it took to solve the problem..

Once again we have a set of opinions without any backing. People make minor changes in behavior based on minor changes in their environment. In the traffic example, we might take a different route, change jobs, or move out of town. Or we might have a high tolerance for traffic compared to our desire to live and work where we do.

And now Gilbert has a crystal ball where he can see the future. I wonder if he has sold his beachfront property. Is he investing in Canadian land? Is he calling everyone he knows in Florida and telling them to get out while there is still time?

The human brain is a remarkable device that was designed to rise to special occasions. We are the progeny of people who hunted and gathered, whose lives were brief and whose greatest threat was a man with a stick. When terrorists attack, we respond with crushing force and firm resolve, just as our ancestors would have. Global warming is a deadly threat precisely because it fails to trip the brain's alarm, leaving us soundly asleep in a burning bed.

It remains to be seen whether we can learn to rise to new occasions.

So you have seen it up close and personal. Liberals are more likely to be fearful of future events which have no assurance of ever coming to pass. Conservatives are more likely to be fearful of what they can see, and especially those things for which there is historical evidence.
I chose to take this article apart paragraph by paragraph, because it was so poorly argued, and yet it still make the LA Times. Funny, he claims no one cares, but the LA Times publishes his op ed piece. (Doesn't this make you wonder about the pscyh deprtment at Harvard?)

Fear - Re: Low Birth Rates

What you fear may define your politics (see previous post.) Now Mark Steyn has written one of the most important articles I've seen in a while. It is being widely linked throughout the www. Its the Demography, Stupid clearly points to low birth rate as the most likely cause of massive changes in the way we live IN THE SHORT TERM.

...the political platforms of at least one party in the United States and pretty much all parties in the rest of the West are largely about what one would call the secondary impulses of society--government health care, government day care (which Canada's thinking of introducing), government paternity leave (which Britain's just introduced). We've prioritized the secondary impulse over the primary ones: national defense, family, faith and, most basic of all, reproductive activity--"Go forth and multiply," because if you don't you won't be able to afford all those secondary-impulse issues, like cradle-to-grave welfare.

He says of multiculturism and tolerance:

our tolerance of our own tolerance is making us intolerant of other people's intolerance, which is intolerable.

On tree huggers:

If you've read Jared Diamond's bestselling book "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed," you'll know it goes into a lot of detail about Easter Island going belly up because they chopped down all their trees. Apparently that's why they're not a G-8 member or on the U.N. Security Council. Same with the Greenlanders and the Mayans and Diamond's other curious choices of "societies." Indeed, as the author sees it, pretty much every society collapses because it chops down its trees.

That's enough of a teaser. You need to read the whole thing


HT to HughHewitt.com and his radio show

Politics of Fear

Are you afraid of Islamic Terrorist striking the US or US interests? Are you afraid that human caused global warming is going to result in a global catastrophe? Are you afraid that some kind of illness (AID's, Bird Flu) is going to wipe out big chunks of population? Are you afraid that the Chinese, or the Indians, or the Europeans are going to take over our position as economic engine of the world, resulting in a lowered standard of living for us? Are you afraid that the Bush administration is desiring some kind of extra level of authority that might result in truly reducing freedoms in America? Are you afraid that licentious behavior with roots in Hollywood and branches in San Francisco, Seattle, New York City, and Miami is going to destroy the family as we know it and undermine the entire culture? Are you afraid that Walmart or Google or Bill Gates or Time Warner/HBO are trying to take over the world? Are you afraid that Indian, Chinese, and Mexican workers are going to take away your job. Or, if not your job, your brother-in-laws job?

Depending on what you are truly afraid of, you will likely vote for the folks that are fighting on that front. Or at least seem to be. Personally, I'm much more afraid of the potential for cultural decline and foreign mischief by tyrants than I am by anything else on the list. Why, because I have witnessed the results of both many times in my lifetime, and read the history of the world until now. I'm a bit concerned, for the same reasons, about our economy and how it will compete in the future, but not even to the level of being alarmed.

That's why I'm a Republican. The R's are very interested in those three things. The D's aren't. They are more interested in things that have never happened, but might. It makes no sense to me.