orogenicman
Darwin was a pastafarian
- Jul 24, 2013
- 8,546
- 834
- 175
A mirror of what we see on so many forums, including this one:
War and religion the metaphors hampering climate change debate - opinion - 15 April 2015 - New Scientist
More at the link.
War and religion the metaphors hampering climate change debate - opinion - 15 April 2015 - New Scientist
Language is rarely neutral, and the language we use to discuss climate change can shape how we understand it and respond to it, if at all. Metaphors are an especially persuasive part of language, which is why we decided to analyse their use in 287 climate-change-related editorials and op-eds published since 2006. These appeared on the websites of the UK Guardian and Daily Mail newspapers, sites which attract millions of readers.
The Guardian used war metaphors such as "battle", "fight", "retreat", "combat" and "triumph" repeatedly to argue that the science of climate change is settled and must be acted on. Religious metaphors dominated in Daily Mail pieces; "ayatollahs", "crusaders", "cultists", "conversion" and "recant" were used to question climate science and the necessity to act on it.
What are the implications? War metaphors can instil unity, emphasising the seriousness of a problem and the importance of doing something about it. If enough people think of climate change in such terms, it may be easier to enact mitigation policies, even harsh ones, because extraordinary measures are justified in a war.
However, these metaphors may backfire by failing to induce a sense of urgency. Research on communicating health messages shows that trying to scare people into action can lead to apathy instead. The war trope may also create a false picture. Making an abstract thing called "climate change" the enemy makes it hard to see that the enemy is actually ourselves and our behaviour.
More at the link.