Thursday, March 17, 2005
State of Fear

"Everybody has an agenda. Except me."
Michael Crichton

When I checked in my local bookstore (‘Borders’, corner of Albert and Elizabeth Streets), I found State of Fear in the ‘fiction’ section. (It was also in the ‘new’ section and in the ‘bestsellers’, but only because it was both new and a bestseller, presumably.)

What is perhaps more pertinent is where the book was not found: in the ‘Science’ section.

The danger of course, is that people will read it as science, rather than a retelling (or some would say outright ‘fabrication’ [New Scientist ‘Dangerous Fiction’ 05.03.05, pp. 50-55]) of history and a reflection of the authors non-expert views on climate change. It is not even a good read, but that is mere subjective literary criticism.

Jurassic Park was a cool story, but one crudely based on some assumptions that we could rekindle dinosaur DNA in frogs to create a baby Brachiosaurus. It is more a cautionary tale of the power without responsibility that is implicit in modern science. His foray into nano-bots in Prey (?), I believe, is of the same ilk. (I haven’t read it.)

But State of Fear is a direct representation of a phenomena that is arguably occurring right now. It is not just a novel with an ethical message on the dangers of unrestrained or ill-directed scientific research, but a direct propagation of a doctrine (propaganda, if you like) that climate scientists and environmentalists are engaged in sustaining a state of fear to insure the continuation of funding for their research.

I am keen to stay in my job, but attempting to murder many tens of thousands of people (by creating a giant tsunami??!!? please….) just to keep my place in the pecking order belongs most definitely in fiction department.

The novel’s premise is that environmental extremists (probably Muslims too) are using their ‘proxies’ in government to maintain a state of fear to cow the electorate into returning the governments which retain the scientists funding streams, thus reinforcing the notion that global warming is occurring.

This seems ironic, if not sinister and artful, as it was precisely the opposite which occurred at the meetings of the Conference of Parties that agreed the Kyoto Protocol. Business lobbyists (oil companies in the main) were openly issuing direct instructions to their proxies in government to ensure nothing was signed that damaged their long-term interests.

In his polemic at the end, Crichton asserts that he is only protagonist without an ‘agenda’. This is paradoxical and sloppy logic. Everybody has an agenda, yes, even climate scientists, according to Thomas Kuhn, but this is simply a reflection of an open society.

But when novels masquerade as scientific journals (like Fox News masquerades as serious journalism), scientists, voters and contributors to various causes, are left ill-served.

Undoubtedly State of Fear will be made into a film. Not only will the debagging of green-lefties curry favour in the US film production networks, but the book has all the stereotypical movie elements – gun fights, car chases and exotic locations – handily sewn into the narrative.

(But mostly, my suspicions were raised when reading a review that began "A number of unusual and seemingly unrelated incidents begin to occur around the world…." This is the opening signature of any number of global disaster movies. )

But on becoming a film, this propaganda will reach an even wider audience and one much less willing to question the motives of the producers. Crichton very honestly provides references for his citations and facts in his book; but these will be missing from the film. Already, Americans are unremittingly bombarded with messages from business, politicians, think-tanks and right-wing ideologues, assuring them that mounting consumption and the poisoning of the environment can continue incessantly. State of Fear will become just another weapon in the continuing culture wars.

In the modern charity market, environmental groups rely on 'selling their message' in much the same way that businesses tout their products, politicians peddle their promises and authors spout their opinions, all to earn that extra dollar in your pocket.

Greenpeace's current championing of the cause of Sámi people in northern Scandinavia reveals this dilemma that such charitable organisations find themselves in [See http://weblog.greenpeace.org/forestrescue/]. Whilst the cause – protecting the rights of indigenous people to herd reindeer on common grazing land - sits wholly within Greenpeace’s policy of seeking to protect the rights and opportunities of traditional owners, the vehicle for the campaign is rather odd.

'Save Santa's Reindeer' is the message. That is, save Santa’s reindeer from mining and logging companies but yet allow the Sami to continue their traditional exploitation (that is killing) of free roaming herds. From a marketing perspective, employing Santa, Blixen and Rudolph [See http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3228] probably works, despite the logic behind the strap-line being rather spurious.

But whilst the methods deployed by business and charity maybe in a similar vein – using persuasion, seduction and empathy – a real distinction lies in the resources available to each to push out their message. Notwithstanding the advent of email and the ingenious viral marketing devices used by activist groups, the business community, able to build up massive wealth over many generations, are in a completely different league compared to environmental groups.

Crichton’s allegation, in State of Fear, is that somehow it is the dishevelled environmental scientist or the Greenpeace activist, standing on the street corner asking for $15 a month, who are the well funded puppet-masters of government. Not the oil lobbyists and PR companies employed by business to ‘educate’ government officials [See http://www.webershandwick.com/capabilities/cap/index.cfm/cap,10.html].

Perhaps if this was the case, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

---