Skip to content

Pandas, politics and tough decisions

When I mentioned to a few co-workers my idea for this week’s column, I was treated to a couple of raised eyebrows and some polite (and not so polite) scoffing.

When I mentioned to a few co-workers my idea for this week’s column, I was treated to a couple of raised eyebrows and some polite (and not so polite) scoffing.

Despite this less-than-enthusiastic reaction from my journalistic brethern, I will forage ahead because that’s what editors do — we soldier on.

What I shall attempt is to meld the ideas city hall reporter Darren MacDonald explored in his column on Nov. 19 with feature writer Heidi Ulrichsen’s take on the extinction panel discussion held at Laurentian University last week.

These two notions might seem diametrically opposed, but, I assure you, I can make the necessary connections.

I want to talk about making decisions and how costly it is when we base those decisions on emotional concerns instead of hard facts.

First, a little recap.

MacDonald wrote this week about the decision-making process by our elected officials at Tom Davies Square. As examples, he noted debates about four-way stops and the severing of rural lands into smaller properties. Situations like this often pit the findings of municipal staff against the wishes of taxpayers — with councillors left in the unenviable position of having the final say.

When staff are asked to produce a report around a particular issue, they conduct studies, collect data, consult the city’s Official Plan or the province’s Municipal Act — in short, they are given a task, gather the pertinent information and render a finding that fits. It’s an “is” or “is not” kind of situation. It’s all about the information, the data.

Emotion doesn’t enter into it and nor should it.

This kind of logical reasoning is similar to the questions of conservation debated during last week’s panel discussion on extinction at LU.

In her piece on Page 13, Ulrichsen tackles the difficult topic of whether it’s OK to allow some threatened species to go extinct.

That’s a tough one. No one wants to see an animal vanish from the face of the Earth. Take the photogenic panda bear. Decades of research and millions of dollars have been shovelled into efforts to save it from extinction. Science has even explored panda pornography (and, believe it or not, panda Viagra) in an effort to get the darn things to canoodle, to no avail.

Why all the effort?

Because people love pandas — they’re disgustingly cute and unbelievably cuddly looking. Who wouldn’t want to curl up with a panda? And since empathetic people by the millions seem to care about pandas, so too do governments who want to appear as caring and empathetic as the voters they're trying to get on side.

In conservation, emotion too often trumps information.

As one Toronto Zoo scientist on the panel wondered, could the money not be better spent working to preserve the habitats of native plants and animal species?

My point (and I do have one) is it’s a bad idea to make important decisions using the heart instead of the head.

Don’t get me wrong, emotions are wonderful things. They give life its joy and beauty. They allow us to appreciate art and music, glorious sunsets, good food and great friends.

But emotions also lead us to start wars, persecute minorities and abuse others. 


Emotions are just as likely to result in bad decisions as good ones — depending on our mood.


When we vote for a politician because we “just like the guy,” but never bother to see what he stands for, or when we buy a car because we like the colour, but never bother to see if we can afford the payments, we’re making bad decisions.

Unfortunately for all of us, critical thinking skills are not on the school curriculum. High school students should not be able to graduate without earning a credit in critical thinking.

If they were, we’d make better voters, better conservationists and better citizens.

Mark Gentili is the managing editor of Northern Life.


Comments

Verified reader

If you would like to apply to become a verified commenter, please fill out this form.




Mark Gentili

About the Author: Mark Gentili

Mark Gentili is the editor of Sudbury.com
Read more