The news feature in the current issue of PNAS (Sept. 14, 2021) focuses on the increasing polarization in society, especially how it occurs in social media. Part of the article presents the research findings of Michael Mäs (Department of Sociology). Together with Marijn Keijzer, he used computer simulations to study the behavior of online bots.

The importance of science journalists emerges clearly in Corona times. They are systemically relevant. Prof. Dr. Annette Leßmöllmann has written a guest article on the role of science journalism in the Corona pandemic for Deutschlandradio's program guide.

To the article

In the program "Sein und Streit" Christian Seidel talks with Stephanie Rohde about moralism in public discourses and moral criticism with tact.

What exactly is hidden behind the term "moralism"? Is the complaint about an ever worsening moralism in the present justified? Moral criticism often ends in controversy. Christian Seidel talks to Stephanie Rohde about the fine line between well-founded criticism and acting as a moral apologist in the program "Sein und Streit" on Deutschlandfunk Kultur. The occasion for the conversation was the publication of the anthology "Kritik des Moralismus" ("Critique of Moralism").

To the report

On Jan. 28, 2020, Prof. Dr. Christian Seidel participated in the panel discussion "Eine Ethik der Zukunft – Klimawandel und Generationengerechtigkeit" ("An Ethics of the Future – Climate Change and Intergenerational Justice") at the Urania in Berlin.

Description text (translated): "Climate change presents us with a global challenge. We have to do something, that much is certain. But what? Are we obligated to stop climate change? Who is "we" anyway? Who has to do how much climate protection? Is it still okay to eat meat and fly on vacation? Can democracy deal with the problem? And what do we owe to future generations? Host Romy Jaster invites Prof. Dr. Kirsten Meyer from Humboldt University in Berlin and Prof. Dr. Christian Seidel from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology to think out loud about these and other questions."

To the event website

Prof. Dr. Markus Lehmkuhl

[translated version of the German original]

"In my view, an important factor for the resonance and persuasiveness of the 'Fridays for Future' movement is that there is agreement within the climate research community about the urgency of the problem. Against this background, scientific statements by individual scientists, which we still need in the public debate, take on a special weight. However, it is clear that this consensus alone is not sufficient to bring us closer to a social and economic transformation. After all, this transformation can only be achieved through very concrete changes that have social and economic effects that are difficult to calculate and affect the vital economic interests of private actors – and this does not just mean industrial companies. In principle, every individual is affected as an economic entity with limited resources. These partial interests are played into the public and political spheres via organized lobby groups."

"What is often missing in the public concert of different expressions of interest is the 'voice of science'. Beyond climate science, there are few discernible efforts within science to build and communicate consensus among scientists. For example, it would be good to know what the consensus is among economists on the implications of a broader CO₂-pricing. Or the consensus among energy experts from different disciplines on the restructuring of energy grids. The 'voice of science' is currently far too often merely represented by particularly influential scientists or science organizations that claim to be the 'voice of science' without providing any evidence to that effect. Accordingly, I would very much advocate doing more representative surveys among scientific experts instead of permanently soliciting public opinion polls. This could enrich the public debate."

Prof. Dr. Christian Seidel

[translated version of the German original]

"Our approach to climate change follows a familiar pattern: something is fundamentally wrong, yet we do nothing about it. How can that actually be?"

"If we start with the individual, then from a philosophical-ethical perspective we are dealing with a mixture of moral blindness (lack of impartiality) and unreason (practical irrationality). Some people are morally blind because they do not realize that the interests of future people count as much as the interests of people living today. They actually believe that it is okay to enjoy the luxury of air travel here and now whilst endangering the health or lives of others in the future. This is a problem at the level of beliefs: In these, there is a lack of impartiality. In other cases, people lack rationality: Because even those who realize that it is actually wrong to drive to the bakery in an SUV often do so anyway out of weakness of will. Here, convenience triumphs over insight, and that's a problem in implementing correct convictions in action."

"What can be done about it? Other areas with the same conflict situation have also succeeded in establishing more impartiality and rationality. For example, it has taken a long time for the conviction to take hold (at least in some places) that slavery, racism, and sexism are wrong. This succeeded because courageous pioneers raised their voices, convinced others with their arguments, and inspired others with their behavior. From an ethical point of view, there is a lot to be said today for the fact that coal-fired power, long-distance travel and SUVs are simply not on. The more clearly this is said, the better it is argued for, and the more often it is simply exemplified, the more likely it is that the conviction of impartiality will prevail: that it is wrong to favor the present over the future. As current civic movements illustrate, such advocacy at the societal level can also give rise to so-called 'internal sanctions' such as flight shame or SUV shame. These help to ensure that conviction is also reflected in action: People internalize new moral insights, and the unpleasant feeling of a (foreseen) contravention can help overcome weakness of will and do what one actually believes is right."

"In this context, however, it is also important not to succumb to illusions in view of the empirical facts: Sufficient, rapid climate protection will not come entirely without renunciation. However, it is a matter of foregoing conveniences and luxuries – or more precisely: foregoing additional conveniences and additional luxuries. After all, with ambitious climate protection, the growth path of the global economy would simply rise less steeply – but it would continue to rise¹. That is, on average, everyone would become a little less rapidly wealthier. A little more frugality – also as a value in political decision-making – would help here: We're simply not entitled to additional, faster luxuries if it comes at the expense of future people who have more to lose than we have to gain."

[1] IPCC (2014): Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Working Group III Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, p. 57.

* * *

You can read further statements by professors from other universities on the website sciencemediacenter.de.