Sometimes Less Information is Best
Re(https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/04/opinion/contamination-exposome.html)
I think the spread of ideas is good, and for topics that are especially volatile and sensitive, it is better captured and documented than not; however, the spread of true, but cynical and depressing findings do more harm than good. In a world of horrors, for the vast majority of Americans, those who don’t have the power to change anything, hearing more heartbreaking and unimaginable news act as a greater crutch to help out and a more pessimistic world view in general.
In the wake of the landmark Supreme Court Case, a tale where a couple religious and ambitious parents fought their way to allowing parents to opt their children out of teachings that don’t align with their religious worldviews, educators have been quick to critique and warn of the consequences. These could include topics of LGBTQ-rights, or as Justice Sotomayor alluded to in her dissent, “evolution, the work of female scientist Marie Curie, or the history of vaccines.” It determined what the school’s purpose was for children and the power that parents hold in controlling their children’s input for a pre-determined output.
As a result, publications became flooded with outrage. From the New York Times to niche teaching related blogs, writers across the country warned of the great repercussions that would come from this, voicing Justice Sotomayor’s famous line of questioning: “where is the line?”
But in the weeks that have passed since its inception, I spoke to a journalist who specializes in education and she said that the actual effect of this fight between the family and school has been minuscule. Only a couple parents have taken advantage of their newfound rights, and despite the rage of its inception, the effect has been barely seen. Concern should still be had, but the framing of this scenario, one that acts as if children will soon become heavily biased and that the decision is a grave threat to the nature of liberal schooling, treats it much worse than it actually is.
Similar feelings of non-exaggerated fearmongering can be seen in the environmental sector. In a recent essay by David Wallace-Wells, he explains the disaster that has become of plastics and forever chemicals as they become integrated into our bodies and world. He documents how decades of corporate lobbying and regulatory negligence allowed these substances to proliferate unchecked. “Environmental contagion is important not because it is possible to keep everything at bay, but precisely because we cannot,” he writes at the end of his article. But I think it is exactly this that is wrong.
If we are going to die, and we can’t do anything about it, then why keep talking and emphasizing it?If I live in California, would there be any need for me to learn of the Texas flood disaster? Or if someone is poor, is there any need for them to learn about the upper-echelon's housing crisis? In the media, we face a news abundance, where wraths of useless information are pushed to the user. But for the majority of people, ignorance is truly bliss.
I would assume that society popularizes such ideas and findings, so that the one percent that reads it will have the ability to help stop or change it, but for the majority of people that lack power or optimism in this world, it's more counter-productive. And if we still seek to introduce such ideas to the mass public, it should be framed in a way for more optimism to be had.
I think the spread of ideas is good, and for topics that are especially volatile and sensitive, it is better captured and documented than not; however, the spread of true, but cynical and depressing findings do more harm than good. In a world of horrors, for the vast majority of Americans, those who don’t have the power to change anything, hearing more heartbreaking and unimaginable news act as a greater crutch to help out and a more pessimistic world view in general.
In the wake of the landmark Supreme Court Case, a tale where a couple religious and ambitious parents fought their way to allowing parents to opt their children out of teachings that don’t align with their religious worldviews, educators have been quick to critique and warn of the consequences. These could include topics of LGBTQ-rights, or as Justice Sotomayor alluded to in her dissent, “evolution, the work of female scientist Marie Curie, or the history of vaccines.” It determined what the school’s purpose was for children and the power that parents hold in controlling their children’s input for a pre-determined output.
As a result, publications became flooded with outrage. From the New York Times to niche teaching related blogs, writers across the country warned of the great repercussions that would come from this, voicing Justice Sotomayor’s famous line of questioning: “where is the line?”
But in the weeks that have passed since its inception, I spoke to a journalist who specializes in education and she said that the actual effect of this fight between the family and school has been minuscule. Only a couple parents have taken advantage of their newfound rights, and despite the rage of its inception, the effect has been barely seen. Concern should still be had, but the framing of this scenario, one that acts as if children will soon become heavily biased and that the decision is a grave threat to the nature of liberal schooling, treats it much worse than it actually is.
Similar feelings of non-exaggerated fearmongering can be seen in the environmental sector. In a recent essay by David Wallace-Wells, he explains the disaster that has become of plastics and forever chemicals as they become integrated into our bodies and world. He documents how decades of corporate lobbying and regulatory negligence allowed these substances to proliferate unchecked. “Environmental contagion is important not because it is possible to keep everything at bay, but precisely because we cannot,” he writes at the end of his article. But I think it is exactly this that is wrong.
If we are going to die, and we can’t do anything about it, then why keep talking and emphasizing it?If I live in California, would there be any need for me to learn of the Texas flood disaster? Or if someone is poor, is there any need for them to learn about the upper-echelon's housing crisis? In the media, we face a news abundance, where wraths of useless information are pushed to the user. But for the majority of people, ignorance is truly bliss.
I would assume that society popularizes such ideas and findings, so that the one percent that reads it will have the ability to help stop or change it, but for the majority of people that lack power or optimism in this world, it's more counter-productive. And if we still seek to introduce such ideas to the mass public, it should be framed in a way for more optimism to be had.
Comments
Post a Comment