What is Big Think?  

We are Big Idea Hunters…

We live in a time of information abundance, which far too many of us see as information overload. With the sum total of human knowledge, past and present, at our fingertips, we’re faced with a crisis of attention: which ideas should we engage with, and why? Big Think is an evolving roadmap to the best thinking on the planet — the ideas that can help you think flexibly and act decisively in a multivariate world.

A word about Big Ideas and Themes — The architecture of Big Think

Big ideas are lenses for envisioning the future. Every article and video on bigthink.com and on our learning platforms is based on an emerging “big idea” that is significant, widely relevant, and actionable. We’re sifting the noise for the questions and insights that have the power to change all of our lives, for decades to come. For example, reverse-engineering is a big idea in that the concept is increasingly useful across multiple disciplines, from education to nanotechnology.

Themes are the seven broad umbrellas under which we organize the hundreds of big ideas that populate Big Think. They include New World Order, Earth and Beyond, 21st Century Living, Going Mental, Extreme Biology, Power and Influence, and Inventing the Future.

Big Think Features:

12,000+ Expert Videos


Browse videos featuring experts across a wide range of disciplines, from personal health to business leadership to neuroscience.

Watch videos

World Renowned Bloggers


Big Think’s contributors offer expert analysis of the big ideas behind the news.

Go to blogs

Big Think Edge


Big Think’s Edge learning platform for career mentorship and professional development provides engaging and actionable courses delivered by the people who are shaping our future.

Find out more

Democracy. A Dangerous Way to Make Decisions About Some Risks

April 16, 2012, 6:00 AM

          California’s initiative process can be both a wonderfully democratic and perilously dumb way to make law. On no issue could that be more true than the proposed initiative to shut down nuclear power in the state. The question – which proposes shutting down the Diablo Canyon and San Onofre nuclear plants until the federal government approves a permanent disposal site for nuclear waste -  is scientifically, environmentally, and economically complex, but also badly tangled with powerful emotions. Between the facts and those feelings, guess which will have more influence on the choice people make. Is that a wise way to make policy on something with such huge implications for human and environmental health?

            Mountains of evidence from both scientific research and our everyday experiences make inescapably clear that risk perception is subjective.  It is an instinctive process that relies on emotional and social cues and mental shortcuts for decision making, rather than an objective open-minded analysis of the facts. It is a process which  sometimes leads us worry more than the evidence warrants, or less than the evidence warns, a phenomenon I call “The Perception Gap.”

            The anti-nuclear initiative is a clarion example. Particularly among baby boomers, our nuclear fears are rooted in existential Cold War worries about nuclear weapons, which transitioned into fear of nuclear fallout from atmospheric weapons testing, which transitioned into part of the environmental movement. Beyond that stigmatizing past, nuclear radiation bears many of the psychological characteristics that research has found make any risk scarier.

  • We’re more afraid of risks imposed on us than those we choose, which is why medical radiation is accepted but nuclear power radiation isn’t.
  • We’re more afraid of risks the more pain and suffering they cause, and nuclear radiation is associated with cancer, even though studies of the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have firmly established that this form of radiation is a much weaker carcinogen than most people realize. (The high doses and prolonged exposures from those explosions raised the cancer death toll among survivors who were within 2 miles of the explosions by only about half of one percent, according to the Radiation Effects Research Foundation, which coordinates the now 65-year long epidemiological study of these survivors.)  
  • Nuclear radiation is undetectable to our senses, which leaves us without the ability to protect ourselves, and powerlessness and lack of control also make any risk scarier.
  • Many people don’t trust the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and lack of trust in the organization that is supposed to protect you fuels fear too.

     On top of those  “risk perception factors,”  nuclear energy is associated with industry and capitalism and institutions of economic and political power that some feel are responsible for an unfair society in which a few have most of the control, and the rest of us are stuck lower on an economic and social class hierarchy too rigid to give everyone a fair shot.   Many of those who fight for that fairer world are known in the study of Cultural Cognition as “egalitarians”.  They are more likely to be environmentalists, since environmental damage is seen as caused by a few – the people in control of business and industry – while it unfairly jeopardizes all of us. Nuclear power triggers such feelings too.

            That’s a deep pile of emotional baggage that will play a powerful role in the decision California voters may be asked to make, if the initiative petition gains enough signatures. It will be hard for people with all those very real and valid feelings to accept that nuclear power has pros as well as cons. Compared with its real but weak cancer risk, nuclear power emits no particulates, which are emitted from coal-fired power plants and which sicken and kill thousands of Americans each year according to the National Academy of Sciences (The Hidden Costs of  Energy, NAS Report, 2010).  Give the profound threat of climate change, it’s a huge plus that nuclear power generation emits practically no greenhouse gases.

           And nuclear waste -- which is carcinogenic but only at the same weak level as most nuclear radiation exposures -- can be permanently stored. The Finns are close to opening a permanent repository. The Swedes are close behind.  The Obama Administration’s Blue Ribbon Commission on nuclear waste just recommended that we adopt parts of the Finnish-Swedish model, particularly the part giving local communities the final say over whether to host such a facility.

            It is likely that if you are opposed to nuclear power, you had a negative reaction to that last paragraph, even viscerally negative. That’s my point, to note how easily our emotions can interfere with our ability to be analytical thinkers on complex issues like this. This essay is not about nuclear power. It is a suggestion that we need to recognize the dangers of The Perception Gap, and how our emotional, instinctive, subjective risk perception can lead to judgments - in our personal daily lives and on initiative petitions and other forms of policy making  - that can do us more harm than good. Coming to grips with the flaws of risk perception is the first step toward avoiding its risks.


(This essay originally ran as an OpEd in the Los Angeles Times last Friday.)




Democracy. A Dangerous Way ...

Newsletter: Share: