The “truth-value” of a belief or proposition is the extent to which it is empirically justified, i.e., at least partly true or reasonable given the evidence. The “use-value” of a belief or proposition is the extent to which it serves a need or provides a benefit. For example, rich people may say they’re earned their wealth through hard work and poor people may blame their circumstances on bad luck. Saying so makes them feel better about themselves: a use-value. Of course, as this example hopefully makes obvious, a belief or proposition may have both a use-value and still be at least partly true. Hard work and luck do play a role in many life outcomes.

The inspiration for these thoughts was a recent paper, “Techno-Optimism and Farmers’ Attitudes Toward Climate Change Adaptation” by Maaz Gardezi and J. Jordan Arbuckle, in which the authors initially define techno-optimism as “the belief [in industrialized societies] that human ingenuity, through improved science and technology, will ultimately provide remedies to most current and future threats to human well-being”. Halfway through the paper, however, Gardezi and Arbuckle pull a real switcheroo, tweaking the definition of techno-optimism when applying it to US farmers. Quoting Barry, 2012 , they now say:

Techno-optimism is a “belief in human technological abilities to solve problems of unsustainability while minimizing or denying the need for large-scale social, economic and political transformation”

Note that the initial definition does not assume techno-optimism is unrealistic or categorical (i.e., “without exceptions or conditions; absolute; unqualified and unconditional”). It doesn’t require that techno-optimists believe technology and science will remedy all threats, just most of them. But when it comes to farmers, Gardezi and Arbuckle redefine techno-optimists to be out of touch with reality (minimizing or denying the “need for large-scale social, economic, and political transformation” - whatever that means) and categorical in their belief that technology will solve problems of unsustainability (not “solve some or most problems”).

No surprise, Gardezi and Arbuckle subsequently find that techno-optimist farmers are more likely to take a “wait-and-see” approach* to whether they should “take additional steps to protect the land I farm from increased weather variability”, especially those farmers who also think they “have the knowledge and technical skill to deal with any weather-related threats to the viability of my farm operation.” They then take a giant leap from this rather predictable finding to the conclusion that the “ideological dimensions” of techno-optimism and perceived technical capacity are based on “farmers’ adherence to an abstract faith in human ingenuity to solve future challenges associated with climate change”. Say what?! “To have “faith” is to believe without firm evidence. To say techno-optimism is based on faith (especially “abstract faith”) is to say it lacks truth-value. At no point do the authors acknowledge that farmers’ approach to climate change adaptation might very well be reasonable, given the facts on the ground (so to speak).*

Oddly, Gardezi and Arbuckle acknowledge that Midwest farmer techno-optimism may stem from the undisputed fact that technological innovation has led to consistent growth in corn and soybean yields over the past decade, despite increasingly variable weather in the region. Yet, they dismiss this “possible explanation” for techno-optimism, because “it is increasingly recognized that increasing weather variability has led to a substantial gap between current yields and the genetic potential of major crops” - a claim for which they cite one study (Hatfield, Wright-Morton, & Hall, 2018). And that one measly study says nothing about the need for “large-scale social, economic, and political transformation” or the insufficient “genetic potential” of crops; the authors actually conclude that adaptation to climate change will require more technological innovation.

Other researchers have reviewed the same survey of Midwest farmers and come to quite different conclusions. They also reveal a lot more about the survey questions and responses. For example, Mase, Gramig et al (2017) note that just 12% of the farmers disagreed with the statement “Changing my practices to cope with increasing climate variability is important for the long-term success of my farm” even though 80% did not agree that “changing weather patterns are hurting my farm operation”. In other words, most of the farmers were willing to change their practices to adapt to climate change even though changing weather patterns had not yet hurt their operations. The authors also found that 64% of the farmers were already “managing weather and climate risks by implementing in-field conservation practices”. They conclude that the survey results are consistent with the “Reasoned Action Approach” to human behavior, which accepts that actual control over a situation contributes to “perceived control”.

In other words, the farmers’ beliefs about their ability to adapt to climate change were based on personal experience: they were already adapting successfully to variable weather. That’s reality - not ideology, not an “abstract faith” in anything.

—

* I also note a certain condescension towards American farmers, who are experts in their field (!). Physicians, also experts, often take a “wait-and-see” approach to patient care - usually because aggressive care comes with serious costs and outcomes are uncertain. But are these doctors described as having an abstract faith in, say, the healing properties of the human body?

References:

Gardezi, M., & Arbuckle, J. G. (2018). Techno-Optimism and Farmers’ Attitudes Toward Climate Change Adaptation. Environment and Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916518793482

Hatfield, J. L., Wright-Morton, L., Hall, B. (2018). Vulnerability of grain crops and croplands in the Midwest to climatic variability and adaptation strategies. Climatic Change, 146, 263-275. doi:10.1007/s10584-017-1997-x

Mase, A. S., B. M. Gramig, et al. (2017). "Climate change beliefs, risk perceptions, and adaptation behavior among Midwestern U.S. crop farmers." Climate Risk Management 15: 8-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2016.11.004