Free-range thinking: Beyond binary reductionism.

On a few separate occasions, for different subjects, I have received messages from people attempting to discredit my substance-based critiques or inquiries by saying that some right-wing media raised similar points and therefore what I say must be false or dangerous. This response comes up frequently when one highlights the factual limitations of and harmful impacts caused by “renewable” energy technologies. As someone pushed back when I wrote “Earth needs therapy, not ‘green’ tech nor ‘green’ finance”, “Far-right media propped up the film Planet of the Humans (which documents the real-life destruction caused by “renewable” energy technologies across the globe)—what do you think that tells you about what you're saying?”

This take is wildly reductionistic. It leaves no room for nuance, which does our potential for collective growth and breakthroughs a disservice.

There are, for example, anti-establishment, right-wing media commentators who are anti-war. Just because those sentiments are expressed by people whose worldviews are, in large part, different than mine does not automatically render all of their concerns, ever, invalid.

This is why sharpening our critical thinking skills and learning to calibrate all of the information we receive—based on the source, influence, and relativity to the knowledge we gain elsewhere—is of absolute importance. Otherwise, we risk falling into the trap of binary reductionism, where being accepted by a particular group based on their constructed ideals, where “staying within the boundaries” of one “side” and never daring to question the arbitrary lines, become prioritized over the genuine curiosity to arrive as close to the truth as possible. The latter requires an ability to detach from any “group” and the courage to go against the current, to question norms, to challenge “truths” often held as fundamental.