You are describing a time period that spans about 50-70 years, in which alarmism led to some outcomes (or actions which coincided with positive outcomes). This reactive type of fear -> public pressure -> change politics is not the historical norm. And still, mankind did not die off before "science advisors" became a thing.
Wielding fear as a political tool can only end in ruin of the free political system - ultimately, there is no qualitative difference between invoking fear of climate change or fear of immigrants, it creates a split in the populus: those who will subscribe to the panic, and those who think the panikers are irrational. Such splits, we have seen in the past, will lead to political divides, and ultimately, if civil society cannot mend them, to civil-war-style uprising and the end of free societies. We are seeing this all around the world right now, but most prominently in the US and the UK.
At the same time: once fear has been normalised, people will buy into snake oil, like arming themselves, or a massive upbuilt of CCTVs until privacy is gone, or accepting the TSA as a necessary evil, or submitting themselves to curfews, or abandoning social contacts because travelling cross-country to their loved ones is ecologically unsound. A fearful society is a society that falls prey to anyone who promises them safety - and those rarely stay democratic leaders.
We would do good not to consider "scientists" as the high-priests of a new religion with a infallible dogma: "The science says X" is a religious statement of belief, when science should be "we have this theory, this is the data that supports it, but we may be wrong". Whenever I do see scientists in the media today, they do no longer seem to see themselves as explorers of knowledge or professional doubters, they see themselves as the ultimate beacon of truth. That is dangerous, it leads to arrogance both in them as well in the part of the populus that agrees with them. As a reaction to that, it is no wonder anti-science sentiments rises.
> and yet so many people refuse to do so for ideology, religion or out of simple foolishness and arrogance.
Wielding fear as a political tool can only end in ruin of the free political system - ultimately, there is no qualitative difference between invoking fear of climate change or fear of immigrants, it creates a split in the populus: those who will subscribe to the panic, and those who think the panikers are irrational. Such splits, we have seen in the past, will lead to political divides, and ultimately, if civil society cannot mend them, to civil-war-style uprising and the end of free societies. We are seeing this all around the world right now, but most prominently in the US and the UK.
At the same time: once fear has been normalised, people will buy into snake oil, like arming themselves, or a massive upbuilt of CCTVs until privacy is gone, or accepting the TSA as a necessary evil, or submitting themselves to curfews, or abandoning social contacts because travelling cross-country to their loved ones is ecologically unsound. A fearful society is a society that falls prey to anyone who promises them safety - and those rarely stay democratic leaders.
We would do good not to consider "scientists" as the high-priests of a new religion with a infallible dogma: "The science says X" is a religious statement of belief, when science should be "we have this theory, this is the data that supports it, but we may be wrong". Whenever I do see scientists in the media today, they do no longer seem to see themselves as explorers of knowledge or professional doubters, they see themselves as the ultimate beacon of truth. That is dangerous, it leads to arrogance both in them as well in the part of the populus that agrees with them. As a reaction to that, it is no wonder anti-science sentiments rises.
> and yet so many people refuse to do so for ideology, religion or out of simple foolishness and arrogance.
Indeed.