The modern megaphone problem
The gas stove kerfuffle is actually a great example of this phenomenon
Quick post here1 - as you know, I am often interested in how the modern technological environment has prompted people, in various ways, to go crazy, has created many new incentives that affect the ways we relate to each other. The promises about what a technology will do… and then what actually happens when it hits real human psychology, can be two very different things.
As I was reading all these suddenly-written threads and articles about gas stoves, I was struck by the fact that this is another example of one of these new problems, the modern megaphone problem. What I mean is, when the internet was young and we were all so full of hope from watching Star Trek, many people had thoughts that went something like this:
“The World Computer is going to be awesome! Anything anyone could want to know, at their fingertips. We are going to have a hyper-well-informed population like never before. Political leaders, corporations, will find it difficult to even get away with a lie because the information needed to reveal the lie will be immediately accessible by everyone.”
Well, it hasn’t quite worked out that way. What has actually happened is more like the following:
“The world is a complicated place. We are awash in data and no one has the time to personally read any but a tiny fraction of it. Furthermore studies can be easily manipulated - consciously or unconciously, intentionally or not - to produce certain results or give the impression of certain results. Therefore, said with only a little hyperbole, there is data or a study available to ‘prove’ any claim you want to make. What matters, then, is not what the data says, but who can yell the loudest. Will the people who say X is safe, or the people who say X is dangerous (for there is data to support both) dominate the discussion? Will the people who say X is good, or the people who say X is bad (for there is data to support both) dominate the discussion? He who has the loudest megaphone wins.”
Or, said a little softer:
“Most of the stuff humans create has benefits and risks. If some stuff is in the interest of the people with the loud megaphones, they will yell endlessly about the benefits and ignore the risks entirely. If some stuff is against the interest of the people with the loud megaphones, they will yell endlessly about the risks and ignore the benefits. Yeah, the data is out there to give another perspective, and we can be grateful for that, but most people haven’t the time or skill to look it up.”
About gas stoves, in particular
As I said, I was reading a couple threads about gas stoves on Twitter and realized this “debate” is a perfect example of this phenomenon. The following list of points is heavily derived from a thread by Steve Everley, and then an article by Charles Cooke about a pretended freakout about electric stoves from another universe . So much credit to those two gentlemen, who pointed out the following.
One very large study of children found no link between gas stove use and childhood asthma.
Another study found that even minimal kitchen ventilation reduced NO2 concentration to far below the usual level of concern.
The food you are cooking actually throws much more stuff into the air than burning the natural gas to cook it. Ergo if you’re concerned about stuff in the air it makes more sense to focus on kitchen ventilation than the choice of stove.
A 2020 UCLA study did claim a link between gas stoves and asthma. The study was bankrolled by the Sierra Club. More problematically it compared max peak concentration to standards for average concentration. Other researchers critiqued the study.
A 2022 Stanford study found various health harms from using a gas stove… but they did this using an airtight kitchen enclosed in plastic sheets, which is not the actual operating environment of anyone. (Parallels to COVID-stuff there too in that, in very specific lab conditions, we get this result… OK, but literally no one lives their life in those conditions.) Worth mentioning that the “your gas stove is dangerous” studies generate tons of popular headlines, whereas the “your gas stove is safe” studies generate nothing but an academic journal article.
From Cooke’s article, electric stoves cause house fires at 2.6 times the rate of gas stoves, and injure humans with fire at 4.8 times the rate.
Wesley Yang, I appreciated, pointed out that there is an inherent inefficiency in using electric stoves that does not exist for gas stoves. With a gas stove, you burn the gas and immediately use it for heat. With an electric stove (and, let’s say, with a natural gas power plant), you burn the gas to produce heat at the power plant, which eventually drives a turbine to make electricity, which your electric stove then turns back into heat. As is always the case, every additional step required introduces new inefficiencies.
Anyway, the point here is that, as you can see, with an (inappropriately) narrow focus you can find a study, find the data to “make the case” that your gas stove is dangerous (or perhaps that your electric stove is dangerous!), or bad for the climate, or what have you. Is there contrary data publicly accessible? Yes, but almost nobody personally has time do their own research and investigate every side of the issue, which is why we rely on summarizers… unfortunately many of the summarizers are now very self-interested and highly unreliable.
(Also, that doesn’t even get into the bizarre phenomenon of Current Thingism where many people are very happy to be part of the Borg.)
Anyway, there you go.
To end with a slightly conspiratorial comment… I have the same sort of feelings about solar power. Since I am a pro-decentralization guy, if solar power was actually making homes energy independent, so that they didn’t need a central utility, I think that’d be great. But I also think that because “control” is a big thing the technocratic state seeks, if it was actually true that solar power was making large numbers of homes energy independent, some problem would be found with home solar power too2. And it would be easy to do because, like anything, solar power has plenty of problems (cost, production, lifespan, disposal, habitat use). We just ignore them right now because the megaphone holders are interested in promoting solar power. If the megaphone holders decided to start talking all and only about the negatives instead, they would find plenty to say.
Except for, uh, ask my students how they feel after I tell them “just a little bit of notes today”.
Remember California threatening to cut-off power to John MacArthur’s church because it kept meeting during COVID? What would have been the reaction if they had said “whatever, we have our own solar panels, we don’t need you”? I suspect the state would immediately be seeking excuses for why it was dangerous for a church to be able to control its own electricity production independent of the grid. Anecdotes would be located, grant money would become available, articles would be written in the popular press about the dangers of controlling your own power disconnected from the grid.
The modern megaphone problem
Is the following that you wrote your own assessment or are you quoting someone? I believe it’s yours. Regardless --spot on as usual. “We are awash in data and no one has the time to personally read any but a tiny fraction of it. Furthermore studies can be easily manipulated - consciously or unconciously, intentionally or not - to produce certain results or give the impression of certain results...there is data or a study available to ‘prove’ any claim you want to make. What matters, then, is not what the data says, but who can yell the loudest...”
I always enjoy reading your thoughts on different subjects both here and on Twitter. Always very thoughtful and informative.
When things like this crazy stove issue come up out of the blue, I am starting to get in the habit of checking to see what story they are trying to distract us from.
I think your point 7 above applies nicely to electric vehicles and ICE vehicles as well.