Ever since the time when Galileo tried to explain to everyone that the Earth is not the center of the universe and even that the Earth moves around the sun in lieu of vice versa, scientists have received a lot of flak for proving time and time again that our egos are wrong. We literally thought that we had to be the center of the universe. We just had to be or we could not even. Scientists are threatened, harmed, and harassed for finding out how we can live better lives despite the whims of the human ego that ends up being both wrong and detrimental to society.

One way the human ego manifests itself in society is via free-market fundamentalism. Economists and philosophers, such as Milton Friedman, have claimed that capitalism (free markets) and freedom are co-dependent on each other. According to investor George Soros, “laissez-faire capitalism, the separation of the state and the economy, best serves the common good by allowing uninhibited pursuit of self-interest.” However, self-interest, aka the human ego, today is measured by monetary income, which is uninhibited by the government due to capitalism.

The problem with this is when people decide to choose money over human life. Since the common good is eliminating dangers to the population and not shortening our lifespans, then capitalism may be abused to promote monetary incomes over the preservation of life itself. If the Tobacco industry finds out before anyone else that cigarettes are carcinogenic, they may choose to protect their profits over preserving life. In fact, that is exactly what they did.

After reading the book Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, I have personally been enlightened about the downsides of capitalism that everyone needs to know. Although I cannot exactly say that we need to break the system and “stick it to the man,” I do have to say that there is a persistent problematic pattern that we could all combat if we were made aware of it.

The pattern is that every time scientists find out news about how to extend our lives, people who gain money from detrimental products try to cover it up. When the Tobacco industry found out that cigarettes and secondhand smoke were dangerous and carcinogenic, they hired a physicist named Fred Singer to help cover up their tracks. They invested money in an indirect fashion so that Fred Singer could conduct research trying to prove that almost anything can cause cancer, so we cannot narrow it down to just tobacco.

They hired the best Public Relations managers and would literally plant false complaints about the scientists who found evidence in mainstream journals that did not fact-check, and then he would quote the false facts that he had planted in these journals. He would quote himself as a source, a perfect rhetorical circle where no one was allowed to have an objective debate.

Eventually, the truth came out and now almost the entire population knows how dangerous secondhand smoke and tobacco can be to our health. However, it took a long time, and it did damage along the way. This was damage that did not have to happen.

Now, we have a new worry: global warming. Scientists have found evidence that human-caused global warming is real and approximately 97% of the population of scientists believe that humans have an impact on our environment. This time, the people who control unsustainable energy sources that most people rely on are trying to combat the scientists for finding objective truth.

They claim that scientists are trying to start drama. Although scientists are constantly held under the pressure by other scientists due to required peer review and competing with one another for the most validated articles and findings, they seem to be the ones that are bashed.

Why was Galileo bashed for finding an objective truth, Rachel Carson for finding out that DDT was much more dangerous than we could know, and scientists that pursue the objective truth about secondhand smoke and global warming? The human ego and its greed for money.

The pattern that constantly goes in a circle is scientists finding the objective truth to make the world a better place, and then there are people who feel that their power is threatened and try to destroy the perceived threat.

One way to discern who is right in such battles is this: The people who had their power threatened always try to destroy the scientists instead of accumulating their own objective data to make an objective debate.

Fred Singer did not try to prove that tobacco was not harmful; Fred Singer tried to prove that tobacco was one of a thousand things that cause cancer, so why care? Fred Singer tried to destroy the credibility of the Environmental Protection Agency instead of looking for proof that climate change was not influenced by human activity. Environmental Protection Agency, in stark contrast, did not attack Fred Singer but instead just showed their objective data.

That is the difference.

Maybe the government should not take away our autonomy, but I would rather have the liberty to have an extended lifespan and safe environment than the liberty to die more quickly for the sake of someone else’s ego. The government does not need to regulate everything, but could it regulate the dangers of climate change and tobacco?