My suggestion, and I don’t know if it will work but I think might be more persuasive than just saying it’s “bollocks,” is to point out how very Boomer-ish it is to be into Astrology. Hippies were so into that stuff (check out the song “Age of Aquarius” from the musical “Hair”--also an excellent example of astrologers being very, very wrong). On the other hand, that just probably shows that some nonsense is evergreen and young people are always going to be attracted to something that presents as a magical way to find a mate, because goodness knows rationality doesn’t really have much salience in that realm (unless you’re a fan of arranged marriage).
I think your 'let's all be the buzz-killing arsehole in the room' strategy might need some more thought. I'm not sure it'll help. I think you anticipate this objection towards the end of your article. But there are a number of assumptions I'd want to be a lot more sure of. Is astrology really on the rise? I tried a bit of aimless Google trends searches and didn't really find a trend. Will calling people out for bullshit change their minds? Or make them believe even more strongly? I think the evidence on this is at best mixed.
There might be a strategy to move society more Enlightenment-wards, but it's not obvious to me what it is...
I think on astrology resurging - similarly I played around with Google Trends and it appears mixed, so it is hard to say anything conclusive. It’s a shame it isn’t easy to get analytics on TikTok/Instagram, as I’d bet they are the key disease vectors spreading astrology.
On the being an arsehole strategy, I take your point and you could be right! I guess my thinking is more that, say, ~10% of people believe astrology (I’m just making up numbers), ~10% of people are arseholes like me, and the last 80% don’t believe but don’t care enough to say anything. I think my argument is that by kicking up more of a fuss, we can move the people in the middle - if not the believers themselves.
It's crazy that flat earth theory is still a thing too, along with vaccine conspiracies that won't die. Bill Gates has better things to do than plant microchips in people. Besides, it's impossible to inject a microchip into someone, as Bill undoubtedly knows, being a smart guy.
Well firstly, everything that ever needed to be said about astrology is perfectly captured in the nativity scene from 'The Life of Brian'.
Second, the idea that the BBC produces programmes are aimed at white heterosexual boomers is way out of date: I fall into that category, and I no longer watch anything that Auntie broadcasts. It may just be that I am unusual within my demographic in disliking cookery/antiques/consumer programmes and the constant promotion of investment in property for 'buy-to-let' (a much more important factor in the shortage of affordable housing than our supposed failure to build enough houses). However, the fact is that the Beeb just doesn't try to appeal to my age group anymore. We're all watching repeats of decent programmes on 'Drama' 'Yesterday' and TPTV (and resenting the fact that we still have to pay the licence fee).
However my real problem with this article is the definition of 'conspiracy theory': it would be perfectly reasonable to suggest that all those people who questioned the Blair government's 'dodgy dossier' during the invasion of Iraq, or who suggested Covid might have been the result of work in Chinese laboratories, or that the Putin regime posed a threat to Russia's neighbours, or that 'NIMBYs' were not actually responsible for the housing shortage were 'conspiracists'.
The fact is that a conspiracy theory generally is an idea that you disagree with and believe to be wholly unfounded, because you don't really want to consider it.... in some cases, there will never be any evidence to support it. But in some cases it will be subsequently proved to be true.
The 'skeptic' movement of a decade ago were as guilty of 'sloppy, unrigorous' thinking in their own way as fans of Mystic Meg: because their starting position was to dismiss everything that looked like 'woo' without examining it critically, in a way that seemed superior and frankly bigoted.
Critical thinking is a very good thing, but it doesn't simply mean believing the scientists and experts as if they were the heirs to medieval clerics. Our response to the pandemic almost certainly did unnecessary harm because it focussed only on the dire warnings of epidemiologists and public health experts and ignored those from other disciplines (and lay communities) who argued that draaconian measures and lockdown would do more harm than good.
The role that astrology plays in some peoples lives is the same as the role football plays for others. An accident of birth (where / when) allows you to feel identification with a large group of other people, and influences how you understand some aspects of your personality. Then each week a (possibly biased) random number generator produces an event that affects how you feel and what you do.
If there's evidence that people who believe in astrology are more likely to believe conspiracy theories than people who are keen followers of a football team, then maybe I'll start to worry.
Where do you fit conventional religion in this argument? My local church is named after a local saint, a hermit, who supposedly was beheaded but survived the experience long enough to carry his head back home. This is taught to local children as the truth. I think you would have to agree that as irrational, unscientific nonsense goes, this tale is boxing in the same class as Q-Anon and astrology. It is crazy that Christianity is still a thing, but we are where we are.
Heh, I don't disagree as I'm also an atheist - but I think "we are where we are" is the point I try to get to at the end. While dismantling religion is a big ask (and has a stronger claim to arguments resting on its cultural weight), astrology seems eminently killable!
Think you have your view on BBC universality completely wrong. The role of the BBC is surely NOT to provide programming for every special interest group/ fetish group/ cultural identity that makes up the population of these islands. Quite apart from the fact that were it genuinely to try to satisfy that ‘demand’, it would require twice the number of channels and each of us would only want to watch about 5% of the programming.
Surely the whole point of the BBC is to act as a binding agent for this country’s population and culture? Seeking to find those things that unite us, not divide us? Now, an old reactionary like me might suggest that the moment has gone. More concentration on the things that united us back in the 70s/ 80s/ 90s might have resulted in a more united, homogeneous, dull, mono-cultural society with fewer ‘special-interest’ or ‘identity’ groups. I happen to think that would have been a good thing, but accept that many would not.
But if that moment has passed - and you might well think that the fact that we missed it is good - then surely so has the moment for the BBC?
I’m all in favour of programmes for ‘black culture’ (whatever that is), or ‘queer culture’ (ditto), or astrology (on which I agree with you). Let them all be made, again and again, provided there is a paying audience for the bullshit. But don’t make me, or any other inhabitant of this island, pay for them on the pretence that it somehow unifies us or that the BBC, in producing this tripe, is somehow a force for good. It’s not. It’s actually taking the piss, and it’s high time we objected.
And of course, the argument runs against me, too. I can entirely see why the ‘black, queer, astrology-guided dating folk’ might not want to see, or pay for, re-runs of Kenneth Clark’s Civilisation. They shouldn’t have to.
The point is that funding the BBC in an era of total societal fragmentation where each of us places our own ‘identity’ above any sense of common humanity, joint cultural tradition, or (boring!) nationhood is simply a recipe for disappointment 95% of the time. I can’t think of a better reason to stop the rot.
The BBC is producing a programme for an under-served section of the population. It also provides an insight for viewers outside the audience covered by the programme to see dating challenges faced by people who aren't the majority in the country.
Whilst perpetual old men like our esteemed author would never listen to such a podcast, there are plenty of viewers of shows such as Love Island, which has been heavily criticised for only featuring slim, young, straight people, and not being particularly diverse overall.
They've already done a show featuring gay men in a Love Island setting, and are about to do a similar show with women.
The astrology part is, of course, nonsense. That is the only reason I have to disparage the BBC for producing the podcast - presuming they don't address it in later episodes.
Sure. Pick any two activities espoused by fewer than 10% of the population, find the overlaps, and I guarantee you’ll find an ‘underserved segment of the population’. Now all you need to do is create a fashionable ’identity’ for that group and you’re away to the races.
What happened to the idea that the colour of our skin, or our sexuality, should not matter? Be whoever you are, love whoever you love: most of us don’t care. By all means make programmes that educate the rest of us about your newly-created subset of the population. But don’t expect the majority to want to pay for programmes that ‘celebrate’ your group - any more than for Catholic philatelists or female vegan cricketers. Those special interest programmes are precisely what commercial TV and Netflix were created for.
And if that means that we take the psychologically-exploitative, intellectually mindless ‘celebration’ of vacuous narcissism that is Love Island off our mainstream TV channels, then all I can say is ‘yes, please’!
My suggestion, and I don’t know if it will work but I think might be more persuasive than just saying it’s “bollocks,” is to point out how very Boomer-ish it is to be into Astrology. Hippies were so into that stuff (check out the song “Age of Aquarius” from the musical “Hair”--also an excellent example of astrologers being very, very wrong). On the other hand, that just probably shows that some nonsense is evergreen and young people are always going to be attracted to something that presents as a magical way to find a mate, because goodness knows rationality doesn’t really have much salience in that realm (unless you’re a fan of arranged marriage).
I think your 'let's all be the buzz-killing arsehole in the room' strategy might need some more thought. I'm not sure it'll help. I think you anticipate this objection towards the end of your article. But there are a number of assumptions I'd want to be a lot more sure of. Is astrology really on the rise? I tried a bit of aimless Google trends searches and didn't really find a trend. Will calling people out for bullshit change their minds? Or make them believe even more strongly? I think the evidence on this is at best mixed.
There might be a strategy to move society more Enlightenment-wards, but it's not obvious to me what it is...
I think on astrology resurging - similarly I played around with Google Trends and it appears mixed, so it is hard to say anything conclusive. It’s a shame it isn’t easy to get analytics on TikTok/Instagram, as I’d bet they are the key disease vectors spreading astrology.
On the being an arsehole strategy, I take your point and you could be right! I guess my thinking is more that, say, ~10% of people believe astrology (I’m just making up numbers), ~10% of people are arseholes like me, and the last 80% don’t believe but don’t care enough to say anything. I think my argument is that by kicking up more of a fuss, we can move the people in the middle - if not the believers themselves.
This echoes an excellent folding ideas documentary on flat earth belief and conspiracy theories (mild spoiler, documentary with a plot twist)
https://youtu.be/JTfhYyTuT44
While the Atlantic separates the two fan bases, I feel they would get on
I mean I hear you but... If we go after Astrology on the Beeb, where does that leave 90% of political punditry?
It's crazy that flat earth theory is still a thing too, along with vaccine conspiracies that won't die. Bill Gates has better things to do than plant microchips in people. Besides, it's impossible to inject a microchip into someone, as Bill undoubtedly knows, being a smart guy.
Well firstly, everything that ever needed to be said about astrology is perfectly captured in the nativity scene from 'The Life of Brian'.
Second, the idea that the BBC produces programmes are aimed at white heterosexual boomers is way out of date: I fall into that category, and I no longer watch anything that Auntie broadcasts. It may just be that I am unusual within my demographic in disliking cookery/antiques/consumer programmes and the constant promotion of investment in property for 'buy-to-let' (a much more important factor in the shortage of affordable housing than our supposed failure to build enough houses). However, the fact is that the Beeb just doesn't try to appeal to my age group anymore. We're all watching repeats of decent programmes on 'Drama' 'Yesterday' and TPTV (and resenting the fact that we still have to pay the licence fee).
However my real problem with this article is the definition of 'conspiracy theory': it would be perfectly reasonable to suggest that all those people who questioned the Blair government's 'dodgy dossier' during the invasion of Iraq, or who suggested Covid might have been the result of work in Chinese laboratories, or that the Putin regime posed a threat to Russia's neighbours, or that 'NIMBYs' were not actually responsible for the housing shortage were 'conspiracists'.
The fact is that a conspiracy theory generally is an idea that you disagree with and believe to be wholly unfounded, because you don't really want to consider it.... in some cases, there will never be any evidence to support it. But in some cases it will be subsequently proved to be true.
The 'skeptic' movement of a decade ago were as guilty of 'sloppy, unrigorous' thinking in their own way as fans of Mystic Meg: because their starting position was to dismiss everything that looked like 'woo' without examining it critically, in a way that seemed superior and frankly bigoted.
Critical thinking is a very good thing, but it doesn't simply mean believing the scientists and experts as if they were the heirs to medieval clerics. Our response to the pandemic almost certainly did unnecessary harm because it focussed only on the dire warnings of epidemiologists and public health experts and ignored those from other disciplines (and lay communities) who argued that draaconian measures and lockdown would do more harm than good.
The role that astrology plays in some peoples lives is the same as the role football plays for others. An accident of birth (where / when) allows you to feel identification with a large group of other people, and influences how you understand some aspects of your personality. Then each week a (possibly biased) random number generator produces an event that affects how you feel and what you do.
If there's evidence that people who believe in astrology are more likely to believe conspiracy theories than people who are keen followers of a football team, then maybe I'll start to worry.
Where do you fit conventional religion in this argument? My local church is named after a local saint, a hermit, who supposedly was beheaded but survived the experience long enough to carry his head back home. This is taught to local children as the truth. I think you would have to agree that as irrational, unscientific nonsense goes, this tale is boxing in the same class as Q-Anon and astrology. It is crazy that Christianity is still a thing, but we are where we are.
Heh, I don't disagree as I'm also an atheist - but I think "we are where we are" is the point I try to get to at the end. While dismantling religion is a big ask (and has a stronger claim to arguments resting on its cultural weight), astrology seems eminently killable!
Think you have your view on BBC universality completely wrong. The role of the BBC is surely NOT to provide programming for every special interest group/ fetish group/ cultural identity that makes up the population of these islands. Quite apart from the fact that were it genuinely to try to satisfy that ‘demand’, it would require twice the number of channels and each of us would only want to watch about 5% of the programming.
Surely the whole point of the BBC is to act as a binding agent for this country’s population and culture? Seeking to find those things that unite us, not divide us? Now, an old reactionary like me might suggest that the moment has gone. More concentration on the things that united us back in the 70s/ 80s/ 90s might have resulted in a more united, homogeneous, dull, mono-cultural society with fewer ‘special-interest’ or ‘identity’ groups. I happen to think that would have been a good thing, but accept that many would not.
But if that moment has passed - and you might well think that the fact that we missed it is good - then surely so has the moment for the BBC?
I’m all in favour of programmes for ‘black culture’ (whatever that is), or ‘queer culture’ (ditto), or astrology (on which I agree with you). Let them all be made, again and again, provided there is a paying audience for the bullshit. But don’t make me, or any other inhabitant of this island, pay for them on the pretence that it somehow unifies us or that the BBC, in producing this tripe, is somehow a force for good. It’s not. It’s actually taking the piss, and it’s high time we objected.
And of course, the argument runs against me, too. I can entirely see why the ‘black, queer, astrology-guided dating folk’ might not want to see, or pay for, re-runs of Kenneth Clark’s Civilisation. They shouldn’t have to.
The point is that funding the BBC in an era of total societal fragmentation where each of us places our own ‘identity’ above any sense of common humanity, joint cultural tradition, or (boring!) nationhood is simply a recipe for disappointment 95% of the time. I can’t think of a better reason to stop the rot.
The BBC is producing a programme for an under-served section of the population. It also provides an insight for viewers outside the audience covered by the programme to see dating challenges faced by people who aren't the majority in the country.
Whilst perpetual old men like our esteemed author would never listen to such a podcast, there are plenty of viewers of shows such as Love Island, which has been heavily criticised for only featuring slim, young, straight people, and not being particularly diverse overall.
They've already done a show featuring gay men in a Love Island setting, and are about to do a similar show with women.
The astrology part is, of course, nonsense. That is the only reason I have to disparage the BBC for producing the podcast - presuming they don't address it in later episodes.
Sure. Pick any two activities espoused by fewer than 10% of the population, find the overlaps, and I guarantee you’ll find an ‘underserved segment of the population’. Now all you need to do is create a fashionable ’identity’ for that group and you’re away to the races.
What happened to the idea that the colour of our skin, or our sexuality, should not matter? Be whoever you are, love whoever you love: most of us don’t care. By all means make programmes that educate the rest of us about your newly-created subset of the population. But don’t expect the majority to want to pay for programmes that ‘celebrate’ your group - any more than for Catholic philatelists or female vegan cricketers. Those special interest programmes are precisely what commercial TV and Netflix were created for.
And if that means that we take the psychologically-exploitative, intellectually mindless ‘celebration’ of vacuous narcissism that is Love Island off our mainstream TV channels, then all I can say is ‘yes, please’!