|
First I'd like to address terminology. This phenomenon was called global warming until spin doctor Frank Luntz persuaded George W Bush that "climate change" sounded less threatening, less apocalyptic. The Americans made it a condition of their signing any treaty on global warming that the term climate change be used instead. I really do feel that we should reclaim the language. There is overwhelming scientific evidence (and the wrath of a Something Awful moderator) supporting the view that the planet is getting warmer, let's stop hiding the truth. Next I'd like to talk about a point behavioural psychologist Dan Ariely made in his book The Upside of Irrationality which I think explains why this is so difficult to fix politically. Professor Ariely gives an example of a man going to an important job interview, dressed in an expensive new suit who, as he walks to an interview sees a child drowning. A very common reaction will be to jump in and save her. Yet considered rationally, how much does it cost to save a child's life? Probably you could do it for the cost of a couple of vaccines. Let's say $5. So this guy ruins a $1000 suit, fails to attend an interview which could significantly increase his earnings to save ONE child's life where he could instead have let her drown, gone to his interview, then sent $100 to a charity afterwards saving TWENTY children's lives. And we all, I think, understand exactly why a person would jump in the river to try to rescue a child even though we can now, perhaps, accept it's not rational, at least not economically rational. Ariely explains there are three psychological factors in effect: proximity, vividness and the drop in the bucket effect. When I read that last month I immediately thought of the global warming issue. Global warming more than just about any other political issue fails on Ariely's three criteria of why a crisis moves us to act. It's not close. The ice caps may be melting, the seaside towns may drown in fifty years, but nothing is happening close to any of us. It's not vivid. If I walk to work rather than driving I don't see a huge neon glow in the atmosphere as it becomes dramatically more breathable, I don't receive the rapturous applause of bystanders thanking me for saving the planet. And it's the ultimate drop in the bucket effect, one person deciding to not drive has a tiny tiny impact. I think this is the political tragedy of global warming - it's simply too distant and too long term for us to ever overcome our cognitive limitations and deal with it. Which is a shame because air is good and global catastrophes are bad. Morose Man fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Dec 8, 2011 |
#
¿
Dec 8, 2011 15:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 04:39 |
|
|
VideoTapir posted:"Global warming" is not comprehensible to the "but it's snowing outside!" crowd. You'll never get it to make sense to them (nor income distribution, or anything that contrasts averages with actual distributions). One phrase sounds alarming but puzzles imbeciles. One phrase sounds non-alarming which stacks with all the other cognitive problems I mentioned to guarantee we will never address this problem until we see Los Angeles drown. I know which one I prefer.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2011 17:49
|
|
|
BTC.spengler posted:Aren't we just influencing evolution by changing the environment in ways that will select for different traits? Drowning people who like surfing?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2011 18:09
|
|
|
Let's talk for a moment about what we can do. I think we need to start with our own personal choices, eg: - can you walk instead of driving? - if you feel cold at home put more clothing on before you put the heating on. - can you use public transport instead of driving - turn the lights out and machines off when you exit a room. - talk to other people about why you are doing these things. Essentially the issue is that when we use electricity, when we drive, when we heat our homes we very gradually destroy the atmosphere. And it's not fair on future generations.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2011 20:54
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:This kind of thinking is fine, but the changes we need to make are institutional, not individual. You will never be able to convince all people, everywhere - individually - that they should give up their cars, and we should embrace better environmental practices. Although that being said, it is useful if you're trying to build environmentally responsible communities at a small level. I think this is a cop-out. It has to be both. If as an individual you feel it should be institutional what do you say to an institution that feels it should be individual? The time to start is now, with what we can do, and then push on to influence institutions. The more people behave in an environmentally conscientious way the easier it becomes to affect institutions. If it's normal in your country to separate recyclables in your rubbish it's a lot easier to persuade the management of a chemical company to stop polluting a river - the people you're talking to already act to preserve the environment at home. There's no real difference between the attitude that I don't have to improve my behavour because it's up to individuals and the attitude that our country doesn't need to improve its behaviour because China is worse.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2011 03:48
|
|
|
Doddery Meerkat posted:No, he's right, your list is just things people can do to feel better about themselves and wouldn't change a loving thing. Have fun driving around in your 4x4 blaming the government for not doing anything.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2011 04:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 04:39 |
|
|
Dreylad posted:I don't really see how demanding for institutional changes is a cop-out because it still requires individual participation, at least in democratic countries. No, of course it's not. Refusing to modify one's own behaviour on the grounds it's someone else's (even an institution's) job to worry about it is the cop-out. I think we're essentially on the same page Dreylad. Our governments, our companies, absolutely must do a lot more. And I think that even more after watching the Gwynne Dwyer video you very kindly linked. But I do feel that part of influencing institutions is setting an example and living the lifestyle. If I were CEO of Shell and someone criticised me I'd be looking to discredit them. Over here with the Occupy St Paul's protest demonstrators were criticised for buying coffee from Starbucks (the implication being they're not as anti-capitalist as all that). It's easier to influence institutions if you behave more responsibly individually. And it's easier for institutions to defend themselves against criticisms if they can point to apparent hypocrisy in their critics.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2011 12:35
|
|