The same behavior that in the distant past helped the gay to survive works against us today. It is worth remembering that while no species has created such a big problem, the species that created the problem has the ability to bring about a solution
The evolution of the brain of the homo species (of the genus "Homo" or of the species "Sapiens") does not support activity (the desire to act) to mitigate the climatic effects caused by global warming. This is what Matthew Wilburn King, a consultant at an international consulting firm in Boulder, Colorado, and president and chairman of the COMMON Foundation claims. In an article published on the BBC website.
We are aware of the climate changes as a result of the increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. There are also those who understand and know the urgency of preventing and mitigating emissions, climate experts report that in less than ten years the temperature rise will reach 1.5 degrees, and endanger the supply of food, water, as well as health and security.
The rise in temperature is already causing climatic disasters such as periods of drought, floods, melting glaciers and damage to biological diversity. But the information is not enough to change the behavior at a level that will stop the climate changes.
The reason for the lack of change in behavior lies in evolution. The same behavior that in the distant past helped the gay to survive works against us today. It is worth remembering that while no species has created such a big problem, each species has created the problem There is the ability to bring about a solution.
The reluctance to change stems from the way the human brain has evolved. According to psychologists: "People don't understand statistical trends." Humans evolved to pay attention to immediate threats and reduce future risks.' In the early stages of development, the gays faced immediate dangers and challenges such as predators. Too much information may cause confusion that will lead to inactivity or a wrong choice that will lead to injury, therefore the brain filters information quickly and focuses on what is important now. The gay species has evolved to remember threats so that it can avoid them in the future and to alternately remember opportunities to find food and shelter. These were biological developments that ensured the abilities to exist by providing time and energy to the brain that is engaged in processing a lot of information, but those abilities are less effective in today's reality and cause mistakes due to emotional decisions.
Psychologists identify more than 150 common cognitive biases, of which several are important biases that explain why we lack the will to act to mitigate global warming and climate change.
The most important and prominent of these biases are:
Hyperbolic discounting
Our perception that the present is more important than the future since throughout human evolution it has been advantageous to focus on what is dangerous now. This is a preference that endangers and slows down the ability to act to prevent future or distant challenges (risks).
The lack of interest in future generations
The theory suggests that we "care" mainly about a few generations in our family (sons and grandchildren, parents and grandparents). Despite understanding the need to act to mitigate climate change. It is difficult for us to agree to sacrifice the present for distant generations.
the bystander effect
There is a tendency to believe that someone else will take care of the problem. A development that comes from the assumption that if there is danger from a madman there is no reason for anyone from the group (the group of gatherers-hunters) to take a risk. It is enough that the strongest in the group went out to fight, but today this approach leads to the wrong assumption that the leaders must do something to change. The larger the group, the greater the false bias.
The sunk-cost fallacy
The superstition of continuing on a path even if it leads to disaster. The more time, energy and resources we invest in a certain path, the more likely we will continue even if it doesn't seem right. An approach that explains, for example, why we continue to depend on fossil fuel despite understanding the damages and the possibility of switching to clean energy. All biases developed for good reasons, but today they impair the ability to respond to what may be the greatest crisis humanity has created.
The good news is that our biological evolution not only delays the treatment of the challenge but also equipped us with the abilities to stop warming and climate change. Compared to other animals we are unique in our ability to remember and understand events from the past and based on this to predict the future and outline disaster prevention plans. Unfortunately this ability ceases when large-scale public activity is needed. This is the case with climate. As individuals we know what to do But to address the problem, public activity is needed that goes beyond the abilities that evolution has given us. The larger the group, the more difficult the challenge becomes (the bystander effect). As primates, in small groups, we evolved to cooperate in protecting habitat and gathering food while preserving reproductive capacity and genetic diversity.
Studies show that everyone Can maintain regular relationships with about 150 other people .
Beyond that, social relationships begin to fall apart and harm the individual's ability to trust and rely on others to achieve goals for the common good.
The recognition of the power of small groups brought for the activity of a film company which through the films pushes for the activity of groups that will pressure leaders to act to stop warming and mitigate climate change. The films will make people from different sectors consider climate change and demand immediate action from the leaders.
When the people of a village or small town are aware of the problem and come out with demands for change, there is less chance of the "bystander effect". When those people understand the risk of being hurt, the endowment effect arises. Everyone in the group is afraid of losing, when small groups are involved in the issue solutions emerge. Also by social comparison There is a tendency to act like the others.
One of the stronger biases that affects decisions, She responds to a positive challenge, therefore the form in which the climate problem is defined will affect the willingness to change.
Most people believe that a real change should be made on the climate issue but feel powerless to take action against what seems "far from home", therefore in order to activate people it is necessary to target the issue directly and show the local impact, which will require a solution.
One of the countries leading the issue is Costa Rica, which imposed a carbon tax on fossil fuel consumers, so the taxpayer understands the connection between fossil fuel and global warming. The income from the tax is directed to the preservation of forests and reserves.
Next, the plan is Cut mineral fuel consumption by 70% Until 2040 when, in addition to an overall organizational effort, support will be given to hundreds of villages and small groups, to go through these changes more easily.
The Treaty of Paris and the European Union's plan to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, which will create a joint activity of cities and countries to reduce the use of fossil fuels, are the basis for activity on a global scale and an example that others must copy.
In the past, the first homos used their abilities to discover fire, develop agriculture and invent the wheel, today they develop electric vehicles and solar collectors, inventions that are spread throughout the world with the help of the media.
Development has always helped ensure the survival of the human race, but today we face a different and greater threat than the hunter-gatherers knew. Technological development allows us to stop the climate changes we caused. Now we must act.
9 תגובות
This is a pointless argument. When everyone's only real reasoning is the personal ego and the profit - immediate or otherwise - that it will generate, fills every reasoning, no matter how true, that harms one's own interest or the other, is not taken seriously at all.
Hence assertions that nuclear energy (Chernobyl, Fukushima, Bear Island) is superior to the German effort and all, and polluting fossil energy is currently "an existential necessity and at almost any price."
It's just a shame and unnecessary
Asaf
thanks for the reply
Apologies even if my initial reaction was angry
L: Flower Or,
Homo is the name of the genus in which a number of species,
Homo sapiens is the name of the species,
– Yaniv (Dear)
I was glad to know that you are one of the regular readers on the site,
As a regular reader, you should know that "Torah from Sinai" is a legend
to unite a group of people around an idea that will enable control and social order,
So is the "Torah" of the warming fools,
If someone wants to call "faith" in scientific facts a religion
This is his right, but it does not negate the facts.
My approach is indeed emotional ("emotional") as it is clear
Because fear of the future also comes from emotion,
But that does not contradict the facts.
As a regular reader, it is appropriate that you know how to distinguish between: opinion articles by the writers,
Articles that provide facts and articles that quote/translate from different sources,
As it says, the Rem article is a summary from the BBC
And since my understanding of minimal psychology does not contain an expression of opinion (my own),
In other cases I wrote in the comments that:
"End of response in reading comprehension"
This is also appropriate this time...
For many years I have enjoyed reading on the science website and spreading negativity is my last goal, but for a long time the character of Dr. Rosenthal put a stain on the website's professional style:
First, there is nothing wrong with the sense of mission that Dr. Rosenthal feels in the environmental issues he deals with and the scientific consensus in the field is known to all
But Assaf's columns approach those environmental issues that have an extensive and rich scientific basis in an emotionally charged and non-scientific style, more suitable for an environmental activist writing in a youth movement magazine than an academic.
Evolutionary psychology is a dangerous field in which it is easy to make countless claims about human behavior and there is absolutely no possibility of confirming or refuting these claims, this tool is a dangerous basis for other pseudoscientific claims and is essentially reminiscent of race science
Beyond that, the desire to cite an article that uses psychological tools, and those of evolutionary psychology in particular, gives the reader the feeling that Assaf has absolutely no willingness to deal with the scientific basis of climate change and its consequences, and that for him these are Messianic teachings
Anyone who does not accept this Torah, or the conventional ways proposed to deal with its consequences, should only insist on the mechanisms of evolution and psychology that brought him to his madness and desolation, and not address his claims directly.
The challenge in dealing with an opposing camp is a confrontation with the best of the claims of the best of its people.
The issue of the climate immediately sets up two camps, of course not just in one of them, irrational people such as President Trump star in it. It is easy and convenient to mock the conspiratorial, unscientific, and styleless nature of a large part of the people of the Hanel camp, but there is no integrity or professional challenge in these actions, all the more, in doing so Asaf, you are behaving in a way that is no different from them, which raises a desire to understand the mechanisms Your evolutionary psychologists
Noam - First, to understand the scope of the problem, I am attaching a link of someone who deals with this, you may have heard of him - his name is Bill Gates
https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/My-plan-for-fighting-climate-change
In practice, his only real recommendation right now is to invest in research and development.
It should be understood that companies that are transitioning from an agricultural company to an industrial company need cheap and continuous electricity available, it is true that only fossil power plants are capable of providing such energy. The "conscientious" can endlessly participate in conferences around the world, preach to others endlessly (and of course travel in polluting jet planes), nothing will stop this trend. Another thing, the German government (and now also Spain) came to the (stupid) decision a few decades ago to invest in renewable energy instead of nuclear energy as is happening in France, and the result of course is after trillions of dollars of investment in the amount of FDF (and this is because renewable energy requires 24-hour backup of stations Power of Fossils) To this day, even though I present this argument to many people, I have not seen data that shows otherwise, (and only data! Attacking the speaker is a sub-intellectual level). That's why the recommendation right now is to invest in research and development, invest in atomic energy where possible (in Japan and Safed it's really not worth building a nuclear reactor), encourage the construction of quality filters in fossil power plants, paint huge cities white to moderate the warming. Try with the help of campaigns to reduce the consumption of animal food. , to bury plastic in the ground instead of sending it to developing countries such as the actions of the hypocritical Europeans where it is washed into the sea, to plant forests wisely such as China. To incentivize the use of gas instead of coal in developed countries (in Israel a bunch of lunatics are holding back the transition to gas energy in power plants instead of coal).
Noam - First, to understand the scope of the problem, I am attaching a link of someone who deals with this, you may have heard of him - his name is Bill Gates
https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/My-plan-for-fighting-climate-change
In practice, his only real recommendation right now is to invest in research and development.
It should be understood that companies that are transitioning from an agricultural company to an industrial company need cheap and continuous electricity available, it is true that only fossil power plants are capable of providing such energy. The "conscientious" can endlessly participate in conferences around the world, preach to others endlessly (and of course travel in polluting jet planes), nothing will stop this trend. Another thing, the German government (and now also Spain) reached a few decades ago the (stupid) decision to invest in renewable energy instead of nuclear energy as is happening in France, and the result is of course after trillions of dollars of investment in the amount of FDF (and this is because renewable energy requires 24-hour backup of stations Power of Fossils) To this day, even though I present this argument to many people, I have not seen data that shows otherwise, (and only data! Attacking the speaker is a sub-intellectual level). That's why the recommendation right now is to invest in research and development, invest in atomic energy where possible (in Japan and Safed, it's really not worth building a nuclear reactor), encourage the construction of high-quality filters in fossil power plants, paint Arianek white to moderate the warming. Try with the help of campaigns to reduce the consumption of animal food. , to bury plastic in the ground instead of sending it to developing countries such as the actions of the hypocritical Europeans where it is washed into the sea, to plant forests wisely such as China. To incentivize the use of gas instead of coal in developed countries (in Israel a bunch of lunatics are holding back the transition to gas energy in power plants instead of coal).
Hello Assaf,
Although a small comment, but important.
When you call *Homo-Sapiens* in the title "homo" - it is very incomprehensible, it almost prevented me from reading, and prevents me from sending the article to others, who will reduce its importance, or not understand. It requires decoding, and even then it is too cumbersome..
Note that.
Uri - apart from the carbon emission agreements, I have not heard of any proposal for other incentives to date.
What will pay off for the Eastern and African countries are cheaper technologies.
Could you briefly elaborate on incentives that might be of interest to them?
I'm starting to get tired of expressing my opinion on the various carbon agreements and explaining the incentive system that currently motivates about half of the planet's inhabitants (China, India, and in the near future Africa will build masses of polluting fossil fuel plants, and the whole narcissistic discourse of Western Europe and California practically becomes an unimportant footnote)
Therefore, I suggest to the scientists and their representatives who write in their science - before publishing the usual nonsense, please contact the faculties of economics, there are quite a few people there who have specialized in understanding the incentive systems that motivate people and how they can be directed. Is interdisciplinary collaboration acceptable to you?