Empiricism

There are people that even when you refer to the evidence that shows how to live an ecologically sustainable lifestyle, they ignore that evidence & say, to paraphrase, "we're screwed!".

Their personal idealogy does not align with living (a personal conflict of interest)

A person hears that burning fuel is harmful for people & planet. But, they choose to take part in recreational fuel burning activities, what are they?

4 people · Jun 21, 2023, 20:15
1
Empiricism

"want" is how we make a reality. More people have to truly want to mitigate climate change. More than they want, for example, to drive cars with combustion engines or electric motors, or to want to fly on jets or eat red meat.

Some people, so many people, believe they're honestly wanting to mitigate climate change (a story they tell themselves). But, many people don't change their own lifestyles so as to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., they don't quit eating red meat or flying on jets). Perhaps they're assuming that someone else will mitigate climate change (e.g., the politicians & industries) or that some future technology will mean they can simply, for example, buy an electric car and everything will be fine.

Some people, so many people, are not honestly wanting to mitigate climate change. But they tell other people a different story. In other words, climate virtue signaling is a very common form of social greenwashing. Maybe they think sincere people are stupid. Like we can't see that their words don't align with their behaviors (activities).

Who is going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if most people don't try to reduce their activities that are causing greenhouse gas emissions?

Sincere people that want to mitigate ecological degradation therefore climate change will want to live an ecologically low-impact lifestyle qoto.org/@Empiricism_Reloaded/

"want" is how we make a reality.

It's not ethical to wait until more people want to mitigate climate change. Therefore, we must nurture that want. And mitigate the merchants of doubt that try to make people feel that mitigating climate change is difficult or hard.

It's evidently not hard to develop political policies that promote a more self-sufficient, low ecological impact lifestyle within a more local economic context. qoto.org/@Empiricism_Reloaded/

The don't want people - make it hard because they promote & hang onto unsustainable ways of life

doesn't care about their BS!

1
Empiricism

I'm looking to join a that's managed by a not-for-profit environmental organisation.

The instance must also have the option to write more than 500 characters.

0
Empiricism

The Dangerous Ideas of “Longtermism” and “Existential Risk”

Despite being disproportionately responsible for the climate catastrophe, the super-rich will be the least affected by it........Astoundingly, Reid Hoffman, the multi-billionaire who cofounded LinkedIn, reports that “more than 50 percent of Silicon Valley’s billionaires have bought some level of ‘apocalypse insurance,’ such as an underground bunker. currentaffairs.org/2021/07/the

1
Empiricism

Climate change mitigation and climate change adaptation. The less civilization does of the former (e.g., reducing Greenhouse gas emissions), the more civilization will be forced to try and do the latter (e.g., deal with the consequences)


0
Empiricism

is being caused by human activities such as mining & burning fuels. Therefore, it's nonsense for people to think that the solution to mitigate change is to do more of the problem.

For example, the crazy idea of building machines to "suck" or "capture" CO2 out of the atmosphere will require more resources (mining) & power to construct & power the crazy CO2 sucking machines.

The "solutions" can't be doing more of the business as usual problems.
resilience.org/crazy-town-podc

1
Empiricism

In contrast to the corporate narratives "the ecovillage movement proposes a feasible whole system design toward sustainable ways of living.... Therefore, grassroots initiatives are increasingly receiving attention from the international scientific community, although they are still being neglected by public policies..." doi.org/10.1007/s44168-022-000

How to grow a network for sustainable communities qoto.org/@Empiricism_Reloaded/

The right time to act to mitigate was decades ago. However, there is always time to make a better choice.

0
Empiricism

Rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic (& painting the Titanic green)

Generally, people think about what they want & need (proximate )

want to sustain their political popularity.

Rich people want to sustain their lifestyles more

Corporations (Businesses \ industries) want to sustain their business.

When in the history of , has an industry intentionally tried to go out of ?

The following quote is part revealing the truth (the business-as-usual agenda) and part (possibly ). To quote (aviation) "Because it’s new technologies and bringing proven solutions to scale that will deliver the emissions reductions we need, and protect the future of travel in the process,” Andrew Parker, Chief Sustainability Officer, Qantas Group.

How nice sounding, new "technologies" and "proven" "solutions" to "scale". Sounds like business-as-usual simply wants to protect it's ass(sets) and sell more stuff!

How about some fancy air respirators since are becoming as common as ignorant or misinformed salespeople?

What about clothing with an inbuilt refrigerator so the poor can try not to die during severe and prolonged heat waves?

Or perhaps the housing estates that are being built on floodplains can have lifeboats retrofitted?

The list of ways to make more money is endless. Well, at least until climate change causes the world economy to collapse. The idea of indefinite "growth" isn't only flawed thinking, it's really quite stupid (or is it simply a sales pitch?)

Evidently, the business-as-usual agenda is to continue to be in business. No industries openly ask, to paraphrase "Is it actually possible for our core business to be sustainable?" sustainabilitymag.com/articles (maybe they have a problem with being honest in public)

Seriously, they NEVER ask the important question! Can the business ever be sustainable? Of course, they're business people promoting their personal agendas (not considering all the variables, the evidence, the nature-based solutions).

The Qantas " " officer simply assumes that aviation is a must-have. As do many consumers. Of course, they do because that's simply what they want to believe - and that's why many industries are failing to be ecologically sustainable. Because they're not (period).

BusinessAsUsual caused

& saving

0
Empiricism

The effects of climate change will only get worse. "Better" is a time in the distant future when either:

1. Humans have made the right choices (e.g., Stopped burning carbon-based fuels)

Or

2. The effects of climate change have reduced human activities.

Though, in general, points 1 & 2 are the future. Severe weather has a way of shifting people's immediate priorities. Bearing in mind that in a global economy, severe weather will affect food distribution.

Top 10: Causes Of Global Warming 2023 sustainabilitymag.com/top10/to

0
Empiricism

They think they're cool (clever) but they're behaving like fools.

The difference between understanding evolutionary biology at some level or another, and not, is that informed people can understand the drivers or motivations that make animals do what they do (including humans. At some level).

An evident motivator that everyone will be aware of is hunger. Hunger is a negative behavioral motivator. Whilst many people in wealthy countries will not have experienced real hunger, at extreme levels hunger will dominate the animal's mind (as would thirst). The animal would be "obsessed" with trying to find food (I acknowledge the anthropomorphization of "obsessed". However, a feeling of angst that focuses the animal's attention on finding food). Basically, the feelings associated with hunger are adaptations. If an animal was born that did not feel hunger, it would die - it would not pass on that behavior to the next generation (Although, if that animal was a human, a baby, carers could make sure that the youngster eat enough food).

Humans are no exception (though some delude themselves otherwise. A form of narcissism or ego), humans are also driven by feelings (emotions or instincts). For example, many humans take part in relatively foolishly dangerous behaviors because they are "showing off". Whilst any human can "show off", (many) men tend to dominate in the showing off by taking part in stupidly reckless activities department. Showing off is status-seeking behavior. For example, showing off resources such as expensive sports cars. Showing off by, in their minds, showing off their driving skills by driving cars fast or riding motorbikes fast. If the car or motorbike has a relatively loud engine, well, that's another way to show their status (perhaps they perceive that some people look at them because they're cool - rather than thinking they're simply noisy irritating fools).

So, what they don't realize is that they're actually acting like fools. They think they're cool but they're behaving like fools. Fundamentally, they're being idiots. Their dangerous driving is risking the safety of other people for no reason - other than to show off (an instinct - which is now a maladaptation). Of course, many adult males, as they mature, may come to realize that their risk-taking behaviors are simply not worth it. However, that realization (learning or maturity) takes a level of intelligence. Some adult males never grow up (they just look older).

Risk-taking behaviors are particularly dangerous when, for example, many adults are voting in a democracy. For example, they may ignore the medical advice about wearing face masks during a pandemic or the scientific warnings about climate change. Apparently, face masks aren't macho enough!

So, how do we mitigate the fools thinking their cool social psychological phenomenon? We try to educate more people about evolutionary psychology so that they recognize stupid when they see it.

Evolutionary Psychology - The New Science of the Mind doi.org/10.4324/9780429061417

0
Empiricism

Burning away their future.

I've spent over a decade thinking about, studying, and speaking out against human-caused ecological negligence. That negligence takes multitudes of forms. For example, local people burn biomass such as farmers burning piles of tree branches on their land or neighbors burning piles of plants in their gardens (colloquial terms such as "bonfires", "campfires", "BBQs", etc). For the relatively ignorant and small-minded, these localized air-polluting activities may not seem like a big deal. However, humans taking part in activities that emit air pollution causes both diseases (proximate) and will ultimately cause human societies to collapse (eventually) due to the effect of climate heating (caveat. If humans don't change their air polluting behaviors - and stop doing them).

During my time of environmental activism, I've had many different ideologies of my own. I used to be more naive and believed that people only need to be informed about how air pollution causes disease and climate change. However, to inform someone about the harm caused by, for example, inhaling smoke pollution, that someone must:

1. Have the background knowledge to understand what you're talking about (e.g., chemistry, biology).

2. Care.

Or

3. Care and trust what you are saying (trust the source of information. e.g., a Doctor or scientist can be a less or more trusted source of information).

Unfortunately, many people don't have the required background knowledge (e.g., scientifically illiterate) and trust the wrong sources of information such as the adverts from the businesses that are selling fuels and their associated politicians - also known as or phrasing it simply, lying so as to make a profit (fraud \ corruption)

However, when speaking out against air pollution I did use to think that the response I received from people was because, in general, humanity didn't care. However, I came to realize that that idea didn't make sense (in general).

To explain why that didn't make sense I will briefly describe what air pollution is and its effects on humans and the environment. (generally) Air pollution is caused by burning the element carbon. All living organisms (Plants, Animals, Fungi, Bacteria, Viruses, etc) are carbon-based lifeforms (including humans). When carbon is burnt that chemical activity emits gasses (e.g., carbon dioxide) and carbon particles (e.g., smoke) into the air (atmosphere, generally). Whilst there are other chemicals involved during the burning process, the majority of harm is caused when humans inhale carbon particles. Once a human has inhaled, for example, smoke or traffic pollution, the carbon particles travel into the lungs and from there into the bloodstream. In a dense form, carbon particles can be seen with the unaided eye, for example, smoke, when more dispersed carbon particles can't be seen (unless viewed through a microscope. Hence the term, microscopic particles).

Once in the body, carbon particles cause damage to humans. It's a long list of diseases, however, an example of a few: cancer, asthma, dementia (i.e., brain damage), and heart attacks, strokes (cardiovascular diseases in general).

For a general overview of the medical evidence of the effects of wood smoke inhalation see the Doctors and Scientists against woodsmoke pollution website dsawsp.org/

Finding scientific evidence about how deadly is air pollution isn't difficult, but, folk generally aren't that interested in that evidence (it's not a cute cat picture or sports cars). sciencedirect.com/search?qs=ai

So, as mentioned, I once thought that the reason why, for example, people didn't respond as expected when I stated the fact that, for example, air pollution causes childhood disease or climate change, was because humans, in general, didn't care.

However, people do of course care about their own health. Therefore, something else is going on. What is the underlying psychology that makes people thoughtlessly ignore the (not pleasant) information that would improve their own health outcomes? Nobody wants cancer, asthma, heart disease, or dementia.

Air pollution causes dementia pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=

Generally, what's going on is humans' fear, ignorance and denial are causing people to not learn how air pollution affects their health or the climate.

So, many people are thoughtless (ill-informed) regarding how the effects of how their own air-polluting activities are harming their own health and causing climate heating. Whilst there are many examples of this ecological thoughtless negligence, a trip to, for example, many campsites will prove my point. There you will see many adults choosing to sit around campfires or BBQs, oblivious to the fact what they are doing is harming themselves by inhaling wood smoke pollution (although, having fun whilst doing it).

Humans have been burning wood for hundreds of thousands of years (if not longer). Evidently, many humans enjoy doing it. They enjoy the fire, the smell, the experience. However, besides air pollution causing human disease, air pollution also damages the environment. From acid rain to climate change, humans are burning away their future.

A general solution qoto.org/@Empiricism_Reloaded/

However, if humanity was choosing and focusing on the general solutions climate change would have been mitigated.

0
Empiricism

Title – One Planet

The essay will describe how a population of people (society) can develop a society that is relatively sustainable (e.g., virtually zero Greenhouse Gas emissions). To be clear, this essay is not stating that humans will want to transition toward a sustainable society. In other words, for various personal reasons (psychology. e.g., political & economic ideologies), people may not want to live in a sustainable society. Or for various political reasons, they may not be able to. However, this essay is stating that populations of people can live sustainably (should they want to & the political context permitted them to).

Generally, for human societies to transition towards a sustainability culture (e.g., lifestyles), people, in general, will have to vastly reduce the amount of resources and power they're consuming. The Our World in data website - Per capita greenhouse gas emissions: how much does the average person emit?" provides an indication of how the amount of resources and power that people consume is not evenly distributed (generally, wealthy people consume more resources and power, for example, more consumerism - therefore cause more Greenhouse Gas Emissions) ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-

A sustainable society must fundamentally not pollute its environment at levels that are unsustainable. A sustainable society must not be dependent on finite resources. For example, “fossil” fuels (that are not technically fossils) have a limited supply. Metal has a limited supply, there is only so much metal that can be mined. There is a limited supply of "fossil" fuels that can be extracted. Extracting fossil fuels or mining for metals causes ecological degradation (& also burns fossil fuels, therefore causing greenhouse gas emissions, to extract, process, and transport the fuels and metals)

Cities have been constructed and powered using the energy derived from burning fossil fuels and mining for resources in general. A time is approaching when the amount of fossil fuels available will start to decline (e.g. when peak oil is reached) and when climate change causes many lands to be inhabitable (e.g., frequent heatwaves, droughts, forest fires, floods, sea level rise, etc). Scientists have been warning for decades that burning fossil fuels is causing the atmosphere to warm, which in turn is causing climate change.

Generally, sustainability means humans collectively must not be degrading (damaging) the ecology of their environments (or more broadly the planet's biosphere).

Unfortunately, human societies are collectively severely damaging ecology. For example, destroying or degrading natural habits due to mining for resources such as metal or crude oil. Crude oil is then separated (distilled) into materials (fractions) such as diesel, gasoline, kerosene, gases, etc. These materials are then used as fuels that when incinerated pollute the air (atmosphere, more generally)

However, humans could choose to live a relatively sustainable way of life.

To quote The One Planet Council "The One Planet Council provides a bridge between applicants and local planning authorities, with guidance and tools to support anyone making the transition to this more sustainable way of life. oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/

"More sustainable way of life" is a slightly misleading phrase because most people in developed countries presently, and temporarily, live an extremely unsustainable way of life (hence the requirement for a massive change toward sustainable development).

There are methods to live sustainably. However, these methods need to generally replace the unsustainable resources and power demands of unsustainable lifestyles (societies) if they're to be effectively sustainable. The following information explains by referencing practical, relatively easy-to-follow and do guidance, on how to grow food sustainably whilst also restoring ecology (e.g., wildlife). A practical and easily implementable, win-win solution that's based on the science of AgroEcology (not that evidence-based reasoning will prevent the unreasonable from arguing against reason). The following information also explains by referencing practical, relatively easy-to-follow and do guidance, on how to use resources and generate power relatively sustainably (not that reason will prevent the unreasonable from arguing against reason). That generally means reducing how much resources and power societies use. In other words, focusing on resource and power efficiency. The present dominant economy wastes huge amounts of resources and power-producing products that nobody actually needs (that people could live comfortably without)

Before this essay references the general solutions to sustain a form of human society (a sustainable culture), this essay will acknowledge the institutional practices that are making it appear impractical, and difficult, to mitigate climate change.

There are many well-intended people in & that are thinking about ways to try & mitigate (greenwashes aside as their dangerously useless). People's personal circumstances, e.g., managing a company, can make the challenges of mitigating their business's climate impacts overwhelming (& impractical). Cooperation is the right approach (we are all in this together) to mitigate ecological degradation. Competition is the wrong approach.

More generally, operationally, there are two approaches to mitigate climate change, the top-down approach (e.g., government or management) or the bottom-up approach (e.g., local communities). Ideally, both approaches would be symbiotically in unison (But, human psychology...so)

People are in different circumstances. However, there is an increasing number of people that, IF the policies were in place, would have a huge positive impact on mitigating ecological degradation, therefore, lessening the impacts of climate change. To quote the One Planet Development Council (OPDC) "This forward-thinking planning policy provides a genuinely affordable and sustainable way for people to live and work on their own land, bringing social, economic, and environmental benefits" (see reference section. 1.)

That OPDC statement is somewhat misinformation - land isn't affordable for many people (however, I digress & that's a political problem).

However, to reiterate and rephrase so as to be more accurate "The One Planet Council provides a bridge between applicants and local planning authorities, with guidance and tools to support anyone making the transition to a sustainable way of life. oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/

Well-intended policymakers that want to mitigate ecological degradation therefore climate change will do well to develop policies that enable people (that want to) to grow food sustainably whilst also restoring nature (win-win). Generally, One Planet Development Policies need to be vastly scaled up. As the effects of climate change become more severe, we will need more people that are living in ways that grow food locally, increase biodiversity, and generally live a low-impact lifestyle (that's in everyone's interest).

Therefore, I urge policymakers, or social influencers in general, that are not confined by the business-as-usual paradigm (paradox), to review the One Planet Development Policy (OPDP) & cooperate with one another to mitigate climate change. For example, of an urgently required revision to the OPDP - according to the medical (e.g., epidemiology) and (i.e., climate science) evidence, burning biomass (e.g., wood fuel or biofuel) is not sustainable, therefore renewable, source of energy (when scaled up). Furthermore, prolonged exposure to wood smoke inhalation (e.g., over the years) increases the probability of developing diseases (which negatively impacts health and work-related costs. i.e., more resources and power for the health system). Furthermore, wood smoke, or tobacco smoke inhalation is harmful to the fetus during pregnancy (i.e., wood smoke is pollution. See reference section. 2.) Therefore, the OPDP should be revised to consider clean air and relatively low-energy methods of heating water such as heat pumps (making use of thermal heat energy within a relatively low electrical energy system).

The OPDP should also be revised to meet the requirements of the ecological landscape of any area. For example, the types of foods (predominantly plants & fungi as ruminants such as sheep & cows emit methane) that can be grown in a region. Also, the time scales involved to improve the soil condition (fertility) will vary. Many areas of land have soils that have been severely damaged by industrial forms of farming (e.g., overgrazing, insecticide [poisons], and mechanized machinery such as tractors that decrease soil fertility. See reference section. 3.)

Business As Usual (BAU) is a climate paradox (that's why it seems difficult (BAU is fundamentally human-as-usual psychology). BAU has been full of “what about?” excuses (people) that have caused the outcome that the window of opportunity to mitigate severe climate change is closing fast. Many ecological landscapes are generally in extremely poorly managed conditions. Many people are still burning carbon-based fuels (this form of society simply can not be sustained)

In summary, One Planet Development – Just do it already! The One Planet Development approach will also buy time for relatively large businesses and society, in general, to adapt.

To reiterate, this essay has not stated that humans will want to or be able to (due to business-as-usual politics) transition toward a sustainable society. The essay has referenced the practical guidance that humans can live in a relatively sustainable society. I have made this distinction explicit because the agents that are inferring that transitioning towards a sustainable society is difficult are greenwashing (i.e., for their own personal reasons they don't want to live in a sustainable society. e.g., monetary & lifestyle agendas)

Website References that include multitudes of interdisciplinary science and or further reading.

1. One Planet Development Policy oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/

2. Doctors and Scientists against wood smoke pollution. dsawsp.org/environment/climate

3. The Soil Association. soilassociation.org/

0
Empiricism

It's interesting juxtaposing the following podcasts that are generally about the same subject of , therefore, mitigating

The Optimist podcast generally discusses the subjects within a free-market neoliberal paradigm. For example, Going Green or Greenwashing? climateoptimists.co/episodes/g

Whilst the Crazy Town Podcast generally infers that the neoliberalist free market economy is part of the core business as a usual problem (therefore won't mitigate climate change). For example, Tech Bros on Acid with Douglas Rushkoff resilience.org/stories/2022-11

The Climate Optimists Podcast generally advocates that businesses should be encouraged to, for example, put more accurate "green" information on the product labels and hope that the consumers make the right choices. Whilst the Crazy Town podcast generally advocates that is the solution & we can't trust the neoliberal "free" market to not spread .

The Crazy Town doesn't put a positive spin on the challenge to mitigate climate change. It does suggest solutions, though those solutions are not generally the same as the neoliberal consumerist solutions suggested by the Positive Climate podcast. For example, you won't hear the Crazy Town podcast hosts advocating that everyone should buy electric cars. Whilst the Climate Optimist Podcast hosts generally promote electrifying everything and they didn't explicitly state how that conflicts with sustainable development - the mining companies are planning on extracting minerals from the ocean floor (Degrading pristine wildlife habitat. Well, "pristine" besides the plastic particle pollution). theguardian.com/environment/20

The Climate Optimist Podcast is promoting more of a business-as-usual-light option (neoliberal consumerism). Having said that, the Climate Optimist podcast has some effective ideas regarding how to mitigate the issues related to climate apathy in politics (e.g., especially the party).

This will happen! (the future) - However, as the effects of climate change inevitably negatively impact more USA voters, you will start to hear a very different narrative from the Republican party (i.e., they will change their narratives to address their core voter's concerns about climate change).

The time of climate apathy will be over when climate change is negatively effecting all people's lives (in a global economy. e.g., food prices \ supplies)

0
Empiricism

What are "tipping points"?

Climate tipping points are termed positive feedback loops or positive reinforcers.

Basically, Increasing the "X" variable increases the "Y" variable.

For example, (X) is increasing the risk of (Y) scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?a

Wildfires are fundamentally Carbon being burnt (Carbon Based lifeforms. e.g., plants and animals) which releases carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which in turn trap heat into the atmosphere.

Human activities are burning carbon-based fuels ("Fossil" fuels & Biomass [e.g., wood fuel]), which release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which in turn trap heat into the atmosphere, which in turn cause more wildfires, which release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which in turn trap heat into the atmosphere - that's a positive reinforcer (although not "positive" within the colloquial [common] use of the word)

Wildfires are only one of many known positive climate heating reinforcers (there may also be some unknown reinforcers). Another climate reinforcer is how climate heating is causing the melting of permafrost. Permafrost is any ground that remains completely frozen—32°F (0°C) or colder—for at least two years straight. Permafrost covers large regions of the Earth. Areas closer to the North or South pole have regions of permafrost that have been frozen for hundreds of thousands of years. livescience.com/planet-earth/a

Permafrost soils also contain large quantities of organic carbon. As Earth’s climate warms, the permafrost is thawing. This means that the organic carbon will decompose and release greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere - another positive climate heating reinforcer.

"State-of-the-art global models underestimate impacts from climate extremes" Nature. (2019). doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-087

Generally speaking, humans are not mitigating climate change, the effect of climate change is mitigating humans. However, whilst it's not impossible (it's an unknown unknown) that human greenhouse gas emitting activities could cause a climate heating runaway effect due to positive reinforcers, the general scientific literature (evidence), infers that the fewer greenhouse gases humans emit, the fewer ecological limiting factors will curtail humans.

Mitigating the existential threat of human-caused climate change is a precautionary approach. However, the data on greenhouse gas emissions clearly shows that industries are not taking the precautionary approach. ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-

Of course, industries supply the fuels, the machinery, etc, that enable people to take part in activities that burn fuels, etc. Many industries are evidently aiming to continue to burn fuels as are many consumers. Many businesses are aiming to continue to farm ruminants (e.g., sheep & cows that emit relatively high amounts of methane)

What is going to limit people from burning carbon-based fuels? (emitting greenhouse gases). The decisions of industries, politicians, and consumers? Well, that has not been the trend.

Generally, in wealthy countries, the effects of climate change, which are causing more localized severe weather such as heatwaves or flash floods, are causing politicians and industries to respond in ways that advocate activities that emit more greenhouse gases (more fossil fuels being burnt) into the atmosphere. For example, constructing more flood defenses. Repairing the damaged infrastructure caused by severe heatwaves such as repairing roads. This is another example of positive climate heating reinforcers. Generally, industries are leading the way (rather than focusing on nature-based solutions such as reforestation <<< that go against the farming industries' business models)

Whilst the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are a predictor of climate heating (there is a time lag), so is human behavioral psychology. In other words, habits (repetitive activities), politics, business decisions, lifestyles, and activities in general.

In many contexts, even when adults are informed that their fuel-burning activities are causing the climate to change in harmful ways, many adults don't even try to reduce their fuel-burning activities. When they're informed that eating meat is a leading cause of climate change, they generally ignore this information.

This blog post generally considers the psychology of those that are evidently not trying to reduce their fuel-burning activities (quite the opposite). empiricalperspective.home.blog

0
Empiricism

The graph shows that greenhouse gas emissions are rising (a trend). This trend also infers the general trends of human behaviors.

Therefore, it's rational to forecast that humanity, or business, politics, and lifestyles as usual, will not mitigate climate change (in general).

As mitigates humanity, and more positive reinforcers come into effect, how long will mono-industrial consumerist societies be able to function?

During this period (present & future) of escalating climate change-related disruption, what forms of culture will emerge?

0
Empiricism

Greetings! I recently moved instance so here is a new

On Social media, I go under the pseudonym of “Empiricism”.

Empiricism aims (intention or agenda) are to promote (“toot”, “boost”, etc) accurate based information. The general theme of this account is related to promoting development. development requires mitigating ecological degradation therefore also (e.g., reducing greenhouse gas emissions).

This account will not “sugar-coat” the challenges that humanity will have to overcome if climate change is to be mitigated. For example, the general trend (historic, present & future) is that humanity is not mitigating change (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions are rising), therefore, climate change is mitigating humanity (e.g., increases in the frequency & intensity of flooding, droughts, etc.)

Since no one can be informed of all the scientific literature, if a reader thinks that Empiricism makes a statement that is not backed up by the general scientific literature, please refer Empiricism to the relevant peer-reviewed science publication (e.g., paper or website)

Here is the link to the Empiricism digital signature empiricalperspective.home.blog

mitigation

0
Empiricism

Generally, many people want to sing kumbaya around a campfire whilst deluding themselves that the campfire's smoke emissions aren't toxic.

However, for those that are aware that the is now inevitable (it is already happening - depending on location), The Post Carbon Institutes Crazy Town podcast is a more sane analysis of all things climate-related

Crazy Town: Episode 75. How to Lose Friends and Demoralize People: The (sic!) of Near-Term resilience.org/stories/2023-05.

The photograph is of some crazy-looking clever guy called Einstein, who apparently said "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".

Of course, within the context of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, most people (of the world) aren't expecting different results - they're simply either being forced (e.g., gotta pay the rent) or choosing to take part in work and recreational activities that are emitting greenhouse gas emissions.

One thing is for sure, as usual is friggin crazy considering the consequences.

0
Empiricism

Incompetence as usual.

The data - atmospheric are rising ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-

The evidence - Industries and the people they sell products to are burning huge amounts of carbon-based fuels (e.g., diesel, petrol, gas, wood, etc). Their profit incentive is to sell their core products - not mitigate climate change. Consumers' incentives are to buy more products. Business incentives are to use greenwash to promote their products.

The corruption - The climate conferences are a sell-out

"The Cop28 president, Sultan Al Jaber, has been accused of attempting to “greenwash” his image after it emerged that members of his team had edited Wikipedia pages that highlighted his role as CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (Adnoc)." theguardian.com/environment/20

The people - generally, live from day to day (not considering the long effects of their actions. e..g, the products they're consuming & using). Effectively, they are controlled by the corporate agenda.

The outcome, the future, is evident!

0
Empiricism

Hi activists (only the genuine ones)

My account at Climate "Justice" social was suspended (deleted) with zero due processes (no warning nor written reason was given. How ironic. "Justice"?)

Though this essay mentions probably why. qoto.org/@Empiricism_Reloaded/

With no admin accountability, we can only guess what goes on behind the scenes. So, users should feel right at home on ;-)

If you were following me at empiricism@climatejustice.social or @empiricism and would like to re-follow. This is the Empiricism_Reloaded@qoto.org account.

0
Empiricism

Hi,

My account was suspended (effectively deleted) on climatejustice.social without warning nor was a written reason provided.

I was following you with the previous account. I generally follow people that regularly post about .

So, if you'd like to re-follow me this is my new "reloaded" account on Qoto :)

Have a good day, evening, etc.

1

climate

45

psychology

31

sustainability

31

climatechange

20

science

19

degrowth

13
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.

Trending now

Resources

Developers

What is Mastodon?

qoto.org

More…

v3.5.19-qoto · Privacy policy