Empiricism

When people such as don't want the based solutions to mitigate change because they're more interested in selling and using

Or when a politician doesn't believe in climate change or hasn't got a clue how to mitigate climate change or is another deceitful business person.

Or when people on social media actually seem to believe that buying an electric car is doing their "bit" for the climate.

It's time to consider people's

Not specifically "crazy", but what are they not thinking about and what is their morality?

1+
Empiricism

Some unethical people will find this offensive 

Seriously, in the context of folk psychology & the environment they live in - the "lights" are on but nobody is "home"!

How can you educate (unethical) idiots without offending them?

3 people · Jun 21, 2023, 20:41
1
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

How to reinterpret emotions, pain, pleasure, etc.

Have you noticed that when you feel thirsty, drinking water instantly quenches your thirst. But, physiologically, it will take a while for that water to be absorbed into your bloodstream.

What's going on?

Making Sense with Sam Harris: #322 — Predicting Reality

Episode webpage: wakingup.libsyn.com/322-predic

Media file: traffic.libsyn.com/secure/waki

FYI, please contact Sam & ask him to talk about ecological as he's unusually quite about that subject

0
Empiricism

Walking the right path towards a sustainable culture.

Over the last ten years or so, since the information that human activities are changing the climate went more mainstream, I've noticed virtually no sign that the people I see locally are doing anything to change their activities.

The local farmers: continue to burn piles of wood on their land (CO2 emissions). The local sheep farmers continue to transport sheep using diesel vehicles (CO2 emissions). The local landscape continues to be in a deforested and sheep-wrecked ecological condition (legacy CO2 emissions. Present & future CH₄ [methane] emission). The local farmers continue to be offended if their sheep farming lifestyles are called into question (i.e., they're not changing for anyone or anything).

The people I observe locally continue to drive combustion engine vehicles (CO2 emissions). The tourists continue to pull their caravans or drive the, often increasing in size, campervans (CO2 emissions). And of course, the fossil fuel industries continue to extract and sell more fossil fuels. The logging industries continue to sell wood fuel for power stations or people's wood stoves. The national government continues to try and open a new coal mine locally. The local people continue to have coal, gas, or kerosene delivered by diesel trucks to their homes.

Generally, only over the last 10 years since environmental protestors made the mainstream pay attention to the science of climate change, nothing has generally changed locally that would mitigate climate change. The general businesses want to continue as usual, the average consumer wants to continue as usual.

What also has not changed over the previous ten years is that greenhouse gas emissions keep on rising ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-

However, there have been some noticeable changes locally over the previous ten years. There have been more frequent floods from autumn to winter and longer drier periods during summer.

I can't speak for the world. However, it's self-evident what the future is going to be for the people in my local community (they're not mitigating climate change. They're not adapting to be more climate resilient). Eventually, climate change is going to regulate their lifestyles in the most severe way. Of course, if the world (human population in general) acted to mitigate climate change (reduce their greenhouse gas emissions & restore their local ecosystems. i.e., natural habitats), my local communities' climate inaction, apathy, and virtue signaling wouldn't be so much of a problem. But, the world isn't mitigating climate change. Climate change is mitigating the world.

There is an ecologically and economically viable solution to living a low-impact lifestyle qoto.org/@Empiricism_Reloaded/

However, a sustainable lifestyle requires a change of lifestyle (for the majority). And as with all animals, (most) humans behave as if they're creatures of habit (& belief).

The path to ecological sustainability is walking the path (not only talking about it & or not only protesting about it).

0
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

Online folk lies & BS in general.

Some, not so smart folk, lie on social media (who knew) as they do offline. Even too themselves

Without going into detail why they do this, here is an effective psychological heuristic to mitigate online folk BS (context ). Give all online folk the benefit of our doubts. Take them at their word (face value). If their words are scientifically BS, so be it.

If their "wit" is actually unethical grandstanding, so be it.

1
Empiricism

What is race?, not - what is race?

Some folk would call me "white" (presently, my skin tone is more of a lighter shade of brown as it's been summer in the UK)

However, my ancestors that lived in Africa had a natural darker skin tone than me (e.g., a more darker shade of brown). But, my ancestors then migrated north.

If it wasn't for racists, & if l had the choice, l'd choose to be "black" (a darker skin tone protects my skin better from solar radiation).

What is race?

0
Empiricism

Whilst folk argue & greenwash about climate change, or simply try to ignore the subject all together, they have missed the entire point of the debate.

There is a general solution! that sustains the important aspects of a modern way of life

Start promoting with the aim of living the solution.

It's enough to make someone think that many people prefer climate virtue signalling on social media. Talking the talk, though are not quite as enthusiastic when it comes to walking the walk.

janedavidson.wales/book

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

Can we trust the media? The written and spoken language \ information on the internet, TV, Radio, or newspapers?

Trust and understanding are not the same qualities. Some people have learned (understand) how to perform heart surgery and some people trust that some people understand how to perform heart surgery. Generally, we can demarcate the media into social information (e.g., general news & politics) and empirical evidence (science). Empirical evidence is scientific information based on experimental data. For example, anyone can (eventually) develop a basic scientific experiment such as measuring the temperature at 12 am every day of the week & calculating the average temperature for that week (at 12 am). In that context, they'd follow a method that would mean they were personally confident of the results of the experiment (if they understood the right methods to use and the accuracy of the instruments. e.g., a calibrated thermometer). I described that example of a basic experiment as a basis to show how science (experiments) is the most accurate (reliable) method to collect real-world data.

However, there are people that are not interested in science and or don’t want other people to be informed of the science. On social media, many problems occur because there are less or more trustworthy intermediaries (agents) between that scientific information and the general audience (the population of people). So, even if a person was sincere and wanted to be informed of that data (science), a biased agent may try to misinform people about the science - as often happens with climate science because there is a lot of money, business interests, and lifestyle bias, associated with ecological degradation (i.e., corruption & biased personal agendas in general). Or laypeople may misconstrue the science they read and pass on misinformation (unintentionally).

I'd advise sincere people to go directly to the source of the science. That being the scientific publications (The abstracts provide a general overview). Or an established scientific organization's website. Science journalism may also be a credible source of information (if the articles are well-referenced with scientific publications). Be cautious of sciencey-sounding social media that does not reference scientific publications.

Science Journals peer review and publish scientists' research. Browse, search, and explore journals indexed in the Web of Science mjl.clarivate.com/home

Be cautious of science-sounding posts or toots on Twitter, Mastodon, Facebook, YouTube, etc. Especially in the context of ecological sustainability (e.g., “climate”, “ecology”), there are many social media posts from people that write science-sounding narratives. Many of these people will believe in their own sciencey-sounding rhetoric. The folk rhetoric tends to be caused by a mix of cherry-picked science (confirmation bias), personal beliefs, & biased agendas caused by a lifestyle preference (e.g., work and money-related personal biases that cause confirmation bias). Folk “science” or pseudoscience is a ratio of science journalism, wishful thinking, denial, thoughtlessness, virtue signaling, and more explicit forms of dishonesty (not including those that deny all science). Layperson bias or folk science is even more pronounced In the context of environmental sciences such as climate science. The environmental sciences' core message (consensus) is that many people, especially in technologically developed countries such as the USA (most greenhouse gases per capita), need to change their consumerism lifestyles (not a popular message). In other words, the general evidence infers that many people will have to change their lifestyles if we are to mitigate climate change (e.g., reduce greenhouse gases, etc.). On social media (i.e., the “mainstreams” social narratives) the signs are that the majority of people are, well, like the majority of countries, advocating an unsustainable lifestyle (their personal lifestyles).

How to develop a sustainable culture empiricalperspective.home.blog

The (published) evidence about climate change is the general scientific literature (the consensus). A random person's opinion or a post on social media is not a trusted source of information (they maybe trustworthy. But how do you know that? unless you know them personally). Not even a climatologist (a scientist who studies the climate) on social media should be a person's only source of trusted information about the climate. Scientists are people, and some people can be bought or adjust their views due to their own financial situation. The point is to be aware (informed) of the general scientific consensus on a subject such as climate change. And be aware that there are many people that don’t want that consensus to be generally known.

For nearly three decades, many of the world's largest fossil fuel companies have knowingly worked to deceive the public about the realities and risks of climate change. ucsusa.org/resources/climate-d

There are a few, but popular (influential), celebrity scientists or talk show hosts on Youtube that disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change. The fact that some people are believing in the opinions of individual scientists that are not even qualified in climatology just shows how people, in general, tend to believe what they want to believe. That's why many people "cherry" pick the science they like and disregard & or deny the science that they don't like (who likes the fact that human activities, for example, buying sports cars, fast fashion or the latest “must-have” technology, is damaging the planet's ecosystems, therefore, causing climate change?)

Besides science, the other source of information is generally social media (whilst science is also a social enterprise, however, fundamentally, science is the data). Social media such as news and political information. People's opinions, beliefs and views, etc., are a more or less accurate source of information. Social media news may be biased towards only reporting certain news and political agendas. However, having a broad (e.g., not only technology-related) scientific education helps in all walks of life. It's never too late to learn more science. I'd recommend that a person starts with the philosophy of science (i.e., the epistemology of science) alongside learning the subjects of science. A rudimentary understanding of chemistry, biology, ecology (life science), and physics can inoculate people against misinformation and help them make better personal choices (e.g., health-related choices). The only reason why people can be, for example, greenwashed, is because they haven't developed a sufficient understanding of the relevant science subjects and they trust those who are either misinformed themselves or out to disinform them (e.g., generally industries if the prevailing science doesn't align with their profit agendas. In the context of the environmental science, it rarely does).

The only substitute for knowledge is faith. Even in science, we have to have some faith that the paper we are reading has not been based on intentionally false data. However, as scientists we learn to cross-reference our understanding and base our understanding on multitudes of converging data sources (interdisciplinary research). For example, if I reference one scientific paper that's only because it references the general literature that I have already studied. One paper's new discovery should always be considered tentative evidence. In other words, scientists don't report a novel new discovery as a fact - if that fact is only based on one research paper. Though laypeople often do. (And possibly some naive scientists). The general scientific consensus is the most reliable source of information. Of course, new discoveries are made (science updates), however, the point is that established science is and always will be based on the consensus. For example, Darwin and Wallace independently developed a hypothesis termed evolution. At that time (1800's) evolution was a novel discovery. Now, evolution is the general scientific consensus. It would be odd for a biologist to not accept the theory of evolution as all the evidence indicates that evolution is how life evolved (But, as mentioned, the odd scientists can be bought. i.e., charlatans (go rogue) or believe in their own misunderstandings.

We could also take the same cross reference of information sources approach regarding our news feeds. Don't rely on only one source of information (e.g., one News provider). Depending on the country that could be more of a problem (e.g., state-owned media is by definition a biased and restricted source of information). That's the other important point, who owns and controls the media? (a free press is fundamental for a healthy democracy). People that only watch Fox News (USA) or only read the DailyMail (UK) are not the most informed people (to understate it). Recently, people began leaving because the new owner is explicitly using the social platform for his own business and (geo)political agenda (corporations tend to spread virtuous-sounding narratives so as to manage their social reputation). In this context, is more robust because it's connected to a less centralized network - so information can flow more freely as there isn't one corporation controlling what information is and is not regulated. Though the quality (reliability or usefulness) of information that is spread throughout the network is dependent on the people using it & the instance moderators.

As for a person's personality. A sincere person that is diligently trying to find out the facts - is what good scientists, investigative journalists, etc., are. An insincere person that is trying to spread misinformation (lies \ fraud) – is less of a useful individual (though could be very rich. e.g., a fossil fuel executive or shareholder)

1
Empiricism

Introduction (of a science paper)

Rarely does a research finding in Cognitive Psychology become part of the common parlance. The Dunning-Kruger effect (DK) is an exception (Dunning, Johnson, Ehrlinger, & Kruger, 2003; Kruger & Dunning, 1999). Named after the psychological scientists who discovered the phenomenon, the DK refers to the inverse relationship between one's actual aptitude and one's ability to accurately estimate said aptitude. In other words, while people generally exhibit some positive bias in assessing their own ability, this bias is heightened in those at the lower end of the distribution. It is thought that the second component of this “double curse” (Dunning et al., 2003) of inaccurate self-assessment, occurs due to a deficit in meta-cognition. This deficit in meta-cognition results in the failure to grasp what one knows and does not know.

Curtis S. Dunkel, Joseph Nedelec, Dimitri van der Linden,
Reevaluating the Dunning-Kruger effect: A response to and replication of Gignac and Zajenkowski (2020),
Intelligence,
Volume 96, 2023, 101717, ISSN 0160-2896,
doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2022.

1
Empiricism

Have you noticed that the people that overestimate their own intelligence in a subject often implicitly reveal, to the more informed, that their brand of pseudoscience is because they're missing the required level of humility?

That's why they don't ask more informed questions (lazy learners). They actually believe they're right most of the time (but, on social media, these folk rarely if ever reference scientific publications to back up their rhetoric - because they have not read the scientific publications. They read, at best, science journalism websites).

This online social behavior is actually the norm (average) within the context of laypeople's responses to posts where the scientific subjects of ecology (inc. Climate science) are the relevant context.

They really do believe, or at least promote (like a sales pitch) that buying stuff (products) is the main solution to mitigate change. Basically, because that is what they have been indoctrinated and want to believe in (nurtured).

Wanting to believe in something is the predictable way to most probably be incorrect. Denial followed by conformation bias is one of the most predictable forms of human responses (because humans are animals. And all animal's behavior has predictable patterns)

This is due to their unknown unknowns. A person's intelligence is generally related to experience For example, a person that has studied the scientific literature on has far more experience in that subject than a layperson (but an arrogant layperson can't handle that fact. Hence the self-denial).

You would not be surprised to hear how laypeople feign their level of knowledge of . They are fundamentally only fooling themselves.

Feigning intelligence on social media is relatively easier. Feigning knowledge is due to social status-seeking behaviors. The layperson (with a tone of arrogance. I.e., personality) feels like (emphasis on the emotional heuristic) they're being clever by generally making the narrative up as they go along, reading a little bit on the fly, for example, Wiki pages or social media forums, & very often really believing that the reason why they don't personally agree with the scientist is that the scientist is "stupid" (to use the layperson's words).

The Dunning-Kruger effect is real!

Imagining, after reading this, some arrogant laypeople will quickly read up the term on Wiki & self-proclaim themselves an expert. Arrogance (low humility) is a learning disability.

sciencedirect.com/search?qs=Du

0
Empiricism

The general long-term (lifestyle \ culture) solutions to transition & adapt human behaviors (activities) away from an ecologically damaging, climate-changing civilization towards an ecological & climate-sustaining civilization are known. qoto.org/@Empiricism_Reloaded/

Business As Usual (BAU) tries to continue by generally doing more of the same (BAU is "baked" into the BAU economy & those that only think in BAU terms). For example, BAU is promoting more mining for resources which means more damage to nature (wildlife habitats) and more pollution.

BAU owns land that BAU doesn't want to use for nature restoration.

This means that BAU will continue to not meet its own BAU greenhouse gas reduction targets (BAU's aim is crap as it keeps missing climate-related targets).

Because BAU has generally done a less-than-crap Job at reducing the BAU greenhouse gas emissions (because BAU emissions are rising ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-), BAU is now planning for a future where the effects of climate change are much worse. BAU won't stop BAU so BAU is trying to adapt to climate change by doing more BAU (that makes "sense" for BAU). For example, BAU is about using more resources and power (e.g., burning more "fossil" fuels) to construct higher flood defenses. Basically, BAU is about exploiting nature so as to extract resources and power BAU technologies (& make tech BAU folk rich by selling BAU products).

So, as BAU continues to degrade nature in the name of BAU (e.g., promoting & sell more BAU products & services), more people will come to realize that BAU is the problem. We can't solve a problem by doing more of the BAU problem (but problems make BAU people money...so, go figure).

When more people accept that BAU is the problem, then, and only then, will more people think about the real solutions to prevent humans from damaging , therefore, changing the . In other words, scale down BAU before it's too late to prevent the worst climate impacts qoto.org/@Empiricism_Reloaded/

When it's clear that BAU is failing to mitigate climate change (what will that take?) - because climate change is causing more harm to people's lives. When it's clear that BAU is the cause of climate change, then humans will change BAU.

The Planet's climate doesn't consider what we want. It will show what we can't have and that's a BAU ( \ ) that's damaging and polluting nature as friggin usual.

1
Empiricism

This podcast may disturb, make certain people angry & cause denial. However, that's because it strikes a "nerve" (is true in many social contexts)

The Empirical Perspective uses a scientific lens to critically evaluate common folk psychology.: The NAP Satire News S01E02

Episode webpage: podcasters.spotify.com/pod/sho

Media file: anchor.fm/s/d8369f60/podcast/p


0
Empiricism

The enemy of reason and nature.

This article is a response to the reply (in quotes) I received from someone about my One Planet article. That article can be read here empiricalperspective.home.blog

Or here qoto.org/@Empiricism_Reloaded/

The reply to my article “Yes. What ideas do you have on how we XR (Extinction Rebellion) Psychologists could promote One Planet development? Always good to encourage methods that enable change, and to share examples of where action has made a tangible difference in reducing power and resource consumption and greenhouse gas emissions and increasing fairness. Wales as a small country is surely ahead on this… as explained in your links. Maybe Jane Davison's book would be a good read for the future janedavidson.wales/book “

The response. How to promote One Planet Development (OPD)?

Fundamentally, it’s all about resources and power (to sustain a modern way of life. e.g., a health & education system).

The core message of OPD is that living an ecologically low-impact lifestyle is achievable because it’s evidently practically possible and, for an unknown number of people, is a desirable way of life. This core message is important as many people either falsely believe that OPD is difficult or actively try to suppress the relevant knowledge (e.g., industries using disinformation against their competition). Reducing power and resource consumption will mean many industries will be scaled down in size (e.g., the aviation industry, the private transport industry, the agricultural industries and of course the fossil fuel industries). There is a world of business-as-usual related bias that promotes a short-term monetary agenda (not an OPD agenda). So, we can refer to the OPD (& its location-dependent variations. Should other countries adopt similar planning policies as Wales) as an evidence-based example of how OPD policies can encourage low ecological impact ways of living (At the moment, politics generally hinders OPD. E.g., the land is expensive & most often not used for OPD).

In the context of improving equity (fairness), the OPD approach should ideally provide land grants for those that agree to develop the land sustainably (however, due to politics [business-as-usual] that’s unlikely to happen in the short term). Basically, we have to turn the tide on ecological degradation sooner (as the OPD shows, it’s relatively easily possible. Politics is the problem). The longer we wait, the harder it becomes to conserve and restore natural habitats (due to the effects of climate change, biodiversity loss, soil degradation, etc.). To be clear, the OPD doesn’t have to be for everyone, the OPD is the general method that enables the overall society to have more of a resource and carbon budget (e.g., evidently, healthcare workers are as important as people that are taking care of nature whilst growing food & producing other sustainable products)

The OPD meets all the criteria for a sustainable (low ecological impact) and equitable culture by:

1. Conserving & or restoring nature via growing food within a (science of) agroecological framework.

2. Permitting (not restricting) people to have more agency by owning (part sharing \ cooperatives) their own land that they work, rest and play on (a culture).

3. Low-impact construction (low resources) and low power requirements (e.g., locally, using solar, wind, water and thermal energy to generate electricity when required. Batteries from non-mined biodegradable materials are physically possible).

There are also many social aspects to OPD. However, point 2 (an agency in a transparent democracy) will mitigate many of the social problems & ecological problems associated with big industries (i.e., privately owned corporations). The 2nd core message relates to freedom. Governments should be “encouraged” to develop policies that enable the people that want to, to live ecologically light lifestyles (rather than being in rent traps and working for a minimum wage for polluting industries, for example). The OPD paradigm should be scaled up locally, nationally and internationally. For example, public transport (not private) is the method that uses the least amount of resources and power. Furthermore, OPD will also have other cost and health-saving benefits. OPD will encourage a healthier way of life than sitting in polluted traffic Jams, for example. A healthier OPD lifestyle will reduce the resources and power requirements required for a national health system. Free health care, education, housing [land] and a transparent (accountable) democracy are the pinnacles of social equality.

The OPD is a paradigm shift in political and economic thinking (i.e., it’s the opposite of the unsustainable business-as-usual ideology of economic “growth” [i.e., expansion]). That shift is putting people (social) first within an ecologically sustainable way of providing resources and power. (then, anything is possible. Within reason).

The following is a side note regarding what I term the enemy of sustainable development. Therefore, fundamentally, the enemy of nature.

A side note regarding the general human population. In any population of adults, there are liars, cheats and abusive people that walk among us. For them, evidence or truth is merely more ideas that are mixed up with their overall sense of subjective reality. Because of their psychology, they are mixed up in their own web of lies. Because their ideologies are not based on sincerity, they only use science or truth within the context of trying to win an agenda. Whilst these people may be more or less honest in their social in-groups, in the context of what they perceive is their competition, they will lie and manipulate people if they associate that behaviour with “winning” and covering up their personal moral transgressions. “Winning” is the core point. They’re not trying to find the evidence like a diligent scientist or investigative journalist, nor do they care about the truth when competing against what they perceive is their social rivals (e.g., what they accuse others of). In fact, they intentionally make up stories about the people that they perceive are their rivals. Mr Trump, the former president of the USA shows all these antisocial behaviours. He doesn’t care about scientific facts (e.g., climate change), other than when he is promoting his core political agenda. Trump will slander his political opposition with no evidence to back up in claims. For example, during the last presidential election that Trump lost, even though the evidence suggested that the election results were generally accurate, Trump intentionally spread the lie that the election was rigged (& gaslit his followers by calling the election a “big lie”). He was speaking to his faithful followers – folk that do not base their understanding on science – if the evidence doesn’t align with their beliefs. Basically, they trust a source of information (Trump) that will lie and cheat if he believes that will help him “win”. Mr Trump has rich financial backers that regularly express their distaste for democracy. Therefore, when Mr Trump says that other people are a danger to democracy, that’s simply more gaslighting (Trump lives a web of lies – he also doesn’t know fact from fiction because he doesn’t understand the difference between fact and fiction). Trump is a socio-political and business animal (& not a sincere one at that). Trump's financial supporters and followers are a mix of very rich sociopaths (e.g., fascists that express racists views) that intentionally spread propaganda for socio-political and economic reasons and everyday folk that believe that Trump is on their side (e.g., because Trump says he’s an American Christian, etc. Although, his rhetoric conveniently doesn’t mention that the teachings of Jesus were against greed and corruption (the rich and powerful). i.e., another example of simply spreading the information that promotes Trump's financial agendas (& those who financially support his brand of geopolitics). Trump has been known to be a supporter of President Putin. It’s difficult to know what goes on behind closed doors (e.g., private corporations), however, it’s evidently corruption.

One Planet Development (OPD) is a way to establish a sustainable economy & culture in general. Climate change is generally caused by the neo-liberal wealthy group think culture (e.g., a free market capitalist economy that is badly regulated). For example, the more money people have, the more they tend to consume resources in the neo-liberal economy. The “Billionaire” class are an extreme example of how the neo-liberal definition of success is a death sentence to our planet. However, OPD means shrinking the many wasteful sectors of the present dominant economy. That means that many of the “successful” business-as-usual agents will lose out financially. Their definition of “success” (“wealth”, “power”. i.e., social status) is the unsustainable losing side.

In a world where there are many liars and cheats (especially when money is involved – they even lie to themselves), the OPD approach plus mitigating climate change in general, attracts the worst of humanity. They have and do try to spread doubt about environmental science (e.g., climate change, air pollution). They will and do try to slander those that are trying to inform people about science (e.g., scientists). Because the evidence would cost them (money, etc). To add to this web of lies are the people that simply don’t know how to inform themselves of empirically based information (information that’s based on evidence. e.g., real-world scientific experiments). These people often trust the false sources of information that the liars and cheats spread. Therefore, they unknowingly spread false information as they believe it’s true.

Facts and Truth are not technically the same. People can learn the technical facts about how an electric motor works. Humans constructed electric motors because humans learnt the facts about electromagnetism and mechanics in general. However, a person could lie to another about the science of electromagnetism, climate change, medicine, etc. To reiterate, liars and cheats may or may not understand the facts – the point is, they only promote the facts that they believe are promoting their personal agendas and lie about those facts that don’t (honesty isn’t their general policy).

In summary – you can’t trust a liar! But, many people do unknowingly trust liars. Broadly, a habituated liar (lying is a norm for them) is a form of anti-social behaviour. Whilst they also lie to the people in their in-groups so as to try and slander an in-group rival, they also lie about the people that they perceive are their out-group rivals. Generally, they lie about those people & organisations of people that they perceive are their political or economic rivals (e.g., propaganda).

This represents the mere tip of the “iceberg” – “For nearly three decades, many of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies have knowingly worked to deceive the public about the realities and risks of climate change.” ucsusa.org/resources/climate-d

What lies beneath is a world of business and lifestyle as usual people and their personal biases. Whether that misinformation is intentional or not, makes no difference within the context of ecological sustainability – for it is human actions (activities) that either sustain the planet's life support systems or not. So, next time you hear a rich person saying “climate……blah blah blah”, judge them by their actions, not their words (excuses won’t mitigate climate change).

“many of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies have knowingly worked to deceive the public”

Many of the general public were (& are) deceived because they trusted the source of information that they want to believe in (i.e., “faith”). They trust the information that tells them what they want to hear. That makes them feel good about their air-polluting lifestyles, etc.

The One Planet Development approach is based on practical guidance that clearly shows how to mitigate climate change by reducing resource requirements, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and generally developing low ecological impact lifestyles that grow food whilst also conserving and restoring nature. We have the solutions (no doubt) to mitigate ecological degradation, therefore, climate change. Therefore, the core problem is psychological (e.g., the politics of gossip). The liars and cheats, the ignorant and greedy that are not seeking solutions to mitigate climate change. They’re trying to sustain their unsustainable ways of life. “Business-as-usual” is human social psychology as usual.

I realise that this may sound like a conspiracy. Who are they? However, they are not some unknown secret organisation. They could be the person that abusers people behind closed doors (i.e., domestic abuse) though seems OK when out in public. They could be the salesperson that lies to your face so as to try and make that sale. They could be the person that intentionally tries to make a cruel remark but tries to gaslight the offended by saying it was “only a joke”. They are the haters that are prejudiced. They are the nationalists that hate all people from a country because of what their governments did or do. They are the people that generally have extreme forms of social psychology (e.g., religious, political and economic agendas that are extremely competitive against those they perceive as their rivals in their in-groups and out-groups). They are the aggressors that use propaganda to justify a war that they intentionally started. They are the fuel industries and their economic and political associates that lie about science. “They” are a long list of moral transgressors. However, ultimately, they can’t win for they’re unknowingly competing against the force of nature (reality. e.g., the physics of climate change). Climate change is their nemesis.

The One Planet Development approach is a method to mitigate the ecological negative effects of their losing ideologies. Their unsustainable ways of living. Their maladapted social psychology (e.g., antisocial behaviours).

0
Empiricism

They do like to talk ideas to death.

However, by natural selection had no foresight. Therefore, evolution can't be deterministic.

We certainly could use some fresh thinkers in the social media evolution \ academia scene.
But, Incorrect ideas tend to die out over a generational time frame (bad habits & incorrect ideas die out [in the scientific social scene])

The Dissenter: #787 Kennon Sheldon - Freely Determined; The New Psychology of the Self, and How to Live

Episode webpage: podcasters.spotify.com/pod/sho

Media file: anchor.fm/s/822ba20/podcast/pl

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

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
Show older

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