Empiricism @Empiricism_Reloaded@qoto.org

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 https://sustainabilitymag.com/top10/top-10-causes-global-warming

#climate #climatechange

#unsustainable #food #economy #tech #agriculture #Overfishing #Industrialization #consumerism #transportation #PowerGeneration #Waste #Deforestation

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 https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429061417

#adaptation #psychology #EvolutionBiology #EvolutionaryPsychology #SocialPsychology #health #education #sports #cars #motobikes #democracy

#maladaptation #mutation #SarCov2 #covid #pandemic #climate #ClimateChange #ClimateCrisis

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 #GreenWash #disinformation 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 https://www.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). https://www.sciencedirect.com/search?qs=air%20pollution

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 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=air+pollution+dementia

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 #uk 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 https://qoto.org/@Empiricism_Reloaded/110511036586999020

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

#science #evolution #psychology #pollution #climate #ClimateChange #wildfires #Smoke #FaceMasks

#health #chemisty #biology #CleanAir

@kevinrns

Do you mean to say that the world "leaders" are failing to mitigate climate change?

Here is a more general solution that people can do (if the "leaders" get their heads out of their bank balancers). https://qoto.org/@Empiricism_Reloaded/110511036586999020

@StillIRise1963

I'm glad you tooted that as I thought it was just me :)

@kevinrns

Due to India's climate, India should be thanking India.

@atomicpoet @fediversenews

Although, be aware that there is a difference between not understanding a subject or technology, and intentionally aiming to misinform the readers due to some underlying political or economic agenda.

@Bargdaffy@defcon.social @MichaelEMann @msnbc

I don't care what your personal agenda is (neither does the planet's climate)

The linked-too essay clearly explains what needs to happen if humans are to have a chance of mitigating climate change. And that's much more than "only" stopping burning carbon-based fuels (all of them, in general).

To be clear, I'm not saying that many people on social media will actually want to live in a sustainable society - many people want to continue consuming resources at an unsustainable rate (I include you in that analysis - so you're done then? denial won't mitigate climate change either).

The general obvious solution (for the honest amongst us) https://qoto.org/@Empiricism_Reloaded/110511036586999020

Title – One Planet #Sustainability

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) https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions

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. https://www.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 #business & #politics that are thinking about ways to try & mitigate #ClimateChange (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. https://www.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 #climatology (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) #psychology

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

1. One Planet Development Policy https://www.oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/

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

3. The Soil Association. https://www.soilassociation.org/

#sustainable #culture #AgroEcology #renewableenergy #Degrowth #CircularEconomy

#unsustainable #society #economy #politics #FossilFuels #WoodFuel #BioFuel #climate #ClimateHeating #ClimateChange #ForestFires #droughts #FlashFloods #SeaLevelRise #OceanAcidification #PlasticPollution