As a species, we humans have evolved in such a way that we react to threats that are direct, imminent, and personal, and to generally ignore those that aren't.
Our cave-man mind knows to run when we a bear charging at us (direct threats), to jump out of the way when a tree is falling toward us (imminent threats), and to pay attention when the dweller in the next cave points at us and says "I'm drinking your milkshake" or whatever (personal threats).
Climate change is not direct (we don't see it coming), it's not imminent (it's glacially slow, literally), and it is far from direct (it threatens the entire ecosystem, not just us). Therefore, our sympathetic nervous system doesn't react and we tend to ignore the problem.
Dr. Sanjayan is right - guilt trips and non-specific threats won't turn the tide of public opinion. His solutions-oriented approach is interesting, but what if there were a way to make the problem direct, imminent, and personal? To say "Climate change is going to cause the Storm of the Century to destroy your home tomorrow" may not be scientifically correct, even to those on the coast about to be hit by a hurricane, but will it get our attention? Will it cause us to act?
No comments:
Post a Comment