Towards an ecological & sociopolitical sustainable culture for all.

﻿
﻿
 Image: NASA
Important information! This article is rated for an 18 years of age, or over, general adult audience. 
This is because of the type of information that's discussed in this article. However, it's very important for Adults to discuss these topics because there are many good adults that want to "save the world" ( biosphere), from the too many ill-informed Adults that want to save, for example, their shares in the fossil fuel industry. So, if you're slightly under 18 years of age, be advised that this article may, or may not, be for you.
﻿
Too many decision-makers priorities are back-to-front. 
﻿
This back-to-front form of motivated reasoning is why the decision-makers are deciding to, for example, pollute the land, air and sea. They prioritise their monetary agendas first and foremost (the fundamental business-as-usual problem). This is why too many industry "leaders", that are epistemologically business people, and politicians, that are also epistemologically business people (i.e., a state of mind. i.e., perception. i.e., a general attitude); generally promote political ideas related to keeping themselves in government whilst supporting their business interests. 
These personal interests ( motivated reasoning) often means they spread implicit misinformation or disinformation (e.g., greenwash). In general, they simply are not aware of the information relevant to protecting the Planet Earth's Biosphere ("saving the Planet"). Furthermore, due to human knowledge about death, some politicians and business people are not motivated to consider the form of politics and business that will help to protect the Planet's Biosphere, because they believe climate change won't affect them (e.g., they are simply motivated to continue "business as usual". i.e., selfish. e.g., politicians signing fossil fuel contracts)
I've been aware that human activities were harming the planet's environment for approximately thirty years. During this time, trying to discuss environmental issues with most adults was, generally, pointless. This is because it's not possible to reason with someone that is using a different form of motivated reasoning. Before I studied biology and ecology, in general, I used more emotive narratives to try and "change hearts and minds". For an example of the method, I often used:
 
"your polluting your own children & detroying their future!"
﻿
It was only after I've studied the science of psychology, that I understood why this "changing hearts and minds" method, didn't usually change adults minds ( e.g., cognitive dissonance)
Once I'd self-educated and graduated with a conservation biology degree, it became clear that the majority of people I spoke to about environmental subjects, did not understand and also didn't seem to care. This is when I was motivated to try and find out more about human psychology because some things did not make sense. For example, These people (population statistically speaking) went to work, to earn money so as to, for example, buy food for their families. In other words, they demonstrated they cared in other ways (motivated reasoning) 
Once I'd developed the logic to not let my emotions cloud my reasoning, I came to release, that in general, people do not understand Science. Or, they "cherry-pick" some scientific narratives & maybe also "cherry-pick" the science they want to understand. That's why, for example, families with young children will happily sit around the campfire, & even when the children wake up with a cough in the morning, the adults do not (understand) associate the cause of that coughing with the wood smoke the children inhaled the night before. From a scientific perspective, it's known that inhaling wood smoke is as harmful as inhaling tobacco smoke ( i.e., depending on the level of exposure. e.g., wood smoke is more toxic than tobacco smoke).
Generally, people are motivated by the emotive aspects of sitting around a warm fire, their reasoning is also only to enjoy sitting around a warm fire (what's missing is the knowledge of the medical evidence). 
Information motivated reasoning. 
These families did not have a reason to not enjoy sitting around a warm campfire. Furthermore, it was usually impossible for me to explain the reason why inhaling wood smoke is a bad idea, because they did not have the background knowledge ( & they were far more motivated to prefer their campfire than hear my bad "news"). 
This article isn't specifically about the severe health hazards of air pollution, I used the campfire as an example of how it's not always possible to explain the research findings of biology or ecology because people won't understand ( unless they have some of the background information). There is also another type of motivated reasoning why people may not want to listen to the advice from others, pride!. 
I have posted a scientifically referenced article that tries to explain the science including medical evidence related to smoke exposure, using more colloquial terms (non-science terms). 
The following also describes the known science using more colloquial terms, it's the general history of humans (homo-sapiens). Whilst this narrative could have many, sub-narratives, this article generally attends to the most important matter at hand. 
And that is the conservation (protection) & restoration of our Planet's biosphere (ecosystems). Good decisions require ordered priorities, from most to least important.
Many moons ago (or sun risers or millions of years ago. i.e., Earth orbits around a Star, the Sun), the ancestral group that evolved to be present day homo sapiens lived-in small hunter-gatherer communities (a few of their descendants, i.e., present-day humans, still do live in hunter-gatherer cultures). In many ways, these "peoples" lived lifestyles not that different from our own. In general, they awoke to daylight and tended to the needs of their young and old. They went out to work, but their jobs were hunting (non-human animals) and gathering (plants, fungi to eat & non-edible resources such as﻿﻿ wood for their fires)
﻿﻿﻿Listen to episode 132 of "The common descent" podcast for more background information about the facts, for example, fossils, that have contributed to the theory of human evolution. To quote "Mary and Louis Leakey are two of the biggest names in the history of paleoanthropology and human evolution, and they’re one of history’s most impressive scientific duos. In this episode, our special guest takes us through the tales of the Leakey’s most important scientific work, their personal lives, and the ongoing impact they’ve had on modern science."
It's not possible to say what these hunter-gather-cultures socio-political systems were (i.e., what social rules they may have had), because they left no written records (though they did leave stone tools). However, we do know they were hominids (fossils that shared many of the same characteristics as present-day humans) so they, in general, shared the same anatomy and physiology as we do now (e.g., skeleton, forward-facing eyes, hands, etc). I write "we do now" because fundamentally we were these peoples, we are their descendants ( with a "few" mutations. i.e., inherited DNA), and they were our ancestors. Because their fossils indicate, they, generally, shared the same DNA as modern humans (generally speaking). 
What has changed more than our biology, since that time, are the technologies in our culture (in most parts of the world). Our ancestors "talked" (communicated using sounds) to one another, rather than posted messages or "twittered". The idea of a computer was million[s] of years away. Maybe our prehistoric ancestors did count objects using other methods ( e.g., birds can be logical), we can only speculate because there is no direct evidence one way or another. 
However, & In general, we continue to awake in daylight, tend to the needs of our young and old. We head out to work, but our Jobs are now far more varied. Those jobs may be farming non-human animals for food or cultivating plants, fungi & non-edible resources. Some peoples "gathering" may be going to the shops (stores) to purchase wood for their, not comparably modern, fires. It's amazing how much has changed and how much has not changed in that time (millions of years). 
What has massively changed are our technologies (for some) & science (understanding. For some), what hasn't massively changed are our behaviours (DNA). Of course, our socio-political systems (laws, etc) & socioeconomic systems mean many aspects of our more primal instincts have been mitigated. In the most fortunate cultures (countries) socio-pathological brutes can't persecute the masses & our agricultural systems provide more than enough food for everyone (e.g., we waste food). 
However! In a "nutshell", if it were not for human activity (e.g., deforestation, pollution, mono-agricultural farming i.e., ecocide business practices), the general ecological health of the terrestrial & aquatic (streams, rivers & oceans) areas of the planet, would be in a far better state of ecological health. There would be more fauna, in other words, wildlife, & flora, in other words, plants and fungi. It's also probable that the species humans have driven to extinction would exist. 
So, someone may ask, what's gone wrong? and how do we make things right? In general, it’s our political and economic systems that are causing the ecological emergency. In other words, 
ecocide businesses and politicians know no better than ecocide business as usual. 
And they are habitual animals that are often motivated by instincts rather than logic. Many of whom have no perception that their animals! ( theory of mind. Their unknown unknowns)
What's wrong is that there is (in many cultures) an influential rich minority ingroup of people (crony capitalism, corporatocracy. E.g., billionaires) that tend to be motivated to spend the nation's resources (money, etc) within their minority in-groups, rather than sharing those resources with the general population (the commons, as in general population). In theory, they could keep their status quo indefinitely, in practice, their business methods are undermining the fabric of our planet’s ecology. 
The richer minority do this in ways that also use disinformation to control & regulate the general population (e.g., greenwash), so they can keep making money in their business-as-usual ways (e.g., fossil fuels and wood fuels). Whilst we can judge that for what it is, ask yourself this question, within the current capitalist system, if you'd been born into money or got rich some other way, would you be willing to make less money? ( people's motivated reasons to, for example, vote for business-as-usual politics)
Capitalism is an economic system, nothing more, nothing less.
In general, capitalism is an economic system where we compete for the resources of the planet, whilst socialism is an economic system where we share the resources of the planet. 
Humanity has never had a truly social system where the goods and services are owned by all! (We find sharing, problematic) We've had capitalist systems (a rich minority) that were pseudo-socialist. Maybe that's why socialism is often misconstrued, & criticised by that richer minority, that feels threatened that socialism will take away their stuff (e.g., their bling!). However, socialism or capitalism are not "dirty" words. They're economic tools. 
"Social" generally infers being cooperative. A win-win. In other words, cooperative altruism. In other words, not trying to win by defeating the opposition. Trying to win by defeating the opposite is a win-lose. Someone wins and, by default, someone must then lose. 
Social "ownership" refers to everyone owning the products and services of our culture (& I’d suggest, with a right to privacy caveat, for good mental health)
Within the context of ecology, we need an economic system that motivates us to have the reason to protect our planet's natural systems (more alive, than dead). Capitalism, whilst it has certainly benefited many (me included), and not many others, seems to be failing at that "mission-critical" task. 
Maybe it was simply just too early for socialism to work? In theory, it sounded good, or rather sharing the goods of the commons, yet in practice, it lacked an effective management plan. 
However, things change, especially our technologies. What has been the biggest change in modern times? a tool that is brilliant for sharing information! if that information is regulated by a peer-reviewed methodology. And the peers are regulated by a methodology that increases the probability of successful outcomes (i.e., being right!). 
The worldwide web! (management), cooperative altruism (social) and science (regulation) that leaves more free time for fun (Art)
As for music. Music is a form of management (physical control. i.e., dance), social activity (or alone) and science (maths and music technologies) and art (imagination)
What's not to like about that sustainable plan? Well, at least in theory, some rich and influential humans may disagree. 
However, the “get rich quick by scheming plan” (business-as-usual) of digging up and burning fossil fuels and burning the wood of forests isn’t a comparably intelligent plan when you really think about it! 
In other words, when any person of good ethical values considers the science of ecology, conservation biology, climatology, etc, the business-as-usual plan is an ecocide plan. 
Therefore, there are two logically deduced behavioural psychological options to choose from within the context of what is the motivated reasoning behind the ecocide plan (the business-as-usual plan).
They do not consider (understand) the science of ecology, conservation biology, climatology, human biology, etc?
They're sociopaths? ( Alcohol won't remedy that, quite the opposite)
It took me quite a while to work out which one of these options had to be generally true. The truth came to me whilst observing a local farmer light a bonfire upwind from his family’s home. As I watched the wood smoke engulfing the house, I thought to myself? (As you do), what kind of man would poison his own families air? Was the man a crazy sociopath?
I was asking the wrong type of question! The right question to ask is, in general, what type of caring human would poison their own families air? And the answer to that question is option 1! They do not consider (understand) the science of ecology, conservation biology, climatology, human biology, etc.
And that’s what makes them dangerously ignorant! But ignorance can be corrected (e.g., self-education). If only they were not so dam greenwashed either by others monetary agendas or their own monetary agenda’s. 
For your information, that does not mean that some, for example, rich fossil fuel or wood fuel CEO’s or politicians may be aware that business-as-usual is an ecocide plan. In every population, there are some socio-pathological temperaments. Some just happen to be rich!. For example, they may not care because they think they will be dead by the time the worst happens (i.e., selfish).
What it does mean is that there is a real chance to save our cultures from ecological collapse (the real potential exists). When, and only when, the general population understood enough about the relevant sciences ( e.g., ecology), their general level of ethics (care) would then be reasonably (Sciences), motivated “to save the Earth”
“In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful [e.g., social status]. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.”
﻿
― Carl Sagan
We must un-greenwash people by informing them of the Science. Un-greenwashing maybe explaining the subjects that Scientists study, such as ecology. Un-greenwashing maybe informing people of the fundamental principles of science (the philosophy of science), so they can, in general, be confident that a scientific subject is being regulated ( i.e., peer-reviewed). 
In fact, the scientific peer-review process includes cooperation and competition. In general, scientists want to know the facts about, for example, nature. This means they're also reasonable motivated to critically evaluate other scientists research. Fundamentally, critical evaluation is how the scientific peer review process works.
This does not mean that scientists spend much time personally criticizing other scientists (in research papers), it means, reliable science is open to accommodating facts. And ethical science is regulated by democratic ethics committees. For example, so the (informed) people get to choose if an experiment, that for example is trying to find a cure for a genetically inherited disease ( e.g., that causes premature death in children), should go ahead, or not, if the methods of the experiment would be on non-human animals. 
That's a "call" that one person, or group, should not make alone. In other words, that's a well informed (of the science. e.g., medical evidence) cultural level decision to make. 
﻿
﻿
﻿
﻿
﻿
﻿
Towards an ecological & sociopolitical sustainable culture for all.

Welcome, let's solve the climate crisis together

Write a climate review

Open for Climate Dialogue™

0 trees planted

Download the app
