An excellent essay that covers off the main points very well, and the necessity of expanding our circle of concern.
But now for the problems: People respond most effectively to concrete problems that are close and immediate. People also respond to the individual more effectively than to a group, which means that appeals are best focused when showing the predicament of an individual.
Climate change is a particularly vexing problem because it is abstract, and not perceived as an immediate threat, and participating in reducing the risk of climate change does not produce immediately visible changes. (However, if things are done which reduce an immediate problem such as particulate in the atmosphere that are affecting people’s health near the source of emissions can show the positive affect of change.) It is also problematic because it has been politicized and made a wedge issue in many countries and states. It also makes us have to extend our circle of concern out to ecologies and not just a single species. In many ways it is the worst type of existential crisis because it requires us to what we are worst at—responding to something abstract, distant and difficult to grasp in the way we can grasp a drowning child in front of us.
I totally agree with you about the issue of abstract problems. Many issues are so nebulous and far-reaching that it is so difficult to give a clear overview of the issue, the implications etc. By the time climate change is a concrete threat to the majority of people, it will be too late. There is a lot of focus on short-term rewards, particularly in government but also with human’s desires, that make dealing with these problems in an effective way very difficult. I spent a few years in China, and although it is very economically capitalist, the society has a communist mindset still and the government also has a lot of power to enact laws that the public don’t like. Now I am not saying this is always a good thing, but idealistically speaking, when you have a good leader, who can think more long-term because they do not rely on the whims of people and being popular to those who are not looking at the bigger picture, this can be a good thing. It can help get helpful policies and initiatives through to tackle more abstract problems!
An excellent essay that covers off the main points very well, and the necessity of expanding our circle of concern.
But now for the problems: People respond most effectively to concrete problems that are close and immediate. People also respond to the individual more effectively than to a group, which means that appeals are best focused when showing the predicament of an individual.
Climate change is a particularly vexing problem because it is abstract, and not perceived as an immediate threat, and participating in reducing the risk of climate change does not produce immediately visible changes. (However, if things are done which reduce an immediate problem such as particulate in the atmosphere that are affecting people’s health near the source of emissions can show the positive affect of change.) It is also problematic because it has been politicized and made a wedge issue in many countries and states. It also makes us have to extend our circle of concern out to ecologies and not just a single species. In many ways it is the worst type of existential crisis because it requires us to what we are worst at—responding to something abstract, distant and difficult to grasp in the way we can grasp a drowning child in front of us.
I totally agree with you about the issue of abstract problems. Many issues are so nebulous and far-reaching that it is so difficult to give a clear overview of the issue, the implications etc. By the time climate change is a concrete threat to the majority of people, it will be too late. There is a lot of focus on short-term rewards, particularly in government but also with human’s desires, that make dealing with these problems in an effective way very difficult. I spent a few years in China, and although it is very economically capitalist, the society has a communist mindset still and the government also has a lot of power to enact laws that the public don’t like. Now I am not saying this is always a good thing, but idealistically speaking, when you have a good leader, who can think more long-term because they do not rely on the whims of people and being popular to those who are not looking at the bigger picture, this can be a good thing. It can help get helpful policies and initiatives through to tackle more abstract problems!