10.01.2013 Views

Down to the wire : confronting climate collapse / David - Index of

Down to the wire : confronting climate collapse / David - Index of

Down to the wire : confronting climate collapse / David - Index of

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

millennial hope S 167<br />

fairness. We have emotions for good evolutionary reasons, and, as<br />

Pascal noted, our hearts guide our rationality, not <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r way<br />

around. Pascal’s point is confi rmed by work in neuroscience showing<br />

that <strong>the</strong> emotions infl uence cognition more than cognition<br />

infl uences emotion (LeDoux, 1996). This may help explain why<br />

we are so susceptible <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> infl uence <strong>of</strong> fear, once a highly adaptive<br />

mechanism but one that now threatens <strong>the</strong> human future.<br />

We know that we succumb <strong>to</strong> a variety <strong>of</strong> cognitive traps<br />

that undermine our reasoning and <strong>the</strong> prospect <strong>of</strong> rational judgments<br />

<strong>of</strong> risk (Ferguson, 2008, pp. 345–346). We are prone <strong>to</strong><br />

accept information that is close at hand regardless <strong>of</strong> its relevance.<br />

We are inclined <strong>to</strong> place undue confi dence in quantitative risk<br />

assessments regardless <strong>of</strong> validity. We tend <strong>to</strong> confuse risks associated<br />

with known events with <strong>the</strong> uncertainties <strong>of</strong> unknown and<br />

unknowable probabilities, what risk analyst Nassim Taleb (2008)<br />

calls “Black Swans.”<br />

Finally, we know that erroneous thinking can sometimes cause<br />

us <strong>to</strong> act in ways that create self-fulfi lling prophecies leading <strong>to</strong><br />

a “reign <strong>of</strong> error” (Mer<strong>to</strong>n, 1968, p. 477). It matters greatly how<br />

and how accurately we defi ne ourselves and situations, because<br />

we tend <strong>to</strong> perceive what we assume <strong>to</strong> be true and act accordingly.<br />

Neoclassical economists, for example, defi ne humans as selfmaximizing<br />

creatures dedicated solely <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir own advancement.<br />

But this at once purports <strong>to</strong> be both a description <strong>of</strong> how humans<br />

actually behave and a prescription for how <strong>the</strong>y should behave.<br />

Hidden beneath <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory is confusion and confl ation <strong>of</strong> selfinterest,<br />

which is unavoidable, with selfi shness, which is not. This<br />

is a basic category mistake that works considerable mischief by<br />

justifying individualism at <strong>the</strong> cost <strong>of</strong> community.<br />

I think we know as well that <strong>the</strong> study <strong>of</strong> mind as practiced<br />

from <strong>the</strong> 18th century <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> present has its own limitations and<br />

pathologies. Early on it was corseted with assumptions that people<br />

are merely machines, that minds and bodies are separate things,<br />

and that what can’t be counted doesn’t count. Modern science,

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!