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
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,