As I listen to this video of Greta Thunberg doing a TED talk in Stokholm, I"m reminded of a number of studies of human beings - some psychological and some anthropological that help explain why humans are doing very little to save themselves from the rather horrible consequences of climate change.
It reminded me of a number of incidents in which people (usually women) were attacked and killed in front of bystanders without those bystanders doing anything to assist them. Melissa Berkley outlines one of the incidents as follows and there are more documented here:
On October 24th, 2009, as many as 20 witnesses watched as a 15 year old girl was brutally assaulted and raped outside a homecoming dance in Richmond, CA. The viciousness of the attack was shocking, but what was even more shocking was the fact that so many people witnessed the attack and yet failed to intervene or call police. As one of the police officers involved in the case states, "what makes it even more disturbing is the presence of others. People came by, saw what was happening and failed to report it." Some of the bystanders reportedly even laughed and took photos of the assault with their cell phones.
Psychologists have studied this and have learned that there are two factors which come into play that can mean people don't take any action in emergency situations. These are termed "pluralistic ignorance" and "diffusion of responsibility" and they are part of the reason for a general lack of action on climate change.
Pluralistic ignorance is basically the idea that people understand situations by the way others are behaving around them and that tends to mean that if nobody registers concerned then the situation is generally read as a situation not to be concerned about. In other words, if nobody acts, nobody acts. In situations where nobody knows each other, if one person starts to act there is a high likelihood that others will join in and help.
This is also complicated by our perceptions of the person who acts, if someone does. If the person acting is part of an out group then they are also less likely to align themselves with that person. At the moment, for example, a large part of the population figures it is just treehuggers that are making noise about climate change and they don't identify with treehuggers and so they are likely to interpret the situation differently and in a way that gives less credence to treehuggers. We all do this. A scientist is unlikely to give as much credence to a UFO chaser than they are to another scientist for example in terms of working with them. Likewise when people see climate scientists who say they are worried constantly flying round the world and taking few personal steps to change their own ways, people watching can read the situation as "not that important" too.
This can be exacerbated by the diffusion of responsibility. Diffusion of responsibility means that we all think that someone else will do something about it. As Greta points out here (and as I have heard many others pointing out), she figured that surely if our survival was threatened, we would be talking about nothing else. Others have put it to me that surely if it were real the Government would be taking much greater steps to do something about it and since they are not doing much, then it can't be the issue that some are saying. Diffusion of responsibility is the reason why leaks and potholes take a long time to get fixed. Everyone sees them and everyone figures that someone will have rung the Council (but often nobody does)!
Of course if nobody is acting because nobody is acting then unless someone steps up and takes on the responsbility of getting on with doing something about the situation, nobody else will. Governments often need pushing. Councillors and MPs can't argue a point strongly unless they can point to people with those opinions. That's the way democracy works. Governments seldom lead (although they can) because if they are too far ahead of people, they get voted out. So often the reality is that Governments follow public opinion rather than lead.
Since nobody acts people read the situation as "not that much of a worry" and the delusion continues. Of course there area bunch of other social, cultural and political factors that come into this but the Bystander effect can help us understand why it might be important to be talking to people about climate change and talking about why you think it is a worry. Every conversation, however hopeless it seems might actually be sowing a seed of change in someone's mind and if you are actually seen to be doing something to make changes, that can be even more powerful.
No comments:
Post a Comment