If only gay sex caused global warming... (1 Viewer)

[kami]

Why we're more scared of gay marriage and terrorism than a much deadlier threat.
By Daniel Gilbert, Daniel Gilbert is a professor of psychology at Harvard University and the author of "Stumbling on Happiness," published in May by Knopf.
July 2, 2006

NO ONE seems to care about the upcoming attack on the World Trade Center site. Why? Because it won't involve villains with box cutters. Instead, it will involve melting ice sheets that swell the oceans and turn that particular block of lower Manhattan into an aquarium.

The odds of this happening in the next few decades are better than the odds that a disgruntled Saudi will sneak onto an airplane and detonate a shoe bomb. And yet our government will spend billions of dollars this year to prevent global terrorism and … well, essentially nothing to prevent global warming.

Why are we less worried about the more likely disaster? Because the human brain evolved to respond to threats that have four features — features that terrorism has and that global warming lacks.

First, global warming lacks a mustache. No, really. We are social mammals whose brains are highly specialized for thinking about others. Understanding what others are up to — what they know and want, what they are doing and planning — has been so crucial to the survival of our species that our brains have developed an obsession with all things human. We think about people and their intentions; talk about them; look for and remember them.

That's why we worry more about anthrax (with an annual death toll of roughly zero) than influenza (with an annual death toll of a quarter-million to a half-million people). Influenza is a natural accident, anthrax is an intentional action, and the smallest action captures our attention in a way that the largest accident doesn't. If two airplanes had been hit by lightning and crashed into a New York skyscraper, few of us would be able to name the date on which it happened.

Global warming isn't trying to kill us, and that's a shame. If climate change had been visited on us by a brutal dictator or an evil empire, the war on warming would be this nation's top priority.

The second reason why global warming doesn't put our brains on orange alert is that it doesn't violate our moral sensibilities. It doesn't cause our blood to boil (at least not figuratively) because it doesn't force us to entertain thoughts that we find indecent, impious or repulsive. When people feel insulted or disgusted, they generally do something about it, such as whacking each other over the head, or voting. Moral emotions are the brain's call to action.

Although all human societies have moral rules about food and sex, none has a moral rule about atmospheric chemistry. And so we are outraged about every breach of protocol except Kyoto. Yes, global warming is bad, but it doesn't make us feel nauseated or angry or disgraced, and thus we don't feel compelled to rail against it as we do against other momentous threats to our species, such as flag burning. The fact is that if climate change were caused by gay sex, or by the practice of eating kittens, millions of protesters would be massing in the streets.

The third reason why global warming doesn't trigger our concern is that we see it as a threat to our futures — not our afternoons. Like all animals, people are quick to respond to clear and present danger, which is why it takes us just a few milliseconds to duck when a wayward baseball comes speeding toward our eyes.

The brain is a beautifully engineered get-out-of-the-way machine that constantly scans the environment for things out of whose way it should right now get. That's what brains did for several hundred million years — and then, just a few million years ago, the mammalian brain learned a new trick: to predict the timing and location of dangers before they actually happened.

Our ability to duck that which is not yet coming is one of the brain's most stunning innovations, and we wouldn't have dental floss or 401(k) plans without it. But this innovation is in the early stages of development. The application that allows us to respond to visible baseballs is ancient and reliable, but the add-on utility that allows us to respond to threats that loom in an unseen future is still in beta testing.

We haven't quite gotten the knack of treating the future like the present it will soon become because we've only been practicing for a few million years. If global warming took out an eye every now and then, OSHA would regulate it into nonexistence.

There is a fourth reason why we just can't seem to get worked up about global warming. The human brain is exquisitely sensitive to changes in light, sound, temperature, pressure, size, weight and just about everything else. But if the rate of change is slow enough, the change will go undetected. If the low hum of a refrigerator were to increase in pitch over the course of several weeks, the appliance could be singing soprano by the end of the month and no one would be the wiser.

Because we barely notice changes that happen gradually, we accept gradual changes that we would reject if they happened abruptly. The density of Los Angeles traffic has increased dramatically in the last few decades, and citizens have tolerated it with only the obligatory grumbling. Had that change happened on a single day last summer, Angelenos would have shut down the city, called in the National Guard and lynched every politician they could get their hands on.

Environmentalists despair that global warming is happening so fast. In fact, it isn't happening fast enough. If President Bush could jump in a time machine and experience a single day in 2056, he'd return to the present shocked and awed, prepared to do anything it took to solve the problem..

The human brain is a remarkable device that was designed to rise to special occasions. We are the progeny of people who hunted and gathered, whose lives were brief and whose greatest threat was a man with a stick. When terrorists attack, we respond with crushing force and firm resolve, just as our ancestors would have. Global warming is a deadly threat precisely because it fails to trip the brain's alarm, leaving us soundly asleep in a burning bed.

It remains to be seen whether we can learn to rise to new occasions.

Personally I found this to be interesting - are we really so caught up in the moral panics of today that we don't deal with the big issues of tommorow?

 

[sam04u]

Nope, not all of us, just a select few. It's not necessarily upto one harvard professor to dictate to us all which has more 'immediate' importance. It's like the recent war in Lebanon, on paper it could have easily propelled into the third world war, if anyone else became militarily involved. That's why these things needed to be 'dealt with', before things such as 'global warming', which we know to be a natural process, and something which isn't necessarily going to 'happen'.

It's also uncertain how long the particular imbalance will occur, surely there would be mechanisms which we're unsure of to naturally balance them out before much destruction has occured. In the mean time, everybody raises their hands to 'act quickly', yet nobody provides viable solutions to how we do this.

It's not the only crisis we're dealing with either. There is also the 'diminishing' stockpile of Oil, and Water. Also, the destruction of the Amazon, for purposes which they were not intended, and also population numbers rising faster then they can be met. Pollution, etc etc.

The worse thing about global warming is something hardly anybody has even taken into account. The more fresh water which enters the ocean, the less amount of 'algae' which will be present in the water. And, we all know that around 90% of all the photosynthesis which takes place on earth is caused by algae. So, the worse issue is... Lack of Oxygen when and if global warming ever occurs.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Global warming is important, but if I was to prioritise I see hunger, disease etc as being more prominent for us to deal with. I think the earths temperature rising is something we will have to and can live with. I think the amount of money it would cost to stop global warming is far too great (while I would of course put SOME money into alternative fuels etc) and we should instead focus on building up the infrastructure of the countries where people are hurting NOW so they can deal with the future much better.

the less amount of 'algae' which will be present in the water.

I believe I have read, if such a situation does happen... they can fix the water to accomidate the algae - I'll try to find the link.

 

[robo-andie]

Well it's not an issue of 'is global warming actually happening', because it is.
Natural warming of the planet is normal. We are going to be hit by these changes eventually regardless.

We shouldn't be focussing on stopping Global warming - we simply can't. We should be diverting our attention to being able to cope with the changes which are bound to happen.

edit: and of course trying to buy ourselves more time to do such things, by slowing it.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I'd like to point out that the report quoted there is now by no means good research for global warming studies.

We should be diverting our attention to being able to cope with the changes which are bound to happen.

Yea and slowing it... we can of course take up alternative fuels, I'd love to see Australia become the first place where hybrid electrics are the most common type of car (I doubt it tho), I would also be in favour of nuclear power and more extensive use of green alternatives. I do think such steps are a good, positive ideas (especially in light of world fuel reserves).

But yea, the most important thing would be preparing the world to cope with such changes. The problem I see at the moment is that neither is happening - the problem is not being addressed in an even somewhat satisfactory manner.

 

[dora_18]

Global warming is important, but if I was to prioritise I see hunger, disease etc as being more prominent for us to deal with. I think the earths temperature rising is something we will have to and can live with.

Sure disease and hunger and important, but the earths rising temperature isn't something we can simply "live" with. It's inevitably the human race at stake, animals and plants won't survive in rapid acceleration in heat, in Australia this has been seen through the on going drought, how much economic decline had occured due to farmers losing livestock and crops throught the seasons!!...as it continues it's hard to counteract what has occured and to makeup for what is lost. As more crops and animals are lost this causes an economical difference in the price of foods, people will stop buying certain products because costs will accelerate rapidly....some that are financialy challanged are more likely to be at dietry disadvantage. Of course theres also the fact that in several generations a lot of ubiquitous bilogical life will probably diminish, our grandchildren will have to result to picture books to imagine what a Toucan or Macaw looks like.

However, within contemporary society global warming is inevitable, we can't just stop it one day, but we can take measures to alleviate the problematic aspects that attribute to it.

and... like NTB also said, im all for the hybrid cars and the alternative fuels to aid the situation.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Sure disease and hunger and important, but the earths rising temperature isn't something we can simply "live" with

No, it is something that we can live with. Global warming is not a dooms day scenario.

 

[dora_18]

No, it is something that we can live with. Global warming is not a dooms day scenario.

Sure, but you can only live with it for so long before you start to see some pretty drastic measures.
As for disease and hunger...that could well and truly be a direct result of global warming. Disease will be more prominant and widespread in hotter climates, it will spread much quickly as hygiene measures are harder to control. And as for hunger..well at the rate we're going with half of crops and livestock not surviving a season the hunger scenario isnt going to improve is it.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Sure, but you can only live with it for so long before you start to see some pretty drastic measures.

No the earth will warm up then steady out, unless we start producing even more co2.

As for disease and hunger...that could well and truly be a direct result of global warming.

No, but it will be exacerbated.

 

[sam04u]

Yeah, if there is really a method to deal with things like the algae (fresh water concentration), the effects will be short lived and something we'll easily be able to deal with.
Problems are things like 'electricity', and erosion because of flooding. (Killing of crops and stuff), and a few other things, like tree roots growing longer, breaking pipes and making cracks in roads.


Also, third-world countries, and countries in S.America will have alot of problem staying hydrated and out of the sun from 11am-4pm

 

[Silver Persian]

Won't ocean levels rising flood several coastal cities (cough Sydney cough) or is that something I saw that was designed to scare ppl?

 

[dora_18]

Won't ocean levels rising flood several coastal cities (cough Sydney cough) or is that something I saw that was designed to scare ppl?

No thats right, even though it will be a gradual change as well, it's not like we'll wake up one day and the city will be underwater, its an event that will occur over decades. However, my concern is that if we don't begin to make changes now and global warming continues to affect us the way it does, once the major changes start to occur it's hard to counteract them even if measures are put in place.

 

[dora_18]

Also, third-world countries, and countries in S.America will have alot of problem staying hydrated and out of the sun from 11am-4pm

lol, its not like the sun stops shining in S.America after 4pm, in many parts its pretty hot all the time especially in the tropics,the sun isn't harsh from 11-4 but more like from sunrise to sunset...its not like you ONLY have to worry about being hydrated when the sun is at its worst anyway... and if temperatures rise even more those areas will be pretty much uninhabited.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Won't ocean levels rising flood several coastal cities (cough Sydney cough) or is that something I saw that was designed to scare ppl?

No. It will not lead to the city of sydney being underwater.

n event that will occur over decades.

The city will never be under water... --'

 

[dora_18]

Well it could..if global warming became an extreme case, you dont know whats going to happen in centuries. It's more of a concern for those small island places in the pacific though.

There you go....
http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/climatechange/default.htm
water levels predicted to rise by 6-8m, thats enough to make me have to move away...

 

[Optophobia]

What is Kami doing, reading the la times?

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Worst case scenario is 5.8 degrees warmer by 2100, and 88cm sea rise by the same year.

Global warming hardly ranks up there with peak oil and population explosions in 3rd world countries, as far as end-of-the-world-causing-events go.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

you dont know whats going to happen in centuries.

I believe most models about 'global warming' are based on us having roughly the same level of emitions. Of course we don't know, but we should go off the best science we have available - not random 'maybe' scenarios. Water levels predicted to ride by 6-8m? I'd like to see the exact paper where they make that claim, just to put into perspective what assumptions it's making... the time frame etc.