WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE IN 4 YEARS –
If the bees die
Or: Are we too stupid for the future?
When we hear fearmongering doom, our body feels it first, and then even the most open-minded person’s brain uses shortcuts or cognitive biases to make sense of it and reach a decision faster.
Biases are faulty thinking, shortcuts our brain makes to cope with all the information we’re constantly bombarded with so they are neither good nor bad, they just are, but becoming aware of our biases is important, especially when it comes to climate change.
With the bees, we might say: 4 years, I don’t believe it, it sounds like fake news or climate prophesy.
We might Google for information, triggering the Google effect bias which is a form of digital amnesia, we forget what we learn because the information is so readily available unless is shocking or extremely funny. If you say, I’ll just Google it, your brain is already working in synergy with technology. Hearing, we’re all going to die in 4 years if the bees die, can trigger the backfire bias which paralyses us with fear, makes us dismiss the information, and we simply refuse to engage further.
The backfire bias is a form of confirmation bias, it causes us to reject information that doesn’t fit in with our present beliefs and knowledge on the subject.
Instead of wanting to learn about the importance of bees, why and if their extinction also spells the end of us, and learn what we can do to change this happening, we utilise wishful thinking which is a form of self- deception.
If we’re curious enough to want to learn more, we might still trust the first information presented to us too much, making it hard to unlearn and relearn when new facts are presented, this is the anchoring bias.
We know climate change is happening, but the possibility of our own extinction hasn’t been enough to change our behaviour and this is due to our brain biases.
We have developed to focus on immediate threats, not complex far future threats like climate change. Climate change is still too abstract. People who are dealing with the stresses of day to day living haven’t got the time to think of the future, never mind thinking of thinking, a higher-order cognition.
Too much information and when it comes to climate change, too much alarmism can confuse our brains, leading to inaction or poor choices.
Our brains have matured to filter information rapidly and focus on what is most immediately essential. If our house is not burning, we can’t act as if it is. Cognitive biases that were helpful in the past make it difficult to address complex, far future challenges like climate change.
There are more than 150 cognitive biases we all share. Some are more important when we look at our lack of action on climate change.
Hyperbolic discounting is a cognitive bias where a person’s desire for an immediate reward rather than a higher-value, delayed reward is much higher. Making current day investment to mitigate far future climate change is not going to happen unless the intellectual climate change first.
We value the present more than the future. We live now, and that’s what we still focus on. Today we are less likely to be attacked and eaten by a wild animal, but the threat of violence, rape and murder haven’t gone away. To be willing to take action on far future complex challenges we need to eliminate day to day worries, universal basic income for example, and then hold everyone accountable, individual, group and company.
We tend to believe that someone else will deal with a crisis which is the bystander effect. The powers that be are not the ones with the innovative ideas, they can only raise taxes which is a vicious circle. Citizen design groups, charettes, alongside the expert focus groups could be a solution.
We are biased towards staying the course even in the face of negative outcomes, this bias is known as the sunk-cost fallacy. The more we’ve invested time, energy or resources into something, the more likely we are to continue investing even though it’s obviously not the best way forward. This explains our continued reliance on fossil fuels as a primary source of energy despite decades of evidence that we both can and should transition to clean energy and a carbon-neutral future.
The good news is that our biological development has also given us capacities to overcome the challenges of climate change.
We can imagine and predict numerous, intricate future scenarios and identify processes needed in the present to achieve desired outcomes in the future.
As individuals, we all know what we can do about climate change, but climate change requires action on a scale that exceeds our human progress. In large groups, the human ego can get in the way of progress.
In small groups, up to 150, we can work cooperatively. Small groups involved in coming up with solutions themselves, like a charrette, experience the endowment effect: when we own something, we tend to value it more. This is also called the Ikea effect. In smaller groups, we tend to evaluate ourselves by looking at others. If our friends and neighbours take climate action, we’re more likely to do the same.
The framing effect is one of the strongest biases affecting our decision-making processes. We are more likely to change our behaviour when challenges are framed positively, instead of negatively. Talking about climate change in a more affirmative way can help people take positive action — plant flowers, let the weeds grow and use natural repellents versus a negative frame we’re all going to die in four years if the bees die, and they will die and us too!
Our most helpful human trait is our ability to innovate and to spread our ideas. Today we face a different threat than our prehistoric selves, but have we evolved enough to be able to stop human-induced climate change, or are we too stupid for the future?
