posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 10:51 PM
Ideology can become the sun about which cultural and social issues revolve. Conservatives who beat to their parties drum become unable, at a
fundamental level, to think clearly about the issue of global warming because their overriding unconscious concern isn't the merit of the scientific
claims; or the value of probabilistic thinking in framing the importance of something; what occupies their mind, subliminally, is whether the required
solution is reconcilable with their political biases. Its as if the unconscious has a magnet within it: it senses those things which are attractive
and likewise those things which repulse. Since government would be needed to regulate the gas, coal and oil industry, the libertarian unconscious
becomes coopted by it's own beliefs: it repels the facts of climate change as a means to maintain cognitive coherence.
How are we to deal with a fact like this^^^^? If the mind doesn't pay attention to it's own processes, if the mind doesn't have a "map" to it's
own mind - which requires an in depth knowledge of all the different ways that the unconscious influences thinking - how can we ever hope to save
ourselves from the disaster that our children and grandchildren will most likely face?
I have read all sorts of responses to my thread "Cosmos: Global Warming", but I've more or less resisted my impulse to respond. The reason is
simple: the people who hold to a contrary view are the type of people described in that first paragraph. If they aren't aware of the pull that
ideology has on their reasoning, if they don't see how reality becomes "framed" by the emotions which ride beneath the stream of our conscious
thoughts, why would I even bother?
This to me is the underlying issue: how people think. The government of Stephen Harper, in Canada, as well as the finance minister of Australia, both
believe global warming is a bunch of hokum. Or at least, they think its exaggerated. The Harper government is antsy to expedite the keystone pipeline
- and they will bait and enchant Albertans with the promise of economic prosperity to get it passed. The problem described above is undoubtedly
operating within the minds of these sorts of people. The oil sands are being seen by them as a resource. As a politician and businessman, Harper
can't help but let his mind become organized in this way. Scientists like James Hansen, and essentially every climate scientist on the planet who
understands basic physics, on the other hand, is terrified. And of course, the scientists are right, and the politician is wrong. The politician lacks
the humility to be a responsible steward. He sees only the economic promise of the next few years, and not the runaway greenhouse affect that'll
likely emerge if human beings do not stop burning fossil fuels. This is what our children and grandchildren - and their children, onwards, will have
to deal with.
Were at a point where the science is unequivocal. Only a lack of scientific knowledge - or a superficial cliched repertoire of "facts" - would lead
someone to the conclusion that it's all just a hoax, a scheme to impose socialism on the masses.
Even if it were a scheme to impose socialism - and I am personally pro-market - the science is too persuasive to be ignored. Unfortunately, though,
clarity of thought is not yet widespread enough to lead to effective action.
A further problem appears to be the abstract nature of the claim. An astroid heading to earth feels more substantial than a geochemical process that
takes 100 years to realize its full potential. If we keep dumping Co2 in the atmosphere, the earth may be thrown into a positive feedback loop, where
the effects accelerate the causes. Positive feedback is what climate scientists - and any intelligent human being - should be afraid about.
I hope that what I've written, particularly in that first paragraph, has proved enlightening. Self investigation should be a practice children should
learn from the earliest years. WHY? Is not asked enough when we hold to a particular belief. We do not consider how my support for A (libertarianism,
etc) is compromising my ability to think objectively about B (global warming, etc). And yet, this is a life and death matter. Life is full of these
situations. Everyday, people get caught up in transferences and counter-transferences and neither party has an inkling that their responding to
non-verbal, imagistic cues observed in the other party.
If humanity is to survive what we've done, it'll involve a complete maker-over of our civilization. Fossil Fuel use is just a symptom of a greater
disease: the lust for physical wealth. And the lust for wealth, not ironically, is whats impairing so many minds from objectively assaying the gravity
of the threat posed by carbon dioxide concentration to our atmosphere.
What we need is mindfulness. People need to become aware of themselves, of their bodies; of what they feel. They need to see how they work, and how
dissociation operates within their inner psyche. Knowledge proceeds from this. So long as people are unaware of how they think, I don't see how were
going to prevent a future climate calamity from happening.