posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 04:46 PM
So what should we do?
I am often baffled, aghast, livid, demoralized and a bunch of other emotions, when I think about how people respond to the claims of climate change.
It's not merely that it is "bad news" that interests me, but how people interpret it. So much is implied in how we relate with this fact that I
feel the need to break it down.
If you deny climate change, you are essentially imputing conspiratorial motives to the 97% of climate scientists (not economists, geophysicists, etc,
but individual human beings who study the science of atmospheric process) who exclaim that it is happening.
To break this down further. You think, you feel; you are a subject experiencing the world through your own personal lens. So too - climate scientists.
And yet, even though this is the truth about each of us - how we feel in the world, how we relate in the world, how we adapt to the world,
nevertheless, climate scientists - unconsciously - are reified, made concrete, stereotyped and reduced to a categorical standard: whether it be the
words "UN" or "97%" or the fact that their warnings imply government intervention, the people who perform the science, people just like us, who
experience ups and down, feel the need to make meaning in their lives and definitely feel the pressures, like all of us, of feeling "a part", are
treated incredibly inhumanely: that is, we treat them as if they were objects alone: our thinking about them is as an "object" - without any
reference to the simple, irrefutable fact that they are subjects experiencing the world just like you or me.
If you succumb to the bias - to the unconsciously made error - of treating climate change as a conspiracy, before hand - than the science, which is
rather simple and straight-forward, will never enter your noggin.
In a sense, Abovetopsecret is a censure of contemporary civilization; but not in the way that you would think. People have become so objectified - so
removed, psychically, from what they feel and think (relational patterns that govern our everyday thinking) that we've come to impute conspiracy to
people; to ascribe powers to an "elite" that is immutably bent in demonic ways; implied in this dynamic is that they are unlike us.
But how can they be unlike us? That question is never asked because we never make it. Developmental psychologists and contemporary psychoanalysts have
coined the term "psychic equivalence". The idea is associated somewhat with our concept of "projection", but psychic equivalence gives meaning in
a larger sense: psychic equivalence explains how ONE persons psychological makeup - their self states, denied feelings, etc - are unconsciously
"framing" how they understand the world they relate with. In short, they draw an equivalence between how they operate intrapsychically - and also
interpersonally with others - with whatever they believe about the world. Psychic equivalence is a process of freezing personal psychic dynamics into
a worldview: into how you see others and how you understand the world.
Conspiracy thinking, then, is a perfectly natural outgrowth of a culture which puts a premium on object, external analysis - within academic
psychology and all other "natural sciences" - the experiencing subject is denied, and so, we become paranoid about others; "gasping at straws" in
trying to understand the world - we unconsciously enact our psychic biases by making equivalent our own thinking with what we see "out there" in
everyday "objective" reality.
This explains, for me anyways, why people are so liable to ignore climate change.
Climate change, also, might be a type of poetic justice: the system which sustains us 'striking back' - vituperating us for denying the
relationships which all beings are embedded; human beings in an external ecological environment. And even more subtly, human beings embedded in a
social and relational environment: "culture", being more than the shared beliefs; is ultimately the "prgramming" for how our minds seek meaning.
Todays culture reifies our self-concept, turning us into "commodities" to be used for profit - ignoring the fact that our own thinking, feeling and
being is essentially and always will be "process"; a happening in the moment. But for people - and a culture - that is so object-oriented, so
"thing" obsessed, our own minds become "things" to ourselves; and thus we obsess, become paranoid; greedy and insistent on "more". Take, for
example, those studies which show that above a personal income of $75,000, there is no increase in happiness. This means we need just enough to live
materialy comfortably; but when we pass it, we find ourselves enslaved to the objectified external standards we pay allegiance to. We become slaves -
Climate Change is an indictment on the culture of individualism - the creed of Ayn Rand and pure capitalists who believe that "growth" is good.
Even though climate scientists, the people best situated to know what we are doing to our planets climate, and thus to such important economic metrics
as "food supply", "natural disasters" etc, have rung the bell dozens of times; and keep doing so. We seemingly - at least the clearly pathological
people alive today - cant transform knowledge into emotion: the need to do something, quickly, to prevent this future calamity.
Scientists have reasons for why this isn't happening. But for me, the only science which can offer a solution is contemporary psychoanalysis - which
is to say, it is only by understanding ourselves - and our embeddedness in cultures, families and communities - can we find the emotional wherewithal
to do what needs to be done to fix this wicked problem.