There is an interesting new book out by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson-Mistakes Were Made (but not by me)-about the capacity for = denial. People emotionally invest in their beliefs and especially when they act = on them. Like a general who has spent lives to take an objective, it's much easier to throw more lives at it than to admit to a mistake that has = cost lives. Of course some people admit to mistakes easier than other, but = this book doesn't focus on fundamentalists or similar types who have = reputations for extreme psychological rigidity. They examine students, lawyers, etc. Very interesting stuff.=20
=20 The issue with growth is not just about emotional investment in beliefs, however. It's also fueled by a desire to not make hard choices (recall = the Bruntland report which found that the destruction of nature was due to = high consumption in the 1st world and too many people and, only to call later = in the report for increasing product 5-10 fold to deal with global = poverty), and by short term self-interest. People like stuff-it makes them feel special, like they must be more significant in the scheme of things than = the roadkill they just saw or what they had for breakfast. A recent book published by the APA argued that human awareness of our own death drives = us to distract ourselves from it.* We use 3 main means: belief in = immortality, living on through descendents, and consumption. When the latter is = available it appears to be the preferred form. Several empirical studies have = found that when mortality salience rises so does consumption-at least among = people who have the means. =20 =20 (*Kasser, Tim, Richard M. Ryan, Charles E. Couchman, and Kennon M. = Sheldon. 2003. "Materialistic Values: Their Causes and Consequences", p. 11-28 in Kasser, Tim and Allen D. Kanner, eds. Psychology and Consumer Culture. American Psychological Association. Washington D.C.; and Solomon, = Sheldon, Jeffrey L. Greenberg and Thomas Pyszczynski. 2004. "Lethal Consumption: Death Denying Materialism", p. 127-46 in Kasser, Tim and Allen D. Kramer (ed). Psychology and Consumer Culture. American Psychological = Association. Washington DC.) =20 =20 =20 _____ =20 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 2:55 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; = [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Denial * 2: Climate Change and Economic Growth =20 I=12ve been following the ECOLOG discussion on climate change "denial = science" with great interest. Many of the climate change deniers have much in = common with those who deny that there is a conflict between economic growth and environmental protection. For example, both camps of deniers tend to be comprised of hirelings of, or were selected in a process strongly = influenced by, "big money" (i.e., pro-growth, typically corporate and = anti-regulatory entities). =20 =20 This point would be too obvious to be worth mentioning, except that now = we are seeing a fascinating denial dialog developing regarding the = relationship of economic growth and climate change. I noticed this at a climate = change conference yesterday, where the old CIA Director Woolsey et al., while = fully concurring that climate change is upon us, and substantially = human-induced, are not yet ready to concede that climate change and other environmental threats are fundamental outcomes of economic growth. =20 =20 (While this is no place to elaborate, I have to at least note that, with = a >90% fossil-fueled economy, and ceteris paribus, economic growth simply = =3D global warming. And also that, with economic growth - increasing = production and consumption of goods and services in the aggregate - prioritized in = the domestic policy arena, dealing with climate change means not = conservation and frugality but rather wholesale onlining of nuclear, tar sands, mountaintop removing, etc., because, as Woolsey pointed out, renewables = such as solar and wind won=12t come anywhere near the levels our currently fossil-fueled economy needs.) =20 So perhaps we could view "denial science" as lying on a spectrum, where endpoints might be defined either in terms of hardness/softness of = science (e.g., physics hard, climate change science medium, ecological economics softish), or else in terms of political economy (e.g., from little to = big money at stake). Denial would tend to be motivated pursuant to = principals of political economy, and gotten away with in proportion to the softness = (or alternatively, complexity) of the science. =20 =20 Brian Czech, Visiting Assistant Professor=20 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center 7054 Haycock Road, Room 411 Falls Church, VA 22043=20 =20 Brian Czech, Ph.D., President Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy SIGN THE POSITION on economic growth at: www.steadystate.org/PositiononEG.html . EMAIL RESPONSE PROBLEMS? Use [EMAIL PROTECTED]
