For a long time the standing scientific paradigm has declared that the scientist is completely separate from the science. As an impartial and independent observer, the scientist measures ‘what’s true’ and based on the results, is able to declare the true nature of our world.
The pioneers of quantum mechanics began to undermine this paradigm early last century through their investigation of the wave-like nature of reality at a quantum particle level. Their investigations suggested that reality relies on an observer to trigger a collapse from an uncertain state of multiple possibilities (probabilities) into a finite state that we observe as ‘real’ or ‘true’. In quantum theory, different observers may see different versions of the ‘truth’ depending upon their knowledge of the system. Metaphysical theories take this one step further and suggest that the intent of the observer, ie what the observer intends to see by prior choice (conscious or subconscious), will influence what’s seen.
And now the global climate change debate has shone a bright light on the old scientific paradigm, highlighting its unreliability. A quick Google and you can find scientists claiming to have evidence both for and against the human influences on climate change. The strong push to prevent further human damage to our climate seems to have been undermined by revelations that much of the science is apparently ‘biased’ one way or the other. So here is the impact of the observer creating the ‘truth’, right on centre stage. Perhaps this is the tipping point for our mainstream scientists, inviting them to move on from the old paradigm?
While the degree of human influence on climate change remains uncertain for many people, the degree of human influence on the science is hard to ignore.
As long as most people in the world don’t feel personally impacted by climate change, there is very little ( read zero) chance of them radically changing their lifestyles to reduce carbon emissions and other climate unfriendly practices, just for the sake of it.
This simple logic is backed by the extensive research of Dr Clare W Graves into how people adapt to their life conditions. If the life conditions don’t change, the people don’t change. The Australian Government’s recent announcement of a 5% emission reduction target by 2020 is good evidence of the political pressure being applied by people who believe that the risk of short term financial loss is more real and more important than some future climate shift.
Baked Earth...?
If we can accept this simple aspect of human nature, that people only change in response to their perceived life conditions, then it can open up alternative approaches to the whole climate issue. Firstly, we might not invest so much time telling people to stop living in ways that are obviously working well for them, at the moment. Secondly, we could take a leaf out of Bucky Fuller’s book. His approach to change was not to fight the old system, but to build a new system that makes the old one obsolete. As a practical example, when digital cameras hit the market no one had to tell people to stop using old fashioned film, it just happened naturally because (for most people) the digital way was so much easier and better. The same approach can apply to any issue, including climate change.
As soon as the general population have ready access to clean energy products and services that are obviously better than the old options (eg they are cheaper to buy, cost less to use and are generally better) then we can expect to see widespread change to more sustainable lifestyles. Achieving this is much more complex than it sounds though, due to the massive amount currently invested in old, dirty technologies. When our life conditions change some more, mainstream business will start to notice the enormous opportunities and the growing markets to be captured through the introduction of new, clean energy products. This will probably be a new gold rush for the business world.
Strategies that prop up the ‘old ways’, such as subsidising dirty energy producers and bailing out dirty transport manufacturers, are most likely delaying the inevitable demise of these technologies and also prolonging the damage to our biosphere. With the right financial incentives, government could help these producers develop new clean energy products that not only sure up their future business success, but also move us closer to sustainable living, here on what Bucky Fuller liked to call ‘Spaceship Earth’.
There are some very simple but powerful pointers here:
- People will continue to do what works for them now, until they have access to better ways
- Fighting the old ways by focusing on ‘reduction’ does not make sense – simply notice the worldwide resistance to this approach and the message is clear that for most people, it doesn’t make sense
- Creating new clean energy alternatives that make the old ways obsolete is the fastest track to changTo minimise the impact on old technology businesses, governments need to help these businesses transition to alternative, clean products
It can be a much smoother ride, if we focus on what works.
Recent Comments