Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Greens have finally worked out how to promote climate action: Create more greens, by “ingraining” children with their worldview.
Study: inspiring action on climate change is more complex than you might think
People have to grasp how climate change impacts them, and we need to value environmentally sound behavior
John Abraham
Friday 19 May 2017 20.00 AEST
We know humans are causing climate change. That is a fact that has been known for well over 100 years. We also know that there will be significant social and economic costs from the effects. In fact, the effects are already appearing in the form of more extreme weather, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, and so on.
So why haven’t humans done much about the problem? Answering that question may be more challenging than the basic science of a changing climate. Fortunately, a new review just out in Science helps us with this question. Lead author, Dr. Elise Amel, a colleague of mine, completed the review with colleagues Drs. Christie Manning, Britain Scott, and Susan Koger. Rather than focusing solely on the problems with communicating the science of climate change, this work takes a wider view on the hurdles that get in the way of meaningful action.
…
The authors identify a variety of strategies for moving forward with human limitations in mind. Since they acknowledge humans tend not to protect those things they either don’t know or don’t value, ingraining a sense of value in the natural world may be critical. In fact, there is a strong relationship between an individual’s connection to nature and their ecological behavior. In today’s world of growing industrialization and severing of the nature/human connection, the challenge may be to find and create new connection opportunities.
More immediately, the authors encourage efforts to change the social norms surrounding environmentally sound behavior – making it cool again.
…
I think the summary of the paper does a great job encapsulating the work’s important lessons. The authors write:
Psychological research suggests that humans can move toward a sustainable society by creating conditions that motivate environmentally responsible collective action – conditions that help people surmount cognitive limits, create new situational drivers, foster need fulfillment, and support communities of social change. Individuals whose actions are informed by a deeper understanding of how the planet really works can galvanize collectives to change the larger systems that drive so much of human behavior. To radically alter the way humans think and live; educate the next generation; and design physical, governmental, and cultural systems, humans must experience and better understand their profound interdependence with the planet.
…
The study referenced by The Guardian;
Beyond the roots of human inaction: Fostering collective effort toward ecosystem conservation
Elise Amel, Christie Manning, Britain Scott, Susan Koger
Science 21 Apr 2017:
Vol. 356, Issue 6335, pp. 275-279
DOI: 10.1126/science.aal1931
Abstract
The term “environmental problem” exposes a fundamental misconception: Disruptions of Earth’s ecosystems are at their root a human behavior problem. Psychology is a potent tool for understanding the external and internal drivers of human behavior that lead to unsustainable living. Psychologists already contribute to individual-level behavior-change campaigns in the service of sustainability, but attention is turning toward understanding and facilitating the role of individuals in collective and collaborative actions that will modify the environmentally damaging systems in which humans are embedded. Especially crucial in moving toward long-term human and environmental well-being are transformational individuals who step outside of the norm, embrace ecological principles, and inspire collective action. Particularly in developed countries, fostering legions of sustainability leaders rests upon a fundamental renewal of humans’ connection to the natural world.
Read more (paywalled): http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6335/275
Sadly the full study is paywalled, so we don’t get to see how the authors plan to deal with parents, when they discover their kids are being “ingrained” in climate madrassas instead of receiving a balanced education.
The whole country is already brainwashed. People actually think Trump is not a liar. People think climate change is a hoax. If you really want to get to the crux of how the american population is brainwashed on a daily basis then read Manufacturing Consent by noted scholar and MIT professor Noam Chomsky.
Did you forget a /sarcasm tag? Noam Chomsky, really?
I know, right? People actually think that space aliens aren’t already here, and that an invasion isn’t imminent.
Sad!
Troll Effort Rating: 0.04 out of a possible 97. Sorry, try again.
Don’t you mean “noted anti-American Commie loon who has always been wrong about everything”.
Kids are pretty resilient and in fact, sometimes see through indoctrination that adults pester upon them. Sometimes the kids just outright rebel and take the opposite view of whatever is being pushed, since they are smart enough already to know that there is always an agenda. The CAGW/CC meme is a new religion, so the smart kids who already know that start to question everything, which is the foundation of science. Luckily, there is enough publicly available information for anyone who digs into the matter and they can find some scientific facts about all the subjects that relate to this.
Which is why this blog is so important in keeping up good scientific responses to the general population about CAGW/CC issues, as well as encouraging the general population to be involved in the debate. The only problem is that many here have different agenda’s too, or are just looking to pick a fight with meaningless arguments about anything else, or indulge in character assassinations or personal attacks against a writer, and not the idea they wrote. It would be nice to see a lot more factual and intelligent discourse here.
Marxism against Capitalism and the 10 Planks of Communism. Saul Alinsky “Rules for Radicals” tactics. Cloward and Pevin Strategy. John Dewey everyone is equal and gets a Gold Star for effort. The Frankfurt School in the USA. Leninism of teaching the children young to change society to support the Government and against their parents. The “45 steps to Communism” presented to Congress in 1963 by Dr. Cleon Skoulsen. Those are what the Leftist have used to control the population and push their agendas. Our Indoctrination Institutions (schools) have been infiltrated a long time ago by these Liberal Progressive Democratic Socialist. Communist and Socialist Party’s stopped trying to get their members elected and disbanded in the reign of FDR to join the Democratic Party. And people are just starting to wake up now?
Part of the driving force to create the new geo-political, sci-fi short story series Time Protectors was this very concern. Brainwashing of the susceptible public and of our children are purposeful steps in defining a new world order.
This very subject is brought forward in Chapter 2 of the latest installment, Time Protectors, book four, Counter Strike.
Extremely topical.
Since these psychologists think they are scientists, they need to be asked if rugrats nowadays are more programmed (programmable) than they were generations ago. Have they raised any lately?
here’s the liberated file:
https://ufile.io/j9ht7
and yes, it is totally a protocol and rationale for indoctrination – animal husbandry.
how to train your sheep.
so, by sheer chance, all the comments about that are correct.
It’s the same story now as it was under the Soviets and Nazis: if you can’t win over the moral, the intelligent and the informed, target the young, the naive and the uninformed by seducing them with social rewards such as peer acceptance and virtue signalling.
Already happening, for example one class in the greater Victoria BC area wrote letters to a government person urging action on climate change – no justification in letters, most likely a devious teacher’s scheme.
(The BC Teachers’ Federation is a lefty union.)
Folks may be interested in a very recent study from Harvard Education. The tools and processes are already in place:
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/17/05/curriculum-changing-world
I remember in my high school days seeing a video about the advance of the desert into farm land, how worldwide governments were spending close to a billion dollars to stop it. Last year I saw a video about how global warming was threatening desert plants, because the greening of the earth was causing deserts to retreat. Something needed to be done to protect desert habitat.
Somehow people concerned about natural fluctuations forget or never studied earth history. The Sahara Desert is a geologically recent phenomenon. Just 5000 years ago, it was still moist.
Desert-adapted species find habitats in which to ride out the wet intervals
This “brainwashing” idea has been going on for almost a hundred years. The left has been advocating it as the winning alternative to classical Marxism’s violent revolution. Marxist gurus like Lukacs and Gramsci have been pushing these ideas since the early 20th century.with the goal of defeating the greatest obstacle to their Marxist Utopia, Western civilization itself.
From https://smashculturalmarxism.wordpress.com/2015/02/28/antonio-gramscis-grand-plan/ :
“Mastery over the consciousness of the great mass of people would be attained, Gramsci contended, if Communists or their sympathizers gained control of the organs of culture — churches, education, newspapers, magazines, the electronic media, serious literature, music, the visual arts, and so on. By winning “cultural hegemony,” to use Gramsci’s own term, Communism would control the deepest wellsprings of human thought and imagination.”
Anyone can see how the left has become dominant in the media and in the the education system from K-U. Political correctness which is rampant in our culture is another manifestation of this. The green movement is another part of the leftist program, so it’s not surprising that the “study” documented above suggests similar but perhaps even more brazenly radical tactics.
A friend and colleague of mine, who died too young from pancreatic cancer, wrote his PhD thesis on Gramsci. My buddy and his Catholic wife belonged to SDS while in grad school.
He later turned conservative and wrote a popular book on the 1970 U. of Wisconsin bombers.
Gramsci’s vision of how to impose Communism on the masses is so far having more success in the West than violent revolution.
This is the Australian version-
https://www.crinklingnews.com.au/
Scientific theories are just that: Theories. They may be right and, to the best of our knowledge, many of them seem to be. Einstein’s theories seem to be right because no one has been able to disprove them. Of course, Einstein showed that Newton’s theories were just a very good approximation and the best that Newton could do at the time.
Darwin’s theory of evolution seems to be right. It must be the Truth, because there is a 99.9% consensus. And everybody knows that a consensus is right and anyone who disagrees is a heretic and must be stoned.
Right?
But, creationists/intelligent design people seem to be pretty harmless. However, Marxist/socialist theories have been proven a failure every time they have been tried. And, in the process socialists of various stripe have murdered some 200 million people. And they run the education system. Why in the world would you hire someone that teaches a theory that is so brutally, horribly destructive?
‘Why in the world would you hire someone that teaches a theory that is so brutally, horribly destructive?’
Simple: Complete denial and rationalization of real-world consequences, done by filtering reality through ideology, combined with a control-freak mentality as a psychological starting point.
Although to be fair, we’re on the second or third generation of this indoctrination – which brings me to the most frustrating part of dealing with unconscious ideologues – it’s hard to blame people for believing what they’ve been taught.
I still remember the moral outrage back in the seventies over reading primers like ‘Janet and Mark’ – portrayed with a ‘traditional nuclear family’ – which was supposedly ‘reinforcing stereotypes’ and was an example of ‘social engineering’ – which was apparently a bad thing. Personally, I simply saw it as reflecting typical, naturally-evolving reality with no agenda whatsoever.
Of course, when the Progressives take over the messaging, the about-face morality of it is instantaneous – deliberate social engineering, with pre-determined agenda (and, believe me, it’s not just Climate Change, but every Progressively Correct issue there is) – all THAT’s okay.