See all authors and affiliations
Science 11 Oct 2019:
Vol. 366, Issue 6462, pp. 193
DOI: 10.1126/science.aaz2422
ILLUSTRATION: ROBERT NEUBECKER
Rates of environmental destruction are greater today than at any previous point in human history (1). This loss of valued species, ecosystems, and landscapes triggers strong grief responses in people with an emotional attachment to nature (2). However, environmental scientists are presented with few opportunities to address this grief professionally.
Environmental scientists tend to respond to degradation of the natural world by ignoring, suppressing, or denying the resulting painful emotions while at work (3). The risks that this entails are profound. Emotional trauma can substantially compromise self-awareness, imagination, and the ability to think coherently (4). As Charles Darwin put it, one “who remains passive when overwhelmed with grief loses [the] best chance of recovering elasticity of mind” (5).
Academic institutes must allow environmental scientists to grieve well and thus emerge stronger from traumatic experiences to discover new insights about our rapidly changing world. Much can be learned from other professions in which distressing circumstances are commonplace, such as health care, disaster relief, law enforcement, and the military. In these fields, well-defined organizational structures and active strategies exist for employees to anticipate and manage their emotional distress (6). Effective systems can facilitate healthy grieving processes, enhance psychological recovery, and reduce the risk of long-term mental health impacts, potentially leading to better practice, decision-making, and resilience in future periods of trauma (7–10). Improved psychosocial working environments for scientists might include systematic training of employees, early-intervention debriefing after disturbing events, social support from colleagues and managers, and therapeutic counseling.
Full *cough cough* article here.
HT/Walter S
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I didn’t know whether to laugh or to cry.
It appears that the purported response to the stress felt by climate activists is to rehash their experience with professional guidance. There is some literature that suggest, that rehashing and rehashing a bad experience ingrains that experience such that the thought persists long after the emotional impact has dissipated. This leads to “blockage” regarding the ability to move on: ie, people become “stuck” at least emotionally. The key to a healthy mind is to be able to refocus on some positive issue so that the negativity generated by constant worry about environment etc, will lessen. Unfortunately, such a strategy presumes a healthy mind in the first place, which may not always be the case.
From the article: “This loss of valued species, ecosystems, and landscapes triggers strong grief responses in people with an emotional attachment to nature”
Some people get upset thinking about the damage being done to species, ecosystems and landscapes by windmill farms.
The poor wee mites – God bless their wee (environmentally harvested) cotton socks: oh there goes Chicken Little!)
How many sick leave days to they need?
According to the article:
“Emotional trauma can substantially compromise self-awareness, imagination, and the ability to think coherently”
Well… if your typical climate scientist has experienced severe emotional trauma and therefore “can’t think coherently”, has no imagination, and has substantially compromised self-awareness .
1) What are the odds this “trauma” didn’t come before their research activities?
2) What are the odds their unconvincing “evidence” of climate change isn’t a symptom of trauma?
3) And, regardless of 1 or 2, why should anyone believe what their saying now?
Look at from this perspective, the authors are essentially saying climate scientist are mentally ill.
I noticed her Dad was eating a banana.
Does he realize what it takes to get a banana to Canada in an edible condition?
Sorry about this repeat of my above comment. Don’t know how that happened.
(The context is Grrrrreta’s Dad eating a banana while in Canada in a video above.)
In what other area of life should you believe someone just because they’re “traumatized”?
The cure for their “trauma” is to return to a dispassionate approach to the application of the scientific method in the field of climate “science”.
They do that and there’ll be no trauma and their contributions to climate “science” will loose the quotation marks.
This is just too daft, it must be a spoof.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority. but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane”
attributed to Marcus Aurelius , (121-180AD)
I take it, the original article was published on April 1 ?
By “need support”, do the authors actually mean “need grant money” ?
this.
I am sure appropriate funding will improve their health in a blink of an eye, until next fiscal year.
The first sentence of the article:
Rates of environmental destruction are greater today than at any previous point in human history (1).
The reference:
Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Gerardo Ceballos, Paul R. Ehrlich, and Rodolfo
That middle author….where have I seen his name before?
I stopped reading after the first sentence, after I took the link to reference (1) and found that one of the co-authors of the referenced paper was Paul R. Ehrlich. Science is an entirely honest process; Ehrlich openly countenances the use of dishonesty; therefore Ehrlich has no credibility as a scientist.
I’m still waiting for someone to name a species to whose extinction I have contributed, along with specific details of what I did to contribute to the extinction, and when I did it.
Without such a detailed accusation, and the opportunity to confirm or deny those details for myself, I will never accept any guilt for species extinction or any other claimed environmental “problem.”
These biologists clearly do not like evolution.
Their world is perfect right now.
No more changes or extinctions of plant or animal species
are allowed in their perfect world.
They might even want to back the dinosaurs or other essential species.
They have scared the kids so long that they now are becoming victims of there own scare stories.
I have environmental PTSD! It’s from listening to lies, non-stop lies, from activists determined to destroy our way of life! I am very depressed that if we do not undo the damages that CO2 activists are promulgating my children will end up living in a totalitarian state and they will have to declare war on the state to better their lives and the cycle of loos of life and strife will begin anew. Sadly my kids are among the brainwashed and despite my attempts at de-programming, they are persisting in doubts Of course the reality of totalitarian states cannot survive as history clearly shows but they can exact a tremendous toll on the humanity who live in the way of their greed and inevitably unconscionable actions.
“What is the Rust Belt and how did it affect American cities?
Rust Belt States 2019. The term “Rust Belt” is a term used to describe areas in the Midwest and Great Lakes regions of the United States.
This is a derogatory term used to describe areas where there is an economic decline, urban decay, high rates of poverty, and a drop in population due to deindustrialization. Aug 28, 2019”
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-huawei&sxsrf=ACYBGNT44jNsuhViq94MF7wELuxcAiQExA%3A1572283057773&ei=sSK3XdHQLoPNrgTI3J6wCA&q=Rust+belt+steel+mill+cities+&oq=Rust+belt+steel+mill+cities+&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.