Thank you for the comment, Wayne! I agree that the challenge may not be as much about shifting values as about reframing things. When I initially put together an outline for this chapter, I realized I had assumed much of the discussion would focus on value shifting. But though I think value shifts to some extent would be necessary to organize a transition towards eco-democratic societies, I’ve since realized that the task may be more about aligning our actions with values we already possess. As you point out, there’s no connection between the way the word “conservative” is used nowadays and any reasonable definition of it (or any values supposedly associated with “conservative” as a political label).

I have previously come across the idea you described about evolution leaving us disadvantaged when facing longer-term problems. It certainly seems plausible (I haven’t looked into expert views), but in my opinion it’s only relevant if it makes us more strategic in planning a transition. Are there ways to turn people’s attention more towards the long term? I believe there are. When trying to be a strategic transition planner, we’ll encounter lots of factors that represent obstacles and others that represent opportunities, but dwelling on obstacles we can’t do much about can lure us into thinking we have no responsibility to act.

You’re certainly right that we are prone to motivated reasoning and confirmation bias, and that’s one major reason I believe we’ll need to cultivate our critical thinking identity if we’re to make this transition possible.

Ultimately, we don’t (and likely could never) know for sure whether our actions will allow us to create sustainable societies. But in my opinion, the relevant question is not, “can we be sure we’ll succeed?” but rather, “what should we do?” It’s hard to imagine there’s a project that can deliver as much meaning to our lives as this.

Aaron

The difficulty, I believe, is in how evolution has shaped the human brain. There was a great book in the early ’80’s about this, don’t recall the name–I may have it lying around in one of my piles of books–that talked about how there was strong survival value in the early days of man for noticing abrupt changes in our surroundings–a crackling of leaves, a movement of branches–and none for slow, gradual changes. I think that’s where the problem lies: people are wired to pay attention to immediate problems (paying bills; feeling safe from crime) rather than bigger but less dramatic problems that are going to have a greater impact on them in the long run.

I think certain psychological factors (also hard-wired by evolution) enter into this issue, such as observation bias. People in general have a poor understanding of statistics (one of my favorite books is about this, called “The Drunkard’s Walk”) and grab onto any ‘evidence’ that supports their pre-existing beliefs while ignoring the ‘evidence’ that doesn’t, even if it’s much more substantial. So we have people that will look at today’s freezing weather and predicted snowfall as ‘proof’ that global warming is a scam, despite the past several years displaying record warmth on average.

These may be insurmountable challenges to creating the huge, planet-wide coalition needed to avoid imminent disaster, I’m afraid.