I agree that the tools of rational choice theory are very deeply ingrained in the realm of practice. It is going to take a considerable amount of work just to get people to recognize the problems with tools like cost-benefit analysis, especially those problems having to do with how human beings make sense of the world.

At the same time, I don’t want to come off as suggesting that CBA is totally wrong. Cost-benefit does have a place where it can be used effectively. The problems arise in how problems are conceptualized. When thinking about systemic challenges like climate change, the issues run much deeper than weighing relative costs in the existing paradigm. One must also critically assess the assumptions underlying the existing paradigm to see where the design flaws of the system itself exist.

This involves shifting frames to observe the deeper context - which is where one begins to see the root causes of dysfunction in the system. Only then can various options be considered for their strategic import in the context of making decisions.

Best,

Joe

We need to understand our feelings first, before we can deal with the fears of moderates or conservatives. The field of Emotional Intelligence seems good for some of that along with a little Cognitive Therapy information. That is that emotions have ideas behind them that, if wrong, can be changed with reason, if we get to the thoughts. Then tested intuition guides us in how to proceed an get what is best for ourselves and the environment.
A lot of the power of the forces in this world is that they know how to control us with emotions. It’s better that we should know also, or we are not at the helm and become a subject and a victim.
Intuition and knowledge can guide us through the most complex situations and the intuition can tell us where to get the knowledge or solve depression mostly automatically, if trained.

Rulers have alway yielded to the people. Louis XVI and Nicholas II for instance, but the people didn’t change that much and there is the problem. It has to be a global mind shift, not just on issues, but perhaps more importantly on the mind part.

I can’t say much more except that switching from judgmental words to accurate descriptive ones causes a mind shift that won’t quite and compassion comes with it. I think we need that kind of mind shift most of all.

The BBC could hardly have made a more shallow attempt to engage with contemporary environmental crises. It does led one to wonder if in the upper echelons of the BBC they make strategic decisions to circumvent important public debate by putting the least sympathetic individuals into important roles. From a perspective that acknowledges that all media is political, the show certainly does a good job of reinforcing conservative and elitist politics.

Justin Rowlatt can ignore his own role in perpetuating a deeply unsustainable practice because his is the dominant ideology - so it seems ‘natural’. Nevertheless, these hegemonic ideological assumptions are deeply problematic - environmentally and socially. Individuals such as Rowlatt can carve out a good career for themselves by aligning themselves with elites against all those troublesome environments who want social change as well as lower carbon emissions. What is shocking is that this is given a platform on public radio. It strikes me that the ‘ethical man’ is some kind of ironic joke, that’s not funny.