| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Human tendency to focus on immediate threats |
Topic: Human tendency to focus on immediate threats
| Author | Message |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 10/25/2007 10:55:53 PM | show profile I've heard it said that humans are hard wired to react to claws and teeth in their face, but not to more distant (although possibly more disasterous) threats. Does anyone have thoughts on whether humans have the capacity to overcome that limitation? |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 10/26/2007 3:01:08 AM | show profile he business about threats is a little confusing. If there is a rabid dog snapping at your face, it's not like you can simply tell it to sit because you have to ponder the implications of global warming. Are you simply asking how people can learn to prioritize better and be more focused on the long-term rather than the short-term? |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 10/26/2007 9:54:14 AM | show profile I'm just wondering how hard this tendency will be to overcome, and if we really have any hope of overcoming it. If you think about it, its only with the last 40 or 50 years, guessing, of human existence when we've had some of the tools to predict looming threats (e.g., approaching hurricanes). And maybe for a bit longer a small portion of the population has had the tools to predict (and prevent) looming approaching economic threats. So, I'm really trying to understand why we humans (myself included) react so little to threats that we understand are approaching but not yet here. And by this I mean things like global warming, very serious energy shortages, extremely burdensome debts and deficits, etc. Is it just pretty much beyond our capabilities to take drastic action now to avoid or reduce these threats around the corner? I'm really wondering if this is the case. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 10/26/2007 10:49:17 AM | show profile --So, I'm really trying to understand why we humans (myself included) react so little to threats that we understand are approaching but not yet here. And by this I mean things like global warming, very serious energy shortages, extremely burdensome debts and deficits, etc. -- Oh, I think in a nutshell it just boils down to immediate gratification and personal impact. Most people would rather enjoy a delicious piece of cake today and not worry about the weight gain or heart disease risk in the future. Now, as individuals we can more easily control our individual actions and affect the future -- and see a direct benefit from our actions. We eat less/we lose weight. We cut spending/we see our bank accounts or savings retirements plan grow. Huge societal issues like global warming require massive participation so individuals don't see a direct connection between our actions and the benefits. We spend a lot of money on a hybrid car (sacrifice) but don't really see a direct benefit to the environment, except in a vague, philosophical sense. So it's not so much about how humans react to threats as much as the difficulty of getting large groups of humans to sacrifice their personal immediate benefits and self-interest in the service of some vague, greater, long-term good. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 10/26/2007 10:49:20 AM | show profile --So, I'm really trying to understand why we humans (myself included) react so little to threats that we understand are approaching but not yet here. And by this I mean things like global warming, very serious energy shortages, extremely burdensome debts and deficits, etc. -- Oh, I think in a nutshell it just boils down to immediate gratification and personal impact. Most people would rather enjoy a delicious piece of cake today and not worry about the weight gain or heart disease risk in the future. Now, as individuals we can more easily control our individual actions and affect the future -- and see a direct benefit from our actions. We eat less/we lose weight. We cut spending/we see our bank accounts or savings retirements plan grow. Huge societal issues like global warming require massive participation so individuals don't see a direct connection between our actions and the benefits. We spend a lot of money on a hybrid car (sacrifice) but don't really see a direct benefit to the environment, except in a vague, philosophical sense. So it's not so much about how humans react to threats as much as the difficulty of getting large groups of humans to sacrifice their personal immediate benefits and self-interest in the service of some vague, greater, long-term good. |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 10/26/2007 12:19:33 PM | show profile I wonder if that need for immediate gratification is also hard-wired in us. Eat while we can because who knows when we'll spear that next elk. Maybe I'm just trying to be more realistic and accepting of our limitations, rather than being bewildered that we (myself included) continue to carelessly splash about as frogs in the slowly warming pot of water. |
| astrahook | Posted – 10/26/2007 4:41:38 PM | show profile maybe there is a feeling that just because we can glimpse into the future we shouldn't change it. The argument can be made that modern medicine is making people live longer which on the surface is a good thing. But, maybe the planet was never meant to have this many people living on it. Consider what the worlds population would be today without the miracles of modern science. Does that mean we shouldn't continue to advance? Just as there was an ice age, there will be something else. You talk like we are supposed to be here forever and i'm not sure thats really the case. Its happened in the past without pollutents/ man made global warming and all the other crap we are sacked with. Will likely happen again. |
| noname1234 | Posted – 10/26/2007 5:46:14 PM | show profile There may also somewhat of a difference between what we have already experience and what we have never experienced. We have experienced the devastation of a hurricane so we can understand specifically why we need to prepare for the next one. We've never experienced, say, California being submerged by the ocean so that threat doesn't seem as real. Kinda like how we collectively had a hard time picturing (and seeing as a realistic threat) a massive terrorist attack on US soil -- before it actually happened. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 10/26/2007 6:04:14 PM | show profile I really don't think that's the issue for very many people. If you ask most people if they would philosophically be in favor of having a cleaner environment or better schools, they inevitably say, "You bet." It's when you ask people to pay for these things that they hesitate. It's no different than asking people if they would like to be in better shape -- sure, as long as they don't have to exercise more or eat better. --maybe there is a feeling that just because we can glimpse into the future we shouldn't change it. -- |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 10/26/2007 7:43:07 PM | show profile Astra, it may help you to say "yeah, we had ice ages before, yeah we've had a massive die off of species before, holocausts, etc." And that kind of thing has at times help me to keep it in perspective, but you'd have to have a heart of ice to just say who cares, why bother, it doesn't matter in the big picture. Of course mother nature will ultimately prevail and take care of herself possibly by getting rid of most of us. But I'm talking about this very real life I'm living and these very real children we've brought into the world. It's a process of working through the psychology of living in a world that is increasingly and rapidly becoming unsustainable, with the consequences to be felt in my lifetime certainly, and definitely in my childrens. I'm trying to find that balance between trying to help change the world for the better (for myself and my kids) and accepting the world for what it is and may become. |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 10/26/2007 7:47:04 PM | show profile I think New Orleans was (or should have been) a big wake up call for what we may be seeing more of. Now I think it seems at least a bit more real. I wonder about the personal sacrifice issue... if we told everyone that if each person with a family income of over $60K contributed $10K per person we could "solve" global warming, would people cough it up? My guess is no. And of course I think it will "cost" far far more to seriously address it. |
| astrahook | Posted – 10/29/2007 11:46:11 AM | show profile Well since you posed the question, do you do anything that you know is adverse to your health? Eat foods to high in fat, to little excercise, to much time in the sun, smoke, drink, etc.. same things really, maybe you make an occasional adjustment but likley return to those habits. Why is that? |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 10/29/2007 8:19:15 PM | show profile Well, you hit the nail on the head. A lot of people wouldn't do it because they wouldn't believe what you are telling them. That's an entirely different issue. The big global issues are difficult to solve because people don't believe they can do anything personally. --I wonder about the personal sacrifice issue... if we told everyone that if each person with a family income of over $60K contributed $10K per person we could "solve" global warming, would people cough it up? My guess is no. And of course I think it will "cost" far far more to seriously address it.-- |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 10/30/2007 8:45:49 AM | show profile There are people, though, who have changed their lifestyle, for example, perhaps when they felt and believed there was a legitimate and looming threat to their health. I don't think I would have been willing to make the lifestyle changes at 20 that I may be willing and able to make now because now that threat of physical decline (decades away still I hope) feels much more real to me now than it did at 20. I guess in a nutshell it takes a person being convinced that: 1. a future threat is real, 2. it will have very unpleasant consequences, 3. it's not really all that far away, and 4. they can do something about it. Each on its own would be a tough sell...but to get the masses to be on board for all four... hmmmm... makes me feel a bit pessimistic. And I'm not just talking about global warming, I'm talking about our unsustainable federal deficit, personal debts, inevitable energy shortages, etc. |
| keltoi2 | Posted – 10/30/2007 6:04:44 PM | show profile It's natural for people in general to live for the immediate gratification at the risk of some hazy, distant threat. In America, there is the additional challenge of a society that worships individualism over community, far more than most nations around the globe. Therefore, getting Americans to make sacrifices for the greater good is more difficult than in say, Japan or Sweden. BushCo and the media know that well, so they don't demand sacrifice, say, for the Iraq War, for example. No military draft, no raising taxes, no rationing of goods. Americans remain comfortable and unchallenged (excepting the families of those serving), and BushCo gets its war. Can you imagine Americans today making the sacrifices of Americans during World War II? I sure can't. Of course, Iraq may end up costing the US taxpayer about $2 trillion before it ends, but BushCo and the media buried that little fact and borrowed the money, so the bill, like so many others--environment, health care, Social Security, Medicare--will be passed on to our children and grandchildren. They may well curse the names of the generations before them. |
