I reject reality and substitute my own

[Ego]

regarding ridicule, IlliniDave hits the nail on the head: ridicule never convinced any of the humans being ridiculed. the main function of ridicule is to bond with the people already on your side. especially the people who are mostly on your side because of herd dynamics, not because of reason.

there's a reason MMM is so popular with more mainstream people and ERE is for the anti-social uber nerds.

Juxtaposed paragraphs.

[Ego]

Today on Shankar Vedantam's podcast Hidden Brain

Why Our Brains Weren't Made To Deal With Climate Change
http://www.npr.org/2016/04/18/474685770 ... ate-change

In the podcast they mentioned Kahneman's view that:

1) we discount future problems.
2) we are naturally cost averse.
3) we are reluctant to deal with uncertainty.

Also they suggest a religion-like shared sacrifice as the solution.

[Dragline]

I believe they mention this book, which we have discussed elsewhere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_We_Di ... ate_Change

It could be a different book -- I think there is more than one on the psychology of it.

While the proposed solution is interesting, you are probably going to need an actual religious movement and not a pseudo-one for that type of solution to have any traction. Secular communitarian organizations have a habit of failing where religious ones succeed -- look up Israeli kibbutzes for some of the research/data on that. I think J. Haidt may have delved into that too. But honestly, I would not be surprised if the Left becomes more religious and the Right becomes less so by 2030.

[BRUTE]

Juxtaposed paragraphs.

brute's attempt at using self-deprecating humor to gain the humans' trust has been compromised!

@Dragline:

this is exactly what brute meant previously by "it's not enough to be right and on a moral high ground/horse". if one views religion as instilling unfounded faith in a group of humans because one knows better than they do, climate change needs to become a religion (under this definition) to be accepted by a majority of humans. and in a way, it already has. almost all the humans who believe in climate change didn't check the science, they just believed somebody who they trust. in this sense, most ideas that take off are religious in nature: communism, capitalism, democracy, pop music.

brute suggests a formula:

problem is hard to verify/experience on an individual level + takes massive cooperation of unwashed masses to solve => solution is religious propaganda and brainwashing. truthfulness and morality of problem or solution not relevant.

[jacob]

brute suggests a formula:

problem is hard to verify/experience on an individual level + takes massive cooperation of unwashed masses to solve => solution is religious propaganda and brainwashing. truthfulness and morality of problem or solution not relevant.

This is where I think the previous formula was---at least for some issues:

problem is hard to verify/experience on an individual level + takes massive cooperation of unwashed masses to solve => solution is journalists relaying the facts to the public and representative democracy relying on experts

And the current formula is:

problem is hard to verify/experience on an individual level + takes massive cooperation of unwashed masses to solve => solution is bloggers and think tanks making up facts for the public to google and democratic representatives relying on science fiction authors

[Dragline]

@Dragline:

this is exactly what brute meant previously by "it's not enough to be right and on a moral high ground/horse". if one views religion as instilling unfounded faith in a group of humans because one knows better than they do, climate change needs to become a religion (under this definition) to be accepted by a majority of humans. and in a way, it already has. almost all the humans who believe in climate change didn't check the science, they just believed somebody who they trust. in this sense, most ideas that take off are religious in nature: communism, capitalism, democracy, pop music.

It's generally not that complicated, as pre-existing religions frequently pick up popular ideas of their eras and run with them. Often the many differences between two sects under the same umbrella are related to views on current popular ideas, leading to amusing and paradoxical conflicts.

For example, under the umbrella of Christianity, you can find both sects that encourage the unbridled exploitation of nature and those that encourage conservation, often tied to popular economic or political theories that are of relatively recent vintage.

If you are interested in the parallels between secular ideologies and religions, I'd recommend some of the works of John Gray, particularly "Black Mass" described here: http://www.booksandideas.net/IMG/pdf/20 ... ehrent.pdf and "Economics as Religion" by Nelson: http://www.amazon.com/Economics-As-Reli ... 0271022841