Listen now | We're running out of time—how far will we go to do the right thing? Joseph Merz founded the Merz Institute to combat the climate crisis, gathering some of the world’s best scientists to establish what is going wrong and how to fix it. He says the answer is behavioural change—and they’re developing a programme that would manipulate mass behaviour on a subconscious level using the same techniques as the advertising industry.
Interesting talk. There were several points in the discussion where I think Joseph sort of sidestepped the ethical concerns about what he is proposing and you could hear him struggling with it. It seems dangerous to me to use a tool that we know has caused great damage to society to get large groups of people to start thinking in "the right way". Who decides what is the right way, and what happens if the people managing the campaigns themselves are captured by perverse incentives?
I'd rather see people being given the psychological tools to avoid being unduly influenced by advertising, to question the narratives that tempt us into over-consumption. I'd also like to know what Tristan Harris & people at the Center for Humane Technology would make of Joseph's ideas.
I agree with you: I also found this a very interesting conversation, but I also felt quite annoyed by parts of it. Ego is what gets in the way so often, and I am worried that there is too much of it in this approach. I would very much like to learn more and discuss! Also, I disagree with Rachel's perception of plastic bags being better than paper bags, based on life cycle assessment studies (LCAs). There is a lot of "doctoring the data" in LCA and oftentimes only a final number is reported (creating the illusion of that number being an actual fact), but the real action is in the "expert judgement" that goes into LCA in the absence of data, and also in how system boundaries are set. And what about plastic pollution, and the hazardous chemicals migrating from both plastic and paper...? Most often this is not (adequately) addressed in LCAs. So, please be as critical and reflective with LCAs as you are with other topics. In my mind, the discussion should neither be about paper nor plastic bags (or any other material, for that matter (...pun intended...)), but simply about: plan your shopping and bring your own bag (whatever material it is) and reuse it until it gives up on you! Making bags (paper, plastic, whatever material) available in shops is yet another convenience that enables over-consumption. Again, happy to discuss!
I believe there is another chapter of this podcast which addresses the plastic vs paper bag issue, but I haven't sought it out yet. @rachel which one is it? I'm also a bit sceptical about this.
Thanks Rachel, another eye-opening article. My feelings are that neither plastic or paper are sustainable, but in different ways. Over and above emissions, the problem with plastics is the insidious and persistent way that they effect the wider environment. There was an episode of another podcast, which unfortunately I can't find now, where a 2019 study was cited, that stated we all ingest about a credit cards worth of plastic weekly. And it's not just us, plastic pollution extends right to the bottom of the food chain. One of the ways this is thought to be effecting many species, including us, is with the introduction of Endrocrine Disrupting Chemicals, which mess with hormone levels. In the case of humans this is making sperm counts drop to the level where populations will start to fall. The same is probably happening to other mammals.
Interesting talk. There were several points in the discussion where I think Joseph sort of sidestepped the ethical concerns about what he is proposing and you could hear him struggling with it. It seems dangerous to me to use a tool that we know has caused great damage to society to get large groups of people to start thinking in "the right way". Who decides what is the right way, and what happens if the people managing the campaigns themselves are captured by perverse incentives?
I'd rather see people being given the psychological tools to avoid being unduly influenced by advertising, to question the narratives that tempt us into over-consumption. I'd also like to know what Tristan Harris & people at the Center for Humane Technology would make of Joseph's ideas.
I agree with you: I also found this a very interesting conversation, but I also felt quite annoyed by parts of it. Ego is what gets in the way so often, and I am worried that there is too much of it in this approach. I would very much like to learn more and discuss! Also, I disagree with Rachel's perception of plastic bags being better than paper bags, based on life cycle assessment studies (LCAs). There is a lot of "doctoring the data" in LCA and oftentimes only a final number is reported (creating the illusion of that number being an actual fact), but the real action is in the "expert judgement" that goes into LCA in the absence of data, and also in how system boundaries are set. And what about plastic pollution, and the hazardous chemicals migrating from both plastic and paper...? Most often this is not (adequately) addressed in LCAs. So, please be as critical and reflective with LCAs as you are with other topics. In my mind, the discussion should neither be about paper nor plastic bags (or any other material, for that matter (...pun intended...)), but simply about: plan your shopping and bring your own bag (whatever material it is) and reuse it until it gives up on you! Making bags (paper, plastic, whatever material) available in shops is yet another convenience that enables over-consumption. Again, happy to discuss!
I believe there is another chapter of this podcast which addresses the plastic vs paper bag issue, but I haven't sought it out yet. @rachel which one is it? I'm also a bit sceptical about this.
One of the first episodes! Here's a link to a piece on the plastic/paper debate with the episode hyperlinked: https://www.planetcritical.com/p/trees-may-be-greenbut-paper-isnt
Thanks Rachel, another eye-opening article. My feelings are that neither plastic or paper are sustainable, but in different ways. Over and above emissions, the problem with plastics is the insidious and persistent way that they effect the wider environment. There was an episode of another podcast, which unfortunately I can't find now, where a 2019 study was cited, that stated we all ingest about a credit cards worth of plastic weekly. And it's not just us, plastic pollution extends right to the bottom of the food chain. One of the ways this is thought to be effecting many species, including us, is with the introduction of Endrocrine Disrupting Chemicals, which mess with hormone levels. In the case of humans this is making sperm counts drop to the level where populations will start to fall. The same is probably happening to other mammals.
Well done Rachel and Godspeed to Joseph.
I wrote a brief review of your podcast here:
https://un-denial.com/2022/04/01/sidestepping-genetic-reality-denial-by-manipulating-behavior-for-overshoot-harm-reduction/
Super interesting talk.
It sounds like Joseph has travelled down a lot of similar thought paths as myself, not easy, not fun.