I got to musing about the OECD out of frustration, after spending hours looking for a comprehensive analysis comparing environmental policies across the US states. I was especially curious whether the rather cold-hearted Republican rhetoric about non-human species was matched by cold-hearted state policies. That turned out to be too big a project, so I settled for info on state environmental budgets (available on Balletopedia).
Which got me thinking…How do we know what someone means when they say something? How do we know what they’re thinking of when they say things? Or, even harder, what unconscious cognitions are behind their words?… Can words be true, valid, useful, insightful, demeaning and hurtful all at the same time? If so, how do we deal with it? What counts as evidence that certain expressions are dog whistles? What counts as definitive evidence?
But it’s not going to happen without the cooperation of farmers. And that’s not an easy task, given that farming is a low margin, high-risk affair. Now consider that sustainable and intensive farming practices often require high initial investment with uncertain or delayed payoff. Most farmers don’t have the luxury of waiting years for a return on investment - they can hardly think past this year’s harvest. So how can governments make it easier for farmers to adopt practices and technologies that protect the biosphere? Here are some ideas…
Confident and optimistic? The machinery will tilt towards images of success and triumph, but not dwell on them because no preparation is required for what may come. We already know we can handle whatever is thrown our way, and it will be good.
Unfortunately, farmers often resist new ways of doing things, especially poor farmers in developing countries. Who could blame them? Farming is full of risk and uncertainty, between the weather, pests, volatile markets, bad policies, lack of storage facilities, and inadequate infrastructure. Sustainable farming requires an investment of time, labor and capital, and the return on this investment may take years. Small farmers in particular may not have the luxury to think past the current harvest.
At the present time, almost 33% of the earth’s total land area is used for agriculture. Let’s reduce that by a fifth, from roughly 49 million to 38 million square kilometers: close to the amount of agricultural land in 1950. Sounds crazy, but it’s doable, considering that agricultural productivity has already improved to the point that to produce the same amount of crops as in 1961, we need only 30% of the farmland (Our World in Data).
Granted, the Living Planet Index doesn’t cover most species but it’s a pretty good proxy for the health of the land-based biosphere. And from this chart, it’s clear that the relation between regional population growth and biodiversity is complicated.
A recent study identified 101,583 square kilometers (km2) of mining operations across the globe, based on the latest satellite imagery (Maus, Giljum, da Silva et al, 2022). This figure includes open cuts, tailings dams, waste rock dumps, water ponds, processing plants, and other ground features related to the mining activities. To put that number in perspective, agricultural land covers over 47 million km2 worldwide. However, the amount of land devoted to mining increases every year - thanks in large part to the growing market for renewal energy and electric vehicles.
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, agricultural land includes croplands, pastures, orchards, vineyards, and flowering shrubs but excludes trees grown for wood or timber. Almost 33% of the earth’s total land area is used for agriculture. The rest goes to forest/shrub ( 37%), glaciers (10%) barren land such as deserts (19%) and a minuscule 1% for human urban areas and built-up land…Expanding wild habitat is mostly about taking from agriculture and giving to forests and shrub lands.
High perceived control tends to soften the blows of outrageous fortune by activating action plans to make things better. Low perceived control sharpens the sting of adversity because it makes us feel helpless and hopeless. Individuals who chronically lack a sense of control tend to become angry and disengaged: there's nothing I can do to make a difference, so why bother?
In prepping for a previous post on social justice, I came across a great meta-analysis on the research and theory of "relative deprivation", which the authors define as "the judgment that one is worse off compared to some standard accompanied by feelings of anger and resentment" (Smith, Pettigrew et al, 2011, p 203). According to this meta-analysis, the experience of relative deprivation can be applied to the self or ingroup and requires…
Grievance involves feelings of deprivation, shame, humiliation, impotent anger, and being the victim of injustice. Grievance demands payback. Deep grievance demands big payback and may not be satisfied until the payback is proportionate to the harm done. Which may take forever.
Politicians want to be leaders and so need followers. To make someone a follower, you need to convince them you have the Right Stuff, which includes supreme self-confidence that you have the Answer. If you’re elected, you have to deliver. If you don’t deliver, then you have to counsel patience or make excuses (ideally, blaming the Other Side). You can’t say you were wrong and then suggest a fix - at least, not if you want to be reelected.
Commitment to an ideology imbues it with a “sacred value”, or “roughly, a value that is held particularly fervidly and that one is incredibly reluctant to relinquish” (Clark and Winegard, 2020). The ideologically committed are therefore akin to True Believers; they’re all in.
So if I were to walk a random 10-acre area in Houston and San Francisco, which city would city would be more dangerous for me personally, considering only violent crime rate and crime density?
Note the governments of Britain, Finland, France, Norway and Sweden had previously supported gender-affirming care for children. But they reconsidered in light of new evidence that such care could sometimes be harmful. American activists know about this evidence as well but many have chosen to dig in, not yielding an inch. However, this post is not about the merits of gender-affirming care for children. It’s about why people and policymakers persist in old ways of thinking and doing despite evidence that the old ways are suboptimal or worse.
What seems crazy about these numbers is that violent crime in America skyrocketed between 1960 and 1990, but incarceration rates barely budged until the 1980s. Of course, there’s always a time lag between committing a crime and starting a prison sentence, so any relationship between crime rates and incarceration rates would also be subject to a time lag. But why would it take 20 years for the incarceration rate to take off?
Last week there was a lot of brouhaha about a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) poll showing that Americans were less enthused about some pretty core principles and values, such as patriotism and hard work. Problem is, America’s apparent moral decline was based on only two polls, one in 1998 and one in 2023. That’s not enough data to declare a trend.
So I did some digging. Sure enough, there was a 1976-77 poll that asked the same questions - its results were actually provided on a WSJ document that summarized responses to the 1998 poll. Considering the 1976-77 poll results along with those for 1998 and 2023, can you spot the trend in, say, patriotism? …
Those alarmed at these poll results had three main concerns. First, endorsement of key values was less whole-hearted than they had been in the 1998 poll. Specifically, there were fewer “Very Important” responses to values such as hard work and community involvement, even though most respondents still considered these values at least somewhat important (94% and 80% in the case of hard work and community involvement). Second was the overall decline in valuing religion, having children, and patriotism, with 40%, 33%, and 27% of respondents considering these values as “not that important” or “not important at all” in the 2023 poll. And third, a whopping 90% of the 2023 respondents considered money an important value. What’s up with that?
“If we want to rebuild a shared public trust in expertise, we will need a more realistic and humane language to talk about scientific expertise and its place in our political life—an account of expertise that is worthy of the public’s trust. Such an account would affirm scientific expertise as a praiseworthy human achievement, indispensable to understanding the world around us and valuable for making political decisions. But it would also recognize the role of uncertainty and judgment in science, and thus the possibility of error and disagreement, including value disagreements, when using science for public policy. Reestablishing an appropriate role for science in our politics, in other words, requires restoring the central role of politics itself in making policy decisions.” - Unmasking Scientific Expertise, by M. Anthony Mills/Issues in Science and Technology