Our species has been forged over millions of years with evolutionary adaptations common to many other primates that functioned very well in relatively small groups. This is supported by the fact that our brain size is capable of managing only an average group of about 150 people.
When these groups became much more numerous and we began to crowd into large cities made up of anonymous hordes of individuals, we had to add cultural adaptations, rules, and norms to limit the effects of aggressiveness or other negative behaviors that compromised the success of the campaign. community.
Thus were born the political and religious institutions, which soon discovered the fundamental key to regulate the emotions of the multitude at will. And they learned to directly maneuver the needle on the scale that makes the difference between reward and punishment: fear.
Fear as a control strategy
Fear is an adaptation crucial to the survival of a species, with impacts ranging from the individual to the community.
Fear itself is powerful enough to affect the growth rate of wild mammal and bird populations. The fear of large carnivores or the human superpredator can cause trophic cascades that affect the abundance of plants and invertebrates.
But fear becomes a dangerous weapon when someone discovers that it can be used to manipulate people. The truth is that it works. That is why many have wondered if the end can justify the means, and to what extent and when it can be used to achieve them.
Complex human societies began to resort to fear also to defend moral or ethical principles, and not only questions of first necessity.
For example, it would be good for people to understand that it is not necessary to kill, rape or steal, because respect for life is a fundamental value, and because nobody deserves to suffer suffering or pain. However, moral motivation is not usually enough, and we feel obliged to impose punishment and threats on those who do not comply with all of this, whether it be with the intimidation of jail, death or hell.
Thus, it is not surprising that we use fear to defend many causes that seem just and sensible to us. For example, we often use fear with children so that they do not harm themselves or avoid dangerous situations, terrorizing them with dire or disturbing images and thus moving away from certain behaviors. This achieves a greater effect than with a simple command or instruction, because we associate a behavior with a negative emotion.
Fear in environmental awareness
We are doing something similar with ecology, environmentalism and the defense of the planet. Apocalyptic approaches abound in the climate change narrative.
It seems absurd to have to invoke fear to convince someone that they have to take care of their own home, but it is. Environmental protection often involves predicting destruction and catastrophes, raging seas and scorching heats, endless storms and wild earthquakes.
Unfortunately, many of these predictions are not far from some of the most probable scientific scenarios and must be taken very seriously.
The number of scientists who are denouncing the risks and evidence of a global climate and energy imbalance on a daily basis continues to grow.
The reports of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) are increasingly conclusive on the trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions, the warming they generate in the atmosphere and the connection with a growing climate instability that manifests itself in all kinds of events extremely devastating extremes.
In summarizing the myriad scientific studies on climate change, the IPCC delves into the notions of climate crisis and emergency, and activates the debate on loss and damage policy. But it must combine widely varying perceptions between countries and regions, exercising a delicate diplomatic role in reaching the necessary consensus for its reports.
The language of the IPCC abounds with the concept of “threat”. But we must reflect on the use of fear to convince of the importance of an ecological perspective in the management of our own environment. That is, if fear is used to achieve a goal, you have to be aware that then you have to deal with the consequences, and with a whole series of possible side effects.
Using optimism and confidence to change behaviors
Society is increasingly exposed to very varied messages about climate change, its importance and urgency. From interventions by environmental groups to documentaries, through current news about extreme weather events, scientific conferences and seminars, and even publicity campaigns from governments and companies. Many appeal to fear in the face of dire scenarios and almost all generate in the audience a sincere desire to take action.
However, Biniek-Tobasco et al. Point out that it is essential to connect individual actions with achievable global change.
It is necessary to articulate very explicit actions and explain their benefits well to influence individual motivation, and to use hope and not fear approaches to change behaviors. Engaging stories and evocative cinematic images are very effective for a general audience.
Why fear doesn’t work
Using fear to convince someone to do something is not a very honest way to solve a problem. And it may not even be as effective for different reasons.
- Raising fear is not very ethical, and if we encourage its use to manipulate people’s emotions, sooner or later it can turn against us. In addition, fear can transform, without much warning, into panic, and lead to situations that are difficult to control and with unpredictable results. Fear is a strong emotion that often creates a blockage. Fear leads to insecurity and it easily turns into a negative emotion. When fear grows, it turns into terror, and this does make us lose control completely.
- Fear does not work very well in the long run because a threat or anathema can have short-term results, but in the long term it is difficult to sustain them. And, obviously, the sustainable management of the planet is something that requires a long-lasting attitude and with broad horizons.
- With fear you can control some specific behaviors, but in the case of a global change of course we are not talking about a couple of adjustments in some behaviors, but about profound changes in hundreds of fundamental aspects of our daily lives. We do not have to impose this measure or that, but rather promote a change in general mentality. In other words, we cannot use fear to solve thousands of problems individually, but rather find a solution that encompasses all (or many) at the same time.
- Catastrophic predictions, if later not exactly fulfilled, represent negative publicity for the cause. A frightening but wrong forecast can cancel decades of commitment and work at the level of communication and social perception.
- Fear is not universal and therefore does not work for everyone. There are those who resist, and even those who react in an unpredictable or counterproductive way when they feel pressured, overwhelmed or threatened. And here we are talking about something so important (the health of our planet) that we cannot afford to leave anyone out of the project. We have the responsibility, as disseminators, to reach everyone with key information for our lives.
Unfortunately the problem is not only ethical or strategic, but, above all, pragmatic. The apocalypse will probably not be quick or final and the apocalypse is more likely to bring misery and not catharsis or salvation.
Although, in theory, the communication of the worst scenarios facilitates the prevention of disastrous results, we must accept that in the case of apocalypse – which, like climate change, has a slow and not sudden evolution, at least on our time scale -, it is difficult for humans to anticipate the magnitude of the problem and imagine how we will actually experience it.
However, everything indicates that we do not have much time to convince human beings to change their attitude towards the health of their own planet.
The delicate balances of our biological parameters, the well-being to which we have grown accustomed, the economic model that we have nurtured on the basis of a constant production of excesses and surpluses, and the absurd staggering of local and global politics, give us little scope for to be able to think calmly, communicate with measure and act calmly.
We probably do not have much time to reflect or to discuss ethics or utopias. We are likely to have many urgent and practical environmental decisions to make. But these decisions, both individual and collective, must be, above all, effective. And to be effective we must admit that a decision made out of fear is never wise, it is never strong and, above all, it is never free.
Emiliano Bruner, Head of the Paleoneurobiology Group, National Center for Research on Human Evolution (CENIEH) and Fernando Valladares, Research Professor in the Department of Biogeography and Global Change, National Museum of Natural Sciences (MNCN-CSIC)
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original.
