Cognitive Dissonance and the Earth

I read a short but interesting article from CleanTechnica titled “Cognitive Dissonance For Environmental and Earth Scientists”. In broad terms, this one dealt with human interactions with the planet… for good, but mostly for ill. Although possibly a tad biased in tone it still struck a sensitive nerve, and I’d like to share my interpretations of a couple of the salient take-aways.

(For those who may be a bit fuzzy, Cognitive Dissonance can be defined as “the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.” An example may include wanting to be healthy, yet smoking and eating a diet high in sugar and saturated fats. Or… driving your car — as opposed to riding your bike — to a demonstration to “Save the Earth”.)

Anyway…

When I graduated with my BS in Earth Science I was offered a position with a local oil company. Although Susie and I really wanted to escape the insanity of the L.A. basin, the possibility of gainful employment after five hungry years of college for both of us sounded really good — I think I mentioned in a previous post that we were flat broke by then and living on noodles!

But even as desperately as we needed the money, the problem was the job: I’d be spending all day every day looking at foraminifera shells (a.k.a. tests) through a high-powered microscope and using them to date the rocks that the drill had penetrated (forams evolve very quickly through earthtime and can be successfully used to age-date the rocks). Having never been much into boredom, I decided to pass and look for something with a bit more diversity (and that would keep me outside — being in nature was, after all, what I had signed up for).

At the time, the specter of cognitive dissonance — and how a confirmed hippie environmentalist could justify working for the enemy — didn’t factor into my decision at all (fool that I was, I had never even heard of CD, much less understand what it was).

But now I have and I do, and while the buzzword rarely intrudes, the concept — and how it relates to our interactions with the planet — is very real.

The premise of the article makes a valid point: Many graduate earth scientists end up in a professional field — the petroleum industry, for example — that has fundamentally negative implications for the planet… or at least the current version of the surface biosphere that we know, love, and absolutely need to remain stable if we want to continue on our present trajectory.

As an exploration field geologist, many would argue that I ended up a traitor to the earth anyway, and I have certainly caught my share of heat from friends of the earth over the years. (It could also be argued that — assuming we need to get our natural resources somewhere or completely hobble our global society — doing it in the United States and as environmentally responsible as possible would be a good thing. Click here for an earlier blog post that touches on this.)

So what’s a poor earth scientist to do? Anything that affects the surface — which by definition is what all earth scientists do in nearly everything they do — is potentially disruptive, and therefore bad and evil and environmentally insensitive.

But this disconnect in not restricted to just geologists! Even a pleasant wilderness afternoon in nature by the most environmentally conscious person to ever don a pair of boots alters the natural environment to a greater or lesser extent. Is this contagion also bad and evil, etcetera, etcetera? And how about a group of worshipers communing together on a mountaintop, telling each other how much they love and respect Mother Earth and dissing those that rape and pillage because “they just don’t understand”? In this case it’s not just a single set of footprints on the trail… not just one bladder relieving itself behind a tree. (And how did they get to the base of the mountain in the first place? I would imagine by the burning of fossil fuels…)

Sadly, this has become a significant issue and there is likely no easy solution. A case in point: Susie and I were in Rocky Mountain National Park several years ago. What a humbling experience! We lucked out and found a parking place at the trailhead (someone was just leaving), but there were so many people on the trail that any hopes for a peaceful hike were dashed. So much for our wilderness experience! From there we went to the Tetons where we found the same mob, and after that to Yellowstone (even worse, although it is certain — at least in the case of Yellowstone — that when the Supervolcano erupts any damage we may have caused will be vaporized in a nanosecond).

So yeah: cognitive dissonance and our interactions with the earth — and I’m talking about all of us, not just earth scientists — is problematic. This is definitely another of those pesky conundrums that will continue to be discussed here on these posts, and I leave it to you to wrestle with this one in your own mind and in your own version of earthtime.

But one thing seems obvious: No matter how honorable our intentions may be, it is likely impossible for humanity to stop all adverse impacts. So — along with being respectful and trying to minimize the negative as much as possible — maybe we should be a lot more forgiving of each other and less judgmental, and open our minds to the reality of the impacts that all of our individual and collective interactions are having on the biosphere.