Scheherezade's nights

Systems have a tendency towards entropy, towards degradation. My generation, born between 2000 and 2010, can see how our capitalistic and consumeristic society is self-destructive in the consequences for the environment that we do already winess. Some people want to fight this entropy and they are trying different strategies. Nonetheless, the nature of climate change requires fast, effective, and collective action. Hence, it involves complex, deep changes from thousands of millions of people. Those individuals come from many contexts and they are going to be affected differently by climate change and all the economic, social, and political consequences that it will bring. 

For many of those people, nevertheless, there are going to be some shared aspects of this pro-environmental quest. For instance, Ibáñez-Rueda et al (2022) found a negative relationship between people who engage in pro-environmental collective action and self-perceived happiness. In fact, trying to stop the negative effects of climate change is not a pleasant or easy task. I am going to focus on the situation of those young Europeans who have access to resources and time to dedicate to this quest because it is an experience close to me. I argue that it might bring them feelings of powerlessness and guilt, the cognitive challenge of thinking both in the long and the short term, and the challenge of contesting our self-perceived individuality and embracing interconnectedness in a world that present us with new ways of being connected. 

 This is where the intersection between Systems Theory and Psychology carries a huge relevance while trying to become globally more sustainable. Psychology can provide the tools to deal with our inner selves (also complex systems) in the face of such an overwhelming systemic challenge as climate change. At the same time, Systems Theory can give Psychology the most appropriate perspective for our time of complex interconnectedness.

Guilt and powerlessness. 

When starting to become aware of the inherent entropic destructiveness of the system of which we are all part, guilt is usually experienced. This is because many of us are benefiting from the very same system that is causing damage to the environment and compromising our future (Hot Mess, 2019). We are interdependent with this system that we see as evil. Does that make us evil as well? At this stage, we are left with a tension between our values or cognitions (caring for the planet) and our behaviors (actions that we have naturalized and that bring us comfort and well-being). In Psychology, this phenomenon has received the name of Cognitive Dissonance. This theory says that people like internal coherence between their thoughts and behaviors. Tension is felt when they do not match. At this point, people have different options to deal with that internal pressure. For instance, they can change their values to make them a bit more suitable to their behaviors. They can also change their behavior to adapt it to their values. 

In the case of climate change, this second option leaves the person facing powerlessness. Systems are indifferent to our will. A system can be defined as “parts that interact,  interrelate, and share a purpose”. It seems apparent that ecosystems, for example, have a purpose which is self-maintenance and renovation.  In the plight against climate change is that it is required that all humans change their values and behaviors but, the change in one individual’s values and actions is insignificant. Moreover, it is not up to any of the parts to decide what this purpose is. Were all parts of the Earth consciously decided that the purpose of the system is ‘x’ or ‘y’, this will not determine such purpose. This is because systems self-organize: the whole is more than the sum of the parts, and the will of the whole is more than the sum of the will of the parts. This fact unsettles the modern Western man/woman, who is so used to hearing that will is power and that we have control of our destiny. All of this leaves us with this sensation that there is nothing we can do, leading us to Learned Helplessness (the paralyzing belief that it does not matter what we do because our actions do not have repercussions to future consequences). This is the position in which I see a lot of young Europeans, leading to inaction. Moreover, this inaction is not simple inaction as observing is not simply observing. Inaction calls for inaction in social systems. Seeing people around not doing anything about climate change makes you feel more helpless. And the circle continues and magnifies like an infectious virus. 

Guilt and powerlessness are very well-studied emotions in psychology. I still do not have an answer to what is the best thing to do with them in the face of climate change and other global crises. I think maybe looking at things in a realistic rather than a pessimistic way might help manage guilt. For instance, understanding that the capitalistic system, although full of pitfalls is not all evil and that some people involved in it actually wanted to improve global well-being. Systems are not black and white but complex multifactoral changing beings. On the other hand, maybe realizing the everchanging nature of systems can open a window to hope and it might blur out helplessness. Things are constantly changing. Irrationality leads us to believe nonetheless, that they will only change for the worse. Nonetheless, dedicating energy to it might stop entropy.

The challenge of thinking in multiple time frames. 

In the film Mindwalks (1990) Sonia, one of the main characters, states that people in Native American cultures used to consider the consequences for the seven next generations when making decisions about the future. In order to deal with a systemic crisis such as climate change it is necessary to think in the short term (this year, this decade) as well as in the long term (this century). On the contrary, nowadays, people in Europe look skeptically at any goal that is set for longer than one year. We are not used to thinking about the long-term future in our private life. This is justified by the perceived “new” complexity and the increased velocity of global changes. The problem is that long-term goals are not taken seriously by governments nor by the people who vote for those governments. The political focus on short-term, immediate interest goals is one of the characteristics of unsustainable democracies.

 European voters, as well as those in many parts of the democratic world, have to change their mindset and realize that sometimes, the deer needs to be killed by the wolves for the ecosystem to survive. Indeed, a better connection with nature can make us understand many things about the functioning of systems. Understanding that natural mild fires actually help forests in California to get cleaned and to self-renovate or that wolves, by hunting the deers, can benefit whole ecosystems can make us see a more global picture. Consider consequences in the short and in long term. These new timeframes will constantly change as circumstances change. Accepting uncertainty is in my opinion a characteristic of systems thinking.

I believe that human disconnection from nature is behind our inability to think ahead in the immediate. As in the examples before, a deep understanding of nature can provide us with a cognitive structure to understand systems. Not only this, the same study which said that people who engage in pro-environmental collective action have lower perceived happiness,  also found that people who feel connected to nature do not only engage more in pro-environmental action but also feel happier when engaging in collective action (Ibáñez-Rueda et al, 2020). Maybe the key to save nature lies in nature itself. It is not such a mad idea. 

Identity and individuality: embracing the New Interconnectedness.

Indeed, the Anthropocene, the geological period in which humans have pushed the Earth out of its limits, has been characterized by a progressive distancing from the whole. We gained a sense of control over nature that made us self-sufficient enhancing our perceived individuality as opposed to our collectiveness. Nonetheless, we live in a world of interconnectedness. Thus, we impact the system with our choices and the goals that we set for ourselves. Cooperation is what made us survive as a species and values such as individualism, self-interest and self-efficacy have made us forget the idea that we are all part of society. 

 The constant development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is thought to decrease our connection with nature and with each other. In a sense, this might be true but on the other hand,  our social networks are more extensive than ever on our phone, news from all over the world enter our feed on Instagram, and travel is common. Is it really that we are not connected or are we connecting in different ways? Are they worse or better? and Does it really matter if they are? are questions to which I have no answer. Indeed, maybe we ought to realize that the world has changed and use the resources that we have now and that AI has powerfully contributed to creating a world that is fairer and healthier, a more sustainable model of consumption. Why not? Why can these new resources just have to be evil and frightening? Systems thinking, AI, and having the focus on better global outcomes can be the key to the future. 

Bibliography 

Hot Mess. (2019). Feeling Guilty about Climate Change feat. Hunk Green . YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsQp2PnhPak&t=115s.  

Ibáñez-Rueda, N., Guillén-Royo, M., & Guardiola, J. (2020). Pro-environmental behavior, connectedness to nature, and wellbeing dimensions among Granada students. Sustainability, 12(21), 9171. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219171 

Mindwalk. (1990). United States. 

Psychologist are normally conscious that when someone comes to their office to go to therapy, they are not crossing the door alone. Normally together with the person come their families, their partners (from the present and from the past) and their friends. But, is the psychologist conscious that he is also not alone in the office? More than that, is he/she aware that he is also entering the door after the client? Simply listening to what the client has to say, he is already changing him and his relationships. There is nothing like a simple observer. Observing particles already changes the pattern of interaction that they present.

The implications of this last thing are huge. Cybermetics are a slippery science. Can we be sure of anything we see? Are we able to handle that uncertanity? And, how are we affecting the reality around us by simply observing it? Would someone who knows that he/she is observed behave more ethically? For instance, looking at someone who is throwing trash to the street would stop him from doing it? Several experiments in social psychology have given an affirmative answer to this question.

Indeed, we have always felt observed in our religious societies. God knows that you are lying, God knows that you are sinning. We have always being under the attentive look of a Panopticum powerful being. That created religiions based on norms that you had to follow because otherwise you would be punished. Now we are observed as well but not only by God. We are observed by other people. Cybervigilance is a reality of which we are aware but not completely conscious and there is where its power rely. Would I Google the things I do if I am completely conscious that someone is saving that information?

“You can’t look at one single of a global problem in isolation”Although from the 1990s this film talks about a topic still very relevant: we need a shift of paradigm, a revolution in the way we understand and act upon the world. Fixing individual pieces is not solving any of the crises that we have to deal with nowadays. On the contrary, it is just allieviating the symtoms. This applies to everything: politics, education and psychology. As a student of the latter, for instance, prescribing medicine is not going to cure deppression but is going to make the symptoms to disappear superficially. Fixating on the parts individually (symptoms, biochemicals) ignores the multiple other factors that act interconectedly to produce deppresion (socioeconomic situation, family relations, expectations about the future…).

It is not, therefore, about asking ourselves where to start. It is about a change of perception. In the film they propose shifting the male power-oriented values (domination, aggrsivity) into the female (caregiving, nurture…). The world is certainly led by the first predominantly. Caring for others and for the world around us is, in my perception, slowly becomming more important. But as it is said in the film, the world changes faster than our perceptions about it. We ought to restore balance between these two sets of values represented by the adjectives of the “feminine” and the “masculine”. It is also about becoming a system thinker and looking at the things not by dividing it into parts but by looking at cycles and relations at patterns and organization.

At a subatomic level, relatioinships make matter. And if this is so, why are we not to be hold accountable for the consequences of our actions? As it is said in the film, Indian Americans made decissions with the next seven generations in mind. Now we use plastic, we travel we consume not even thinking about our responsability about our own generation, not mentioning the next one.

Living systems are self-transcending. This is another very interesting idea from the movie. Evolution is much more than adaptation, competition and survival. Systems seek to transcend themselves and for this creativity is esseantial. But does not mean perpetual growth.

The rapid development of AI is introducing us to a new era. We are for sure going to keep outsourcing our cognition…. and much more than that. Robots and machines are going to keep replacing us in many factors. This sounds terrifying to many of us because is changes our perception of humanity as central in the universe and because if we don’t change the culture in which we live, this will lead to a lot of human suffering.

Our cultural global ethos, each time more extended because of globalization consists of acceleration, growth, productivity, efficiency, progress…. That is how we give meaning to our lives. Is this progress of ours as benefitial as we are told? Why are anxiety and depression then the mental illnesses of our era? Why are we so tired? This mindset in combination to the evolution of AI will lead to suffering, explotaition of more people and more resources, inequality and extintion. We already suffer from it. We are a burn-out society. But can we change this?

Some would say that we cannot, that it is in our nature, that there is no way out. But this is just logically not true. This is only one possible future. There are many that are claiming a post-growth era, a desacceleration, living our live in the now, becoming simpler, enjoying more, loving more and wanting less. Imagine this utopia in combination with a technology, with an AI that makes gobal equality possible, that allows us to spend time in creating, thinking and living. Is it really impossible?

Antropocene is the geological era in which humans have pushed Earth out of its natural limits. My generation is entering their 20s with a very terrorific landscape. Desserts, floods, plastic, death, heat, lack of resources, lack of food… Entering a new geological era is frightening but it is even more scary to know that we have the responsability to set a boundary to our actions. It is our responsability that the whole planet is habitable or inhabitable for the next generations and that’s a pretty heavy weight.

All the weight, indeed, of this antropocene, both regarding the physical consequences of it and the psychological dylemma of having to change your own values in a system that constantly pushes you to keep doing what you do is placed on the shoulders of the average citizen. People are said that they have in their hand the power to change reality but when they look at their hands they see their powerlessness. That continuous dialogue is exhausting.

Moreover, while you worry about the planet the world keeps moving and you are said that you have to travel, you have to eat that avocado brought from South America that is so delicious, you have to enjoy and experience and live and taste… otherwise, what’s the point?

Scared, overwhelmed and distracted. These are the characteristic that I think is keeping my generation from acting, from really acting against climate change. It is a systemic problem and we need to recognise it because otherwise there will be no way to go forwards.

In the film 12 angry men, the reductionist idea that the whole is not only the sum of the parts is very well represented. In this film, a jury formed by 12 men has to decide the future of a man who was accused of killing his father. In the film you can see how a group thinks, which is different of how an individual person thinks. Like a gravity force, the group also shaped the individuals judgement. Then, when someone breaks the group dynamics, every member of the jury realize the mistakes they were making because of following the rules of the group.

We are all surrounded by rules that move us and that we cannot even imagine. But a question strikes me. Where do those rules come from? When it comes to social rules we can seek their roots in history, evolution, antropology… But we don’t only behave regarding social rules. We also gravitate. We are also formed by particles and cells and organs that somehow have a role and a purpose even if they cannot be conscious of it. Is it just the spark of a coincidence? Is it millions of coincidences? Does this all follow a plan? Are we really self-organized? Can all these rules just be explained by the interactions of the parts?

These are all old questions that we have all made to ourselves. Nonetheless, thinking about the rules inherent to any system, I cannot but doubt my atheists beliefs.

I am a system, the fridge is a system. Systems are everywhere but, is everything a system?

Maybe depends on the level of interaction from which we are observing, on the perspective. If you think about it from a molecular level, well, yes, everything is interrelated and interdependent and probably has a common purpose that I cannot understand because I have no idea of physics. Nonetheless, this really does not shine light on what a system is because it does not help differentiate systems from collections of things.

A more enlightening definition could be: “parts that are interacting or interdependent and which have a shared purpose”.

For instance, let’s take the COVID-19 pandemic. The interdependent parts ( we as individuals and communities, the virus etc) got entangled into a series of very complex but unified interactions. We (aslo as conscious individuals) tryed to understand and control the pandemic system which had a common purpose: spreading.

During that time period, we realized how connected we were (air became an insuficient barrier to separate us). We also saw how our decisions could affect people who apparently had nothing to do with us.

We lost much of our understanding of systems when we disconnected from nature. Many of us buy fruits in the supermarket without knowing if they are or not in season. The pandemic was a shock because it gave us a glimpse of how reality really looks like. I wish we, as a collective, will understand that poverty or climate change are not fixed realities but also such systems and that we can also alterate the equation in order to transform them.

“Happy”, “sleepy” or “homesick” were some of my classmates’ emotions written on the board at the begining of our last lesson. Clearly, everybody was going through their personal roaller-coaster. At this point someone asked: “But, How?. How can I fully understand that someone feels really happy when I am extremely sad?” Answers popped up quickly: empathy, mirror neurons, active listening. I perceived my classmates were eager to learn the key to solve the puzzle of connecting with others in such a fundamental level. Because yes, anatomically, the areas of our brain dedicated to emotions are the most primitive, and therefore somehow, the most fundamental ones. Moreover, antropologists as Margaret Mead defend that societies arised when the first acts of cooperation between humans took place. Collaboration is not possible without reading and communicating emotions. Thus, emotions must be one of the main reasons why humans are an interdependant species.

Moreover, at the end of the class we were talking about home. As a group of international students we started talking about places that were thousand of kilometers away… from this one room in Athens. Globalization has brought extreme new ways of being connected. I believe my grandmother had a hugely different live from the one of my classmates’. Nonetheless, here we all are, in a room, describing a concept of home that, although different, it is also very similar.

I guess we have to understand all these wasys of being connected: the old and the new ones and maybe even the ones that we still do not conceive.

Predicting the future is what we do as humans. In our relationships, in politics or in the supermarket, our brain is always trying to know what it is going to happen next. Nevertheless, it seems we are pretty bad at it. Generally we lack the perspective of a chess player, that always is several movements ahead. Do we always see that we ought to introduce the wolves, and thus , allow some of the deers to be killed, in order for the whole system to survive? Are we aware that only one factor can have such a huge effect in the whole system?

I see this lack of systemic perspective in many daily situations, creating paralysis and innaction. For instance, regarding ecology and sustainabilty. Many people in the context where I am from are not motivated to recycling, buying less and more responsably etc because they don’t believe it will have an impact. Moreover, they perceive changing their habits to more sustainable ones as a sacrifice of their present well-being. They are not willing to kill the deer partly because they don’t see the point in doing so. Realizing that our actions influence and trigger other actions in our envirionment might help us realize we have more power than we think.

Thus, yes, we ought to kill the deer. Although, we also have to be careful because this metaphor implies a huge ethical problem. Not all the means are justified to get to an end. Killing the deer does not mean violating human rights or opressing vulnerable communities. That said, let the wolves run free.