Archives

Uncategorized — 1 Comment
06
Feb 16

Changing the Environmental Paradigm

What’s been tried so far isn’t going to work.

It makes a lot of sense, really, when you think about it. Consider it in terms of whatever makes you happy, whether it’s reciprocal determinism, self-fulfilling prophecy, or Pavlov’s dogs. What’s been tried so far simply hasn’t worked, at least not well enough.

Consumption is a tricky problem to tackle. The majority of energy usage in the US currently goes to staples, such as electricity and water. There have been more campaigns in the time that I’ve been alive than I can remember trying to tackle that. On a more personally meaningful level, conservation is a word that is bandied about by the rich like a holy torch in the area of the country in which I live, but no one seems to care about it beyond local legislation to protect land from development, usually because it would spoil that overly wealthy person’s view. No meaningful action is ever really taken.

No, the problem lies with the paradigm itself. Nothing is done because not enough people really want to take upon themselves the burden of enacting and living with the kind of change that needs to happen, and for several good reasons. Installing solar panels on your house costs over $50,000 in some areas. Purchasing more efficient vehicles is obviously a financial burden for many. Refitting the plumbing in one’s household for more modern, efficient water usage usually entails not only enormous expense (relatively speaking), but the added inconvenience of a major remodel. The paradigm for environmental change isn’t going to be truly changed until it becomes economically feasible to do so.

The course commentary in PSYCH 424’s Week 4 Lesson serves a bit of juxtaposition with this issue. When considering how small a percentage of people have the means to “live green,” consider the sheer number of people contributing. “At the heart of all resource use problems is the size of the human population. Biologists have long recognized that ecosystems have limited “carrying capacities,” meaning that the number of organisms that can be supported by the resources available in an ecosystem is finite” (PSU, 2016). When considering this, it bears noting how large a change must truly occur within the consumption paradigm for there to be a significant improvement.

The problem with most applied social psychology theories is that they are too limited in scope; perhaps the most useful tool in the social psychologist’s handbook is matching; finding a way to make the “occupants” of earth see that their “…needs are met by the setting” (Schneider et al, 2012) is crucial to making any real change happen. Given the economic arguments and the finite nature of the system, Henry Murray’s press system provides a useful basis for an intervention framework, if not a plan itself. As described in Schneider, Gruman, and Coutts’ pages, the alpha press, or actuality, is the fact that we live in a world with finite resources, and that those resources that appear nearly infinite are part of a fragile system that has fallen precariously close to the proverbial tipping point. Conversely, the beta press, or perceived actuality, is that the work of bringing about environmental change is for those unfettered by the chains of the lower and middle economic classes, and that things aren’t nearly as bad as the silly scientists claim (Schneider et al, 2012).

This being the case, it becomes a question of how to help the majority of the world, living in the beta press spectrum, to travel over to the side of the alpha press. Seeing a harsh reality clearly is not easy at the best of times; in circumstances as dire as those surrounding the future of the environment, it seems rather more difficult to grasp. It is my hope that we can find a way to find congruence, and then develop a plan.

But before the plan can be developed to intervene, it must be collectively acknowledged that there is a problem at all.

Schneider, F, Gruman, J, Coutts, L (2012). “Applied Social Psychology.” Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.

Penn State University (2016). PSYCH 424: Lesson 4: The Environment. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp16/psych424/001/content/05_lesson/02_page.html

Uncategorized — 1 Comment
04
Feb 15

Can Population Increase be our Downfall?

 

There is a theory called the triadic reciprocal determinism that states that the environment that people live in both influences human behavior and personal factors as well is influenced by those Bandura (1986). What this theory means is that the environment directly influences people’s behaviors and their cognitive and biological factors. As our population increases rapidly, resources that we need to survive will soon dwindle because they’re simply will not be enough for everyone. It is becoming a slow reality because our population has reached more than 7 billion humans (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs; Population Division, 2009). This number is not decreasing any time soon, and if looked at previous decades, it is increasing at a very fast pace. An example of an environmental issue that could pose a threat would be our oil consumption. Oil is a very slow reproducing resource that once used it cannot be used again. This is a staple of our society because without oil we simply cannot drive our cars nor operate most of our industries. This is an example of a resource dilemma which are situations in which individuals must chose between self interest, and the interest f the community or environment (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012).

A growing population (environment) would lead to more family’s having more than one car (Personal behavior) which would lead to oil price increase and competitive consumption (behavior) which could lead to the depletion of oil. This could lead to a population decrease due to jobs being cut because oil industry’s and most industrial company’s are now out of business. This vicious cycle would not end until the population has decreased to a number where the current oil could sustain them, however many that would be.

This general idea could be used to create a positive effect on the world, because everyone who inhabits it must take a stand and realize that it is our job to prevent something like this from happening, and could result in a “humanity unity” so to speak. We would all understand the problem and actively find solutions such as all electric cars that are being produces now, but at a miniscule rate. Not only could it be oil consumption but also water consumption and distribution. We could encourage the masses to drink more tap water, whether it is raising the price of bottled water or simply showing data that bottled water is the same as tap water.

The biggest resource we have on this planet is liquid water, which unfortunately is mostly salt water. We as humans need clean water to survive, and without this our race would surely face extinction. What this means for our population today, is to make wiser decisions about water consumption, and attempt to cut back on the unnecessary usage. The reason for drinking so much bottled water could be that it is convenient and we should essentially drink a certain amount of water per day. To cut back on this trend we can take a stand and start refilling water bottles from the tap, cut back on the plastic consumption and buy gallons in one container. This is a great start to reducing the amount of plastic we waste that pollutes our earth even further.

We as humans are the only ones who can kill or save our earth, and thus our future. If we chose to irresponsibly reproduce and consume our rarest resource to the fullest, we will not have enough sustainable resources to continue on with our race. So many people decide that it is not their problem; they will probably never see the day when the earth doesn’t have enough water. That may be true but it is no longer a futuristic theory, it is eerily creeping upon us until sooner than later it will be a reality.

 

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2012). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. Los Angeles.

Anthony Ferrono

Uncategorized — No Comments
15
Jun 14

A Common Problem

Tragedy of the commons refers to a concept about the exploitation of resources that are perceived as limitless. According to Schneider, Gruman, and Coutts (2012), this concept derives from areas known as commons. My hometown, Lynn, MA, still has a portion of its once vast commons preserved. The commons was a public field for animal owners to bring their livestock to graze. Because there were no set rules, the grazing fields were in essence, limitless. As more livestock provided more food source for a larger population, and larger populations owned more livestock, more of the commons were being used, and the commons were found to be very limited. Eventually, resources were diminished, fewer livestock could be provided for, and less food source resulted in a decrease in population.

As resources appear to be limitless, they are exploited. This exploitation causes a ripple effect that does more harm than good. We are still seeing this problem today. Although each household no longer needs its own cow and sheep, each person does need his own living space. Land is a limited resource. Yet it appears by the way it is being used, that we are not all fully aware of this resource’s limits. As more and more people are born, more space is needed for living, agriculture, business expansions, etc. We see people of wealth building bigger and better homes with more rooms than they have members of their families and grand, pointless, entryways of wasted ecosystems (which is another problem entirely). As habitable land becomes scares, we witness wars, famine, and migrations. Our history is full of examples of the struggle between living space and populations (the potato famine, immigrants coming through Ellis Island, NY, etc.).

Over populated regions cannot sustain the numbers of people that multiply continuously. People die from overcrowded living conditions, and lack of nourishment. We can begin to see these effects in places like New York, where land is so scares that we look to a new “limitless” space to live in; the sky. Projects, skyscraping condos and office buildings are riddled across the overpopulated parts of our country. Although Pruitt-Igoe (as cited by Schneider et al., 2012) was unsuccessful in addressing the tragedy of the commons dilemma in St. Louis back in the 50s, architects, along with the whole growing population, should be mindful of our limited spaces, and should continue to seek solutions to making the best of the space we have.

Perhaps regulations should be put into place, where there are restrictions against excessive land ownership in regards to purpose (conservation, warranted use, status symbol, etc.). If we are not careful, we may be witnessing the turn of events that will lead us to the rebirth of new commons sooner than later, and this does not involve the continued birth of our species.

References

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2005). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Skip to toolbar