Sustainability: new questions, new answers. Ed Rosie Robison, Chapter 6, pp35-38, Nov 2015
As a neuroscientist, I study how our brains impose order and meaning on the information coming fr... more As a neuroscientist, I study how our brains impose order and meaning on the information coming from the world around us. As a citizen, I follow important public debates and have become puzzled by how people can look at the same events and come to hold radically different views, which then lead them to denigrate those who disagree with them. Over time, these two interests have come together, and I now look at societal disagreements about important issues from the perspective of how our brains and minds work. As an example of such societal disagreement, the public debate about sustainability and climate change has become fractious and polarised. At either end of the spectrum of public opinion are groups of people with strongly-held convictions about the reality of climate change, what its impact will be, and what we should do about it. Because of such deep disagreements, people often feel distrust about the motivations of those on the 'other side', which reinforces the negative tone of the debate. As several other articles in this book attest to, this is not the only problem for how we engage with issues of sustainability. But in this article I will explore a particular question that follows from my research work: can scientific insights into how we come to hold convictions and judge other people help us deal more constructively with fundamental disagreements about sustainability?
Uploads
Papers by Kris De Meyer