Transcription
Next, I want to talk about what are called "social dilemmas." This is another important issue in regards to environmental problems. It has to do with the tendency for people and groups to act selfishly rather than cooperatively, and how sometimes that translates into choosing environmentally insensitive actions because they're in our self-interest. And this is a social dilemma perspective on environmental problems. And from this perspective, rational self-interest often leads to environmentally destructive behavior.
A social dilemma is a situation where a person or a group benefits more by making a self-interested choice than they do by acting in the public interest. So the dilemma is this: Do they choose to act in their own self-interest, or do they choose to act in the interests of the greater good, even if that means they bear more costs now and gain fewer immediate personal benefits?
A social trap occurs when, in response to a social dilemma, people or groups make the self-interested choice, and that self-interested choice has gradually escalating negative consequences. So in the short run they gain, but in the long run many people lose, is the idea here. And as far as environmental problems and social traps go, the idea is that the benefits of having and of behaving in an ecologically irresponsible way accrue almost entirely to the person or the group performing the environmentally destructive act, but the costs of the action are shared by many. Thus, it can seem rational to a person, or to an organization, or a corporation, or a country, to act in their own self-interest.
So a simple example: Think about a person that litters. I mean, if you litter, you benefit from the convenience of littering. You don't have to pack out your trash or find a trash can--it's very convenient--but the costs of your littering are born by other people who enter the environment after you. And if lots of people make this selfish choice to litter, then the cumulative impacts of littering on the environment are great, and ultimately those costs affect animals, ecosystems, and people.
A corporation that pollutes the air or the waterways because it leads to greater profit margins doesn't usually bear the long-term cost of those actions, which include air pollution, pollution of the waterways. They don't live with the dirty air or water; the people that live in that community do, or the communities down the river do.
Another example: Many wealthier countries from the northern hemisphere of our globe, such as the United States, gain many of the benefits of consumerism and fossil fuel use, but they share the costs--the environmental costs of that consumerism, that heavy fossil fuel use--with countries the world over. And likewise, you know the US and China are the biggest contributors to our atmosphere's greenhouse gases and gain the most benefits from these fossil fuel-based economies, but their self-interested choices contribute to global environmental problems like ozone depletion and climate change. So again, you know, because the person or the group gets all the benefits of their selfish choice, but the costs of their choice are shared with others, they may be motivated to act in their own self-interest.
Social dilemmas and social traps originate in an idea called "The Tragedy of the Commons," which comes from a biologist named Garrett Hardin in the late 1960s. And a "commons" is basically a shared resource, a resource that is shared by many people. You know, like the air, the water, public lands. Those are examples of commons. And Garrett Hardin used the term "the tragedy of the commons" to refer to a situation where the commons becomes degraded because the individuals that share the commons act selfishly. And furthermore, you know, when some people are behaving selfishly in regards to the commons, others don't see the point of behaving themselves.
So, for example, you know many Americans object to climate change action because they argue that unless China does the same, we will be at a competitive disadvantage and it won't make a difference anyway, right? So, in other words, it's a social dilemma. Do I continue to do my share when the other people that share the commons are not? That's not only unfair; it means my actions won't make a difference anyway. And research confirms that this fear of what we call "free riders" and feeling helpless are two reasons why people sometimes don't behave pro-environmentally.
Now note that over time the commons will become seriously degraded due to the cumulative result of this type of thinking and behavior by many people or many groups--it becomes a social trap. So the commons dilemma becomes a social trap, and you know these social dilemmas mean that sometimes it's hard to motivate environmentally responsible behavior because the self-interested gain associated with environmentally destructive behaviors runs counter to that, and also because each user of the commons doesn't feel responsible since their actions alone weren't enough to destroy it.
Some environmental psychologists use the term "commons dilemma" to refer to this type of social dilemma, and climate change can be considered a commons dilemma. I think you'll agree that this dialectic of self-interest or public interest, or selfishness and selflessness, is an inherent part of human nature. And you've undoubtedly struggled with it yourself. And it's no coincidence that combating selfishness and promoting pro-social behavior is a major theme in the religious texts throughout the world's religions. People's selfish tendencies are well known!
So what people often do is use rules to combat people's selfish tendencies and compel their more pro-social cooperative behavior. Likewise, some of these commons dilemmas can be managed through governmental regulations--through permits, through laws, through policies--and these are known as "structural solutions." So, for example, a government can limit the amount of greenhouse gases power plants are allowed to emit. They can restrict logging in some forests. They can subsidize green energy. They can require energy-efficient transportation and buildings. They can have laws against littering and for safe waste disposal. And the government does play an important role here in solving these commons dilemmas. It's important, and I do encourage you to consider environmental policy when voting for public officials. And I hope you'll support the passage and the enforcement of regulations, laws, and policies that promote sustainability and the preservation of the natural environment.
But structural solutions to environmental problems are limited. It's tricky for several reasons, you know. One of those is that it's hard to enact these laws and regulations to begin with. In countries like the United States, for instance, government intrusion is resented. Our legal system was designed to protect and promote private property and individual rights, not to protect the environment. We are a capitalist society, and environmental laws, regulations, policies, permits, etc. are often viewed as anti-business and bad for the economy.
Second, you know structural solutions have to be enforced, and that's another problem. That takes money, that takes personnel, and it takes political will, which is often missing. And so the reality is we have to figure out how to motivate people to act for or sustainability, not only so they'll support structural solutions, but also so that they'll personally choose to act pro-environmentally. This is where psychology comes in.