This morning marked our second day surrounding social science research methods and ethics. Today was a little more tolerable, as it was less lecture and more activities, but I am still firm in my belief that I couldn’t be a social scientist. As for an update on my skiing incident, the adrenaline has worn off even more overnight and my hip is feeling the full brunt of the pain. It’s difficult to lift my leg very high and I’m having trouble walking up the stairs and getting in and out of chairs, but I’m pretty sure it’s only a pulled muscle (probably hip flexor or nearby).
For lunch I went to a local café, since we were all out of bread at the house and I couldn’t make a sandwich. Might as well use the meal stipend I was given. I ordered mushroom bread, which I actually really liked. It was basically two bread slices with mushrooms, lettuce, and some kind of sauce on top. It was a good purchase. I’ll probably get it again before I leave.
In the afternoon, we watched the film: Experimenter (2015), following the 1963 Stanley Milgram obedience experiments. Curious to see how it was possible for the Holocaust to have happened, the Yale psychologist brought in a number of subjects to act as “teachers” to a “student” (who was in on the experiment). The “teachers” were told that the research goal surrounded learning from punishment, but in reality, they themselves were the subjects of interest. Each time the student answered incorrectly, the teacher was directed to shock them. Progressively, the shocks became stronger and stronger, and (an audio recording of) the student in pain could be heard. The majority of the subjects, while uncomfortable, continued to administer the shocks at the authority’s request until the maximum voltage was reached and the subject was seemingly no longer responsive.
This experiment revealed many disturbing tendencies of human nature. Humans (regardless of age, race, or gender) would overwhelmingly cause serious harm to another if prompted by an authority figure. Many of the subjects would ask the authority figure to state that whatever happens to the student is not their responsibility. For them, this was enough reason to continue administering the shocks.
While this experiment was controversial due to the ethics behind it, one thing is clear: humans are far more willing to cause harm if they perceive it as simply “obeying orders.” To an extent, I think this applies quite nicely to climate change. It’s difficult for individuals to see themselves as responsible for changes happening globally. This holds true at higher levels of organization, from towns, to countries, to corporations. Climate change doesn’t separate out who is at fault.
This separation from responsibility is part of why it is so easy to read about what is going on, then going straight back to our daily life because it is so easy to say, “Well, I’m only one person. I didn’t cause all that.” In a way, we are also following orders. It’s more subtle, but the blinding billboards, constant TV ads, and incessant advertising command us on a daily business to consume, consume, consume. They regularly convince us that we need things that humans have survived happily without for millennia.
I urge you to ask yourself the question: to what extent do you see yourself as the person administering the shock in the Milgram experiment? However, instead of the shock, it’s demand for unnecessary CO2-releasing industrial processes and instead of the student, it’s the planet.
Realistically, the answer should be affirmative for all of us. It is impossible to escape this in a developed country where this standard of living is integral to our culture.
Now think about the last few sentences I just wrote. Is that any different from glancing back at the person running the experiment and asking, “Do you take responsibility for what I’m about to do?” Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. After all, there are marked differences between our daily lives and the Milgram experiment. For one, we are more invested in the quality of our daily lives than the subject might be in the making sure the experiment goes “as directed.” In the experiment, refusal to participate only results in gentle requests from the authority to continue (and the occasional “You have no choice.”). In real life, refusal to participate in this great geophysical experiment results in lower quality of life, fewer job opportunities, etc. Still, I think the root of the justification is roughly the same. We find some comfort in our lavish lifestyles because the culture around us gives us permission to do so.
This part of human psychology is what makes climate change so difficult to stop. Why would any person reduce their emissions when they’re constantly being encouraged from birth to increase them? Why would the any company take measures to reduce their carbon footprint when they can put responsibility on alternative methods not being profitable enough?
Still, the reality is: we are using more of Earth’s resources than we should. Consider Earth Overshoot Day: the day human consumption of Earth’s resources exceeds what this planet can regenerate in one year. July 29th was Earth Overshoot Day for 2021. But this is the average for the whole word. For the United States? If all people in the US consumed like Americans, Earth Overshoot Day 2022 would have been on March 13th.
This was a bit of a rambling. It was going to just be a summary of the movie, but I got to thinking… and this came out instead. I think this rationale is something we are all guilty of on a daily basis, in different ways. Just because you have permission to do something, does that mean you aren’t causing harm? Does that mean there is no victim?
Much to think about.
Anika Tullos 