Behavioural Change – The Key to Enabling the Transition to a Sustainable Civilisation

It is not science, engineering or technology that will deliver a sustainable civilisation, but behavioural change. If we do not now begin to change the way we behave in the world, then we as a species have no future.

Long gone are the days when we can somehow stumble along, relying on good luck to survive. If we do not begin to act now to change our behaviours, then resource depletion and destruction of biodiversity will lead to a world of even greater conflicts than that which exists today, and we should be in no doubt, that once the conflicts and unrest begin, governments across the globe, to ensure the maintenance of order in a increasingly dysfunctional world, will begin to resort to extreme measures, where individual freedoms, human rights, and democracy will become delusions, for there will be no room for such things as state of emergency thinking begins to take hold. And the sad thing about all this, is nothing will be done to prevent it from happening unless ordinary people now begin to act to bring about change themselves, for none of those who are part of the alliance of vested interests, have any serious intention of initiating a transition to sustainable living. For them, it is business as usual with a few minor adjustments, regardless of the consequences.

This is what is at stake – the future of our world, our children’s world. We are leaving them with a legacy that they will curse us for. So do not be deluded into thinking that science, engineering and technology will save us, for these are part of the problem. Scientists, engineers and technologists are at the top of the list of people who need to change, who need to find completely new approaches to the way they practice and what they believe, as I have made clear in several recent blogs, for there is no one more like Prometheus than the typical scientist, engineer and technologist. And this is the theme of my forthcoming novel, Moments in Time, a theme which is also explored in a series of books that I have written over the past few years: Encounter with a Wise Man; A Tale of Two Deserts; and Enigma.

So I repeat – the key to sustainability is behavioural change, and that means that we all have to change, and how we can modify our behaviour is a topic that I will be exploring in future blogs.

Cognitive Bias

In my blog about the concepts that underlie the Prometheus Syndrome, I mentioned the values and beliefs that are the constituents of what is called a paradigm, and that these aspects are hidden, tacit, and taken for granted. Most people who adhere to a paradigm (and everyone does) are not aware of these hidden aspects (the hidden chains). And when people within a paradigm encounter someone that challenges these hidden beliefs and values, people tend to become angry, and resort, in the mildest of circumstances, to dismissing this strange person as being heretical, as lacking in right-mindedness, as someone suffering from a deficit. In more extreme situations the adherents to the faith (the paradigm) become extremists and some then resort to violence and persecution to silence the heretics. These paradigms (faiths) come in many different forms, but the ones of most interest to me at the moment, are the faith systems called science, engineering and technology, along with the rather strange values and beliefs that are part of these faiths.

And so it is that those people who participate in, so called independent and unbiased studies and reviews, do in fact bring to these exercises, a lot of hidden baggage in the forms of values, beliefs and taken for granted assumptions. That such people think themselves to be independent and unbiased, also demonstrates another feature of paradigms, that of delusion, both individual and collective, which is a key trait of human behaviour, as most know, for this is what the tale of the emperor’s new clothes is about. And the belief that we (all of us) are unbiased is a delusion, and for this there is scientific evidence. What I am referring to here is over 40 years worth of research by cognitive scientists that relates to the topic known as cognitive bias.

I watched a very interesting science programme on BBC 1 a few weeks back about how we really think. The message from the psychologists is that the rational part of our minds is not the star of the show as they put it, only it thinks that it is. One psychologist said that humans are suffering from the delusion that they are rational. Most of the time, an irrational rapid response system takes decisions without thinking, but we are not aware of this. A common feature is to base a decision on previous ones, even though these might have nothing to do with the current decision. The result is we make a lot of mistakes. Worse though is that we do not recognise that the auto system is taking the wrong decisions, and the rational part of the mind, which is slow relative to the fast part, then makes up rational explanations for the decisions, and these explanations do not always correspond to the real reasons.

I found this fascinating for it links to what I have observed over past 35 years and also what I wrote about in the blog entry about the Prometheus Syndrome and what is also said in my 1994 book on Agile Manufacturing.

An interesting discovery is that some other primates also display the same biased behaviour, hence the conclusion that this is an evolutionary adaptation, hence it is built into our DNA. This is also a conclusion I had already come to many years ago when I started to think about why the many people who I encounter rarely think about what needs to be done, and just assume that what worked in the past is still relevant. And this is the conclusion that I came to:

Imaging this; it is the age of the hunter-gatherer and you are out hunting for food in an environment where there are other humans out hunting as well, along with other humanoids. Past experience of encounters with humans and humanoids points to one conclusion – that they are dangerous. But these are not the only risks that you face, for out hunting are wild animals, some of which are very dangerous, and you are on the menu. In such circumstances you do not have time to rationally analyse everything that confronts you, hence automatic decision making that is based what worked in the past is your best option for survival. And here in the 21^st century we are still doing the same even though it is no longer appropriate – we are truly chained to the past, by virtue of our DNA, and most of us do not realise we are doing this. Thus it is that, what once helped ensure our survival as a species, now works towards our demise.

The conclusion of the psychologists is that we need to change our institutions, working methods, regulation frameworks, policy making processes, etc. to take account of cognitive bias. I fully agree with this, which is one of the reasons I fully support upstream public engagement in science, engineering and technology, so that all these values, biases, etc. can be brought out into the open, and organisations like the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering can be positioned where they belong, as being representatives of a paradigm. Clearly we also need to set-up a truly independent means of undertaking upstream public engagement – independent of government, and all those other bodies that like to think of themselves as being independent, unbiased etc.

In relation to the matter of sustainability, cognitive biases is also part of the reasons why people tend to assume that we should be engaging in morphostatic change (in some mysterious way we can make what we have today sustainable through small adjustments), when we should actually be engaging in morphogenic change (reinventing our world). This bias towards incremental improvements can be seen as a systematic error resulting from cognitive bias.

The path to change, starts with the realisation that we are participating in delusions, and that we are not unbiased, and that all we do is determined by hidden factors, and often, in the end, we make a lot of bad decisions, and then post rationalise these to fit with are deluded understandings of ourselves – that we are independent, rational, unbiased, only concerned with facts and evidence …

Understanding this is one of the key steps towards the development of sustainability, the achievement of which will be based on behavioural change. And this is the message underlying my two new books: Enigma and Moments in Time.

The Meaning of the Term “The Risks can be Managed”

Now to the matter of this strange term: the risks can be managed. In my previous blog I discussed the UK Government’s report which reviewed fracking in the UK, seeking to know if the risks could be managed. They asked people who believe in any case that the risks can be managed, which of course led to the conclusions that they can, even though the report in question does not contain sufficiently convincing evidence that the risks can be managed.

Probably you have heard people using this expression on the television. The sort of people who say this, are also the ones that often claim not to have any particular axe to grind, or that they are independent, or that they are unbiased, or that they only deal with facts and evidence,  or that they are rational, … All things that should warn us that we are dealing with people who, somewhere along the path of their lives, acquired a lot of delusional baggage and have lost touch with the reality that just about everyone has an axe to grind, is not independent, is biased, is irrational, and makes subjective judgements. If people are claiming to be independent and so forth, then they are not human, which is perhaps something they want not to be, preferring instead the cold, heartless and unemotional machine-like logic that leads societies and civilisations to the edge of doom.

It may have also come to your attention that people say the risks can be managed, often when they are talking about something that is very dangerous, or potentially so, or which, if something when wrong, would be very damaging. Here therefore is a clue to what it really means, which is this:

Any sensible person would look at this and conclude that we should not be doing this for the consequences are unacceptable should anything go wrong, but there is too much money to be made, too much kudos to be gained, from not doing this, so I am willing to say that the emperor is wearing a fine suit of clothes, even though he is clearly naked: the risks can be managed.

The term is a manifestation of many unacceptable characteristics of modern scientists, engineers, and technologists: delusion, denial, hubris, conflicts of interest, bias, lack of independence … Most importantly it is an expression of an out-dated mindset that looks at the world from the perspective of risks, when in fact what these people should be looking at are consequences.

A consequence-driven approach would deliver a much healthier outcome for people and the planet, for it would lead us to take a different path – one that does not involve plundering the earth of its natural resources and turning our planet into a toxic and radioactive wasteland, where life struggles to flourish, and often perishes.

Looking at consequences also means taking into account the unexpected and unforeseen ones, which is why the concept of not doing things today which leave an unwanted legacy for future generations, is important. The unexpected and unforeseen consequence were recognised as being important long ago, in the early 1960s, by Rachael Carson, who wrote about them in her book Silent Spring. Yet here we are 50 years later and we still do not know how to handle these. Evidently also, some people do not want to, for they know if these were to be considered, the case for not doing whatever it is they are pushing for, would be even stronger.

Over the past few years we have seen a number of cases where the risks could not be managed: e.g. Deep Water Horizon and Fukushima. It may also be the case that the chemical insecticides known as Neonicotinoids may turn out to be yet another case where the risks could not be managed. Dig back over the past decades and you will find more examples. This leads me to the conclusion that we are here dealing with some scientists, engineers and technologists who caught up in that strange behaviour that I have previously mentioned: simultaneously smart yet also dumb. Smart they may well be when it comes to limited matters, but dumb they are also when it comes to that which matters the most.

It is time for change, for a different approach, and to begin a process of transitioning modern civilisation away from the foolish path that it is now following. The quest for sustainability is about finding this new path. Yet those invisible chains keep getting in the way, keeping these risks can be managed types firmly trapped in a very dangerous way of thinking. And about this Promethean mind, more will be said in my next blog. It is also explored in my forthcoming novel, Moments in Time. This tells the story of an engineer, who believing that the risks can be managed, proceeds as a consequence of this delusion, to destroy everything of value in his world, and only after he has done so, does he realise that the risks could not be managed. Too late perhaps? Let us therefore ensure that the same fate does not befall the whole of humanity. This is however becoming an increasingly likely outcome if we do not now radically change our behaviour. This last word is a key one, and it will appear in many texts that I write in future, for it is the key to beginning to understand what will save humanity from a bleak future – not science, not technology, not engineering, but different behaviours.

The UK Government’s Fracking Report

Now to the matter of this so-called evidence-based, engineering thinking …

In my blog from last week (See-through Engineering and Fracking), I mentioned that I was in the process of studying a report that the UK Government commissioned in 2012. The report was prepared by bodies that would claim to be independent, objective, rational, unbiased … The bodies concerned are the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering. If you believe that they are truly independent etc. – this is a choice that everyone is free to make. They do however, like the Institution of Mechanical Engineers mentioned in last week’s blog, very much look to be lobby groups. They will probably say that they are not, but there is no accounting for the silly things that scientific and engineering types say – a rose is a rose by any other name.

For those wishing to read the report it is called: Shale gas extraction in the UK: a review of hydraulic fracturing. It is available at the following web sites: royalsociety.org/policy/projects/shale-gas-extraction and raeng.org.uk/shale.

Having worked for several decades in preparing reports, some for government agencies, one thing I have learned – no one is independent when it comes to working with governments, civil servants and politicians. All have an agenda, and I am no different to anyone else. What marks me out is that I do not seek to hide my agenda, nor do I engage in delusional statements about being unbiased.

As for the report, its brief was set by the Government’s Chief Scientist (at that time Beddington). The brief was very limited. Specifically, the terms of reference of the review, were: (i) to identify the major risks associated with hydraulic fracturing as a means to extract shale gas in the UK, including geological risks, such as seismicity, and environmental risks, such as groundwater contamination (ii) to establish if the risks can be effectively managed, and if so how.

In my blog of February 23 2014 (See-through Science) I wrote about a report from a Think Tank called DEMOS, that was advocating upstream public engagement in science (in policy making, research strategy development, funding decisions, etc.). The report discusses how governments can manipulate circumstances to their own interests, by setting briefs for so-called independent studies, and picking the right people to undertake the work, so that the conclusions reached are those that the government wants. Here is a case I believe that well illustrates this manipulative behaviour.

The brief that was set for the study has led to a report that is nothing more than a collection of historical facts, information about regulations and technologies, and tutorials about such, etc. It is the kind of material that typically, in a high quality report, would be included in an appendix. But in this case, if such material had been placed where it belongs, in appendices, then the main body of the report would be very thin indeed!

And if you ask two bodies that represent the interests of groups (scientists, engineers and technologists) whose thinking, which is deeply embedded in their cultures (in the form of biases, values, vested interests, beliefs, etc.), is that the risks can be managed, what do you expect their conclusions will be? They are a safe bet to come up with the answer that is sought: that the risks can be managed.

It will not therefore come as a surprise to learn that this is the conclusion reached. The report states (on page 4): “The health, safety and environmental risks associated with hydraulic fracturing (often termed ‘fracking’) as a means to extract shale gas can be managed effectively in the UK as long as operational best practices are implemented and enforced through regulation.”

Was it ever going to reach any other conclusion? This you must decide for yourself. What I here offer is an observation that the material in the report does not convincingly support this conclusion.

The most striking aspect of the content of this report is the uncertainty, unknowns, lack of factual information, and, lack of detailed knowledge about sites where fracking might take place. This report is full of words and phrases such as: if …, the most likely cause …, this explanation does not necessarily apply to …, one possible explanation …, an alternative … explanation has been provided …, very little is currently known about …, there is greater uncertainty about …, large uncertainties in quantifying …, where possible …, it may be possible …, it is difficult to predict …, there is a lack of …

I looked at the report trying to find an analysis of consequences that will follow, when, as we all know will be the case, the risks turn out not to be manageable. This, you might reasonably expect, would centre significantly in such a report. Better think again, for you will not find these considerations which are an essential part of any serious and professionally conducted risk analysis. Associated with risks there are consequences, and these too should be stated. They are not, and it is consequences that concern the public, but evidently not the Government, the Royal Society or the Royal Academy of Engineering.

With so many unknowns, uncertainties, and lack of consideration of consequences, the most professional conclusion to have reached would have been:

“Given the lack of information and specific details, it is not possible to state with a high degree of confidence that the health, safety and environmental risks associated with hydraulic fracturing (often termed ‘fracking’) as a means to extract shale gas can be managed effectively in the UK, even if operational best practices are implemented and enforced through regulation.”

An alternative wording would have been:

“We believe that the health, safety and environmental risks associated with hydraulic fracturing (often termed ‘fracking’) as a means to extract shale gas can be managed effectively in the UK as long as operational best practices are implemented and enforced through regulation, even though the evidence for such is not fully convincing.”

Here I also mention that there is reference in the report to an explanation of why natural gas prices have fallen in the USA as a result of exploitation of shale gas. The explanation is quite simple and predictable: supply is greater than demand. So the next time David Cameron or George Osborn start beguiling people with vague promises about lower energy prices, ask them about the scale of fracking that would be needed in the UK to achieve a circumstance where supply exceeds demand, and if indeed there is enough exploitable shale gas in the UK to achieve such a situation. Bear in mind also, as a number of people have observed that there is as yet no certainty that there are sufficient exploitable shale gas deposits to be sure of any significant impact, both in terms of prices and security of supply. As I have mentioned before, exploiting shale gas has all the signs of addicts desperately seeking that which they are addicted to!

And now to draw the blog to a conclusion I mention that those invisible Promethean chains once more can be heard clanking. What the Fracking Report demonstrates is that there are still far too many people, those who call themselves scientists, engineers and technologists, who are willing to participate in processes and modes of thinking that belong in the past. Here in this report one sees an attitude that regards plundering the earth of its natural resources as an acceptable economic activity. Here one also sees discussions that accept as a given, the idea that dumping industrial waste in holes (man made and natural) in the plant, is a legitimate activity.

In the report one will also find a very disturbing statement. On page 70, it is stated: “Members of the Working Group acted in an individual and not a representative capacity, and declared any potential conflicts of interest.” No-where in this report does it say, “and we can confirm that none of the members of the working party declared any conflicts of interest”, or “we carried out independent checks to verify that the working party had no conflicts of interest.” I am not saying that they did have conflicts of interest just that the level of professionalism in this report is such that this is not convincingly proven, which is important, as the next matter shows.

I mention the above to draw to your attention just how out-dated and out-of touch with the modern world many scientists, engineers and technologists, and their lobby groups are. Not here will you find any role modelling to show to others the changes in behaviour that are needed to achieve Responsible Research and Innovation, which is what the See-through Science report addresses.

The Fracking report mentions that there is a lack of trust in the government to act in the public interest and ensure adequate regulatory oversight. What the report does not mention is that there is also a lack of trust in scientists, engineers and technologists. And the reason for this lack of trust is to be found in this report. And the appropriate public response to this is exactly what is happening: peaceful protest and opposition, reflecting what is at stake here: bringing under control powerful vested interests that are combining together to create a future for our children that will be a nightmare. And part of this response should be to work to ensure tighter regulation of scientists, engineers and technologists, and their lobby groups, which I would propose should include a good dose of individual and collective legal liability, both civil and criminal, for those who participate in the type of exercises that lead to reports such as the one discussed here.

It is time to put an end to this sort of nonsense, time for a different approach to dealing with these types of highly controversial issues, which place the public on one side, and the rest, the vested interests, on the other. Time also to start recognising that the legacy we leave to future generations, who will have to deal with the consequences of this desperate rush to extract and destroy the remnants of the earth’s fossil fuels, is just as important as dealing with our own needs. If we had the vision, the courage and the imagination to do this, then we would I am sure, end-up with a far better set of circumstances than that which prevails in the modern world. This is also why I wrote my (about to be published) novel, Moments in Time, for it explores the damage that results from the risks can be managed mind-set.

There are actions that people can peacefully take to ensure that a better circumstance is brought about. And about this I will have more to say in future blogs. But first however I want to follow-up on a number of issues that arise from the blogs that I have written over the past few weeks, and these I will deal with over the coming weeks.

See-through Engineering and Fracking

Fracking has been back in the news recently, with the Prime Minister announcing that further financial inducements will be offered to local communities to accept Fracking in their localities. We have indeed reached a sorry state when elected politicians no longer respect the wishes of the electorate and resort to bribery to push ahead with what the majority do not want. Expect more of this as the rush to grab the remnants of the earth’s fossil fuels gathers pace. Be in no doubt the governments of the world have no interest in transitioning our economies towards sustainability. Business as usual is the order of the day, and this includes use of military force to ensure strategic national and commercial interests are protected.

In my blog last week I discussed See-through Science – the concept of public engagement upstream, which means not thinking in terms of the public suffering from a deficit, of their need to be educated. It also means, very importantly, exposing the values, assumptions, biases, etc. of scientists. These values, taken for granted assumptions, etc. – which manifest themselves in delusional statements such as: I have no axe to grind, I am unbiased, I am independent, what matters is rigorous evidence based analysis … – being that which the risks can be managed types, do not want to acknowledge.

I also mentioned in my blog that we could also consider See-through Engineering, and the case of Fracking well illustrates this point.

The Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE), riding on the back of the publicity created by the Prime Minister's announcement, published an article on its web site that reported the results of an ICM survey that they had commissioned. Guess what, it shows that only 30% of the public have a good understand of Fracking. Recall what I said last week about deficit model thinking. Apparently, according to the IMechE, more needs to be done by the government and industry to inform the public about the technologies, about the controls that will be used, etc. Why? Is it because, once people are aware of these facts they will realise that they have been suffering from, what in my book Encounter with a Wise Man I call, a lack of right-mindedness, and will then embrace Fracking wholeheartedly.

The article also mentions that financial incentives will not be enough to convince the public to accept Fracking. Why do the public have to be convinced? We live in a democracy and if the public do not want something, then that is the reason why we should not do it, and this provides the incentive to start doing what many people know we must do – begin the transition away from fossil fuel addiction and the industrial era society.

Also mentioned in the IMechE article is the need for rigorous evidence based discussion and engineering thinking. If the article is a representation of this desirable mode of thinking, then we do not want it. And on the matter of evidence based discussion, this brings me back to the report on Fracking jointly produced by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering in 2012. I did say, in a blog from 2013, that I would examine this report from a professional perspective, both as a writer and an engineer. I am doing this at the moment and soon I will publish my conclusions. So far though, it is fitting well with all those points that I mentioned in my blog about See-through Science. The case for more robust governance of scientists, engineers and technologists is growing, especially concerning the matter of scientific and engineering bodies claiming to be independent when they are in fact nothing more lobby groups with rather elegant titles.

And just to clarify, I make no claims about being unbiased, of not having an agenda, etc. What these are, should be clear from my previous blogs and my other writings – the future should not be more of the past, which is what you will get if you listen to most in the world of science, engineering and technology. And the military aggression on the part of Russia against the Ukraine that is dominating world events at the moment is a timely reminder of how European culture, with its delusions about its grand and glorious past, has behaved and continues to do so. It is all part of the same destructive mind-set and it is time for people to set themselves free from this.