Why is Reductionism Such an Issue?

Most climate scientists understand climate science very well. The trouble is that they don't appear to understand that it is a predicament with an outcome, not a problem with a solution. I knew within the first 30 seconds of listening to this podcast that I wouldn't be listening any further. Most climate scientists do not have a good comprehension of ecological overshoot; because if they did, they would NEVER recommend any type of technology to solve the predicament technology use has CAUSED. Unfortunately, this is a huge blind spot with climate scientists and most of them also lack any comprehension of sociology. Most of them also appear to be blind to the fact that civilization itself is unsustainable. This means that we cannot secure our survival by continuing the same system that we currently live under, period. Not having a clear comprehension of sociology prevents climate scientists from understanding how humans behave within the confines of society. In other words, most climate scientists are reductionists and cannot see outside their own specialty. Knowing this, I am tired of climate scientists attempting to sell me (or anyone else, for that matter) on any type of technology. Technology use being precisely the CAUSE (of overshoot; and therefore climate change, a symptom predicament of overshoot) means that more technology, different technology, or more complex technology only increases overshoot, making the existing condition of the globe we live on worse, not better. Attempts at bargaining to maintain civilization will not work.

If we want to buy something, we go to a salesperson or a store or a catalog, yes? How many times have you gone to a climate scientist to purchase something? So then, why are they trying to sell us on certain technologies or ideas? Salespeople work by telling others what they think others want to hear; by praising the product or service the salesperson is selling. In other words, they are busy hyping and spinning narratives. The trouble with climate scientists attempting to sell is that they really don't appear to understand that the very technology they are trying to sell is precisely what is causing the predicament they are trying to "solve," unwittingly selling people on the idea of "solutions" that in reality don't exist (one cannot solve a predicament - the best that can be achieved is a reduction of severity of the outcome). In other words, they are making themselves into charlatans:

What should be obvious here is that climate scientists should be telling us about science, not about their belief in technological devices that stand absolutely no chance in reducing climate change or any other aspect of overshoot, including overshoot itself. 

Perhaps the most frustrating part of this is the fact that climate scientists can look into climate science and be able to understand the physics of it, but can't follow that same research criteria for overshoot and use the same analytical and fact-based approach to determine the root cause of overshoot in order to understand the true cause of climate change. If one doesn't understand the root cause (technology use), how can one possibly make any recommendations that are even relevant? They know that greenhouse gas emissions are the main ingredient in climate change but can't appear to understand that ecological overshoot is what is causing those emissions? Our behavior of technology use is causing overshoot and these both (technology use and overshoot) are also causing those emissions. 

While I have a great deal of respect for climate scientists and what they have been telling us over the past 50 years, I also have disdain for the spread of personal beliefs of theirs not backed up by critical thought, science, or reality. If they want to preach religion, they should do so in the privacy of their own homes. Of course, I realize that they are people (humans) too, and subject to the same propaganda and industry hype the rest of us are. But if they are going to stand for science in climate science, then they must also stand for the same high rigorous standards with regard to ideas they might be hawking; to advocate for utilizing yet more infrastructure and equipment that is already causing the decimation of life on this planet is just plain moronic. 

Perhaps if more climate scientists were required to take ecology courses, study Jevons Paradox, the Maximum Power Principle, and wetiko, they would have a wider perspective from which to make better recommendations. As it is, their typical reductionist approach to mitigating ideas falls far short of the mark. Most of their ideas veer into the hopium category. Once again, here is a plea to scientists, teachers, and influencers in this regard.

So, what should we do? First of all, let's determine who "we" is. Next up, let's get rid of the "should," based on the evidence in the whole "we" part. There are better actions than others that would be recommended, and those can be accessed here. I have written many articles focusing on acceptance, so checking those out is also encouraged. At the end of the day, one of the best actions to take is to Live Now. Here is some more inspiration; this time it's the Highland Scenic Highway.