Member-only story
Dissociation
From the German Conservation Agency paper “Conservation communication with impact: Reach, convince, and motivate people”:
The preliminary study identified four conservation narratives currently shaping discourse based on scientific evidence:
• Urgency: Our livelihoods are at stake.
• Connectedness to nature: Nature brings us happiness.
• Economic value: Biodiversity losses come at a high cost.
• Transformation: We need to change fundamentally.
Does that resonate with us? Absolutely. Do we act accordingly? Unfortunately, no. Our actions starkly contrast the widespread acknowledgement of the seriousness of the situation by most people worldwide, including in Germany.
Do we suffer from a collective cognitive disorder?
Recently, I had to select my dietary preferences for a conservation-related conference. I could tick the vegan and vegetarian boxes, but there was no option for meat-eating as if assuming that consuming meat is the sensible default for conservationists.
So, if even conservationists aren’t aligning their habits with scientific evidence, why should Joe and Jane, the political class, public intellectuals, corporations, and everyone else?
