Energy and Human Ambitions on a Finite Planet, 2021a

18 <strong>Human</strong> Factors 307
warnings about climate change, a hard-over S-type [118] might hold up
a snowball (as Senator Inhofe famously did in front of Congress in 2015)
to demonstrate—in their mind—how preposterous this global warming
talk is. When warned about potential hardships following fossil fuel
availability, an S-type may look out the metaphorical window <strong>and</strong> sense
that everything seems to be fine.
[118]: Weiler et al. (2012), “Personality type
differences bet. Ph.D. climate researchers
<strong>and</strong> the general public: implications for effective
communication”
Box 18.2: Scientists Have a Type
Scientists tend to be NT types, combining a preference for abstraction
<strong>and</strong> models with a favoring of logical thought. Note that not all
scientists are alike; it is good to have diversity, so it is possible to find
any personality type within the science community. But the NT types
will be perhaps more attracted to scientific pursuits as a good match
to their personality preferences. The NT combination is the most
rare, comprising 10% of the population (see Figure 18.3). Meanwhile,
SF—the diametric opposite of NT—is over four times as prevalent.
T
F
N
NT
10%
NF
17%
S
ST
30%
SF
43%
When it comes to forming rational plans for future unseen challenges,
NT types are well suited to the task. Ironically, if N–type predictions
of future threats were faithfully heeded <strong>and</strong> mitigated, the threats
would be averted <strong>and</strong> their failure to materialize would make the
N–types look like terrible predictors to the S–type crowd! Failure by
success. 9
18.1.1 Consequences <strong>and</strong> Coping
The S-type asymmetry 10 in human populations may confer an overall 10: . . . nearly 3 to 1
adaptive advantage. In stable times, recent history <strong>and</strong> apparent conditions
provide reliable guidance to the likely future. It is underst<strong>and</strong>able,
therefore, that humankind would have difficulty adapting early to an
upcoming reversal of fortunes, or even acknowledging its possibility.
The prevailing narrative of growth <strong>and</strong> progress are so firmly rooted
in society that the mere suggestion of a more primitive future 11 is discordant
enough to be rejected by cultural antibodies—alien enough to
resist comprehension, as if spoken in a foreign language.
Figure 18.3: Distribution of N/S <strong>and</strong> T/F
traits among the population.
9: This irony can also plague successful
governance: people take for granted clean
air, water, <strong>and</strong> food ensured by invisible,
effective government. This quiet success creates
complacent room for anti-government
sentiments, potentially culminating in its
failure.
11: ...fewerresources <strong>and</strong> possessions, no
space colonies, closer to nature
The growth narrative’s firm grip is easy to underst<strong>and</strong>: Earth has always
been large enough to accommodate human cravings, for countless
generations. Yet 8 billion people competing for finite resources 12 at an
unprecedented rate, climate change, deforestation, fisheries collapse,
species loss, <strong>and</strong> a host of other crises signal that the prevailing narrative
may simply be wrong 13 (Figure 18.4).
Timely, effective mitigation is possible only by seriously entertaining a
radically new paradigm before widespread disruption becomes unmistakably
evident. Is it possible to implant a wholly different narrative
12: See Fig. 8.1 (p. 116) for a visual reminder.
13: Recall that Chapters 1 <strong>and</strong> 2 made a
compelling case.
© 2021 T. W. Murphy, Jr.; Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Lic.;
Freely available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/energy_ambitions.