Have You Ever Tried to Adapt?
It is relatively costly for a person to invest in a change, this article explains why.
It is believed that the climate will get hotter in some places and colder in others, so the suitable term is actually “Climate Change”. The argument here is not about the change of the climate itself. Instead, my argument is about how humans perceive ‘Change’; and would choose a different term to describe the same phenomenon result in better human engagement? The discussion is also about the change during the lockdown of Covid-19.
Making a change, in general, is subconsciously associated with a period of unstable lifestyle:
Well, it is preferred to have a stable life over the instability associated with making that change. The reasons behind this aversion are various. One possible reason to ignore the need to change might be a lack of motivation. Other important reasons also include lake of knowledge or interest.
Most people fail to make a real change, so they tend to ignore it. The association feeling of the word change in the brain is shown to be negatively related. Yet scientists use the word ‘Change’ to describe the biggest and most serious environmental crisis of our history “Climate Change”.
We all know or heard about great transformation attempts:
These excellent attempts to change are based on self-motivational factors that derive people to eventually change something in their lives. For example, quitting smoking to improve their health or losing weight to look better, but if they had the choice to change with no motivation, they will probably think twice about doing so.
It is scientifically proven that the climate was changing even before the human intervention in the process of global warming:
What if the term was named ‘Climate Adaptation’ instead? Maybe the attempt to adapt turns to be applicable. people might prefer to go carbon neutrality, or carbon-negative individuals and countries. Take the Kingdom of Bhutan as a great example. They find it best to adapt to the change. They rebuilt the rebuildable parts of the ecosystem (trees). Check Bhutan out! They do a fantastic job regarding national happiness too!
The dilemma is that change could be either very pleasant or very hard depending on the initial point and what direction you want to make.
I read an article on the Guardian under the title “Individuals can’t solve the climate crisis. Governments need to step up”. Well, I agree that businesses and governments are the most relevant ones to contribute the most to solve what has been done wrong to earth, but if we think about it, governments and businesses are people, too. This brings me to the next point of my argument, can we know if people want to change?
What if the change rate is invisible? meaning that there are thousands of people interested in solving the climate crisis, but in reality, how many of them are interested in being part of the solution? In another case, the problem becomes even harder when the whole subject is irrelevant. In such a case, it requires more effort to bring this change into the application as it necessitates searching about it and the efforts of the creation of interest afterward. So it is relatively costly for this person to invest in such a change.
Here I am not justifying people's intentions nor their beliefs, it is none of my business tbh. Instead, I am discussing the motives for believing in an existing crisis or not.
Take smoking as an example: Why do people keep smoking while they know the risks of smoking? According to the Truth Initiative, tobacco use still the leading cause of preventable death and disease in the country [US], leads to 540,000 deaths in the U.S. each year. The annual quit success rates remain at roughly 7 percent. The same report states that most smokers want to quit. Also, most people want to change the climate, right.
If the changers rate is as much as the ones who are motivated to quit smoking, then the climate crisis will be seen much differently. My argument here has to do with projecting these numbers and comparing one’s own risk (smoking) to a larger risk (climate change). I am not stating facts but discussing the associated terminology of change.
If we assume the rates of climate change accepters and enthusiasts to be similar to the above-mentioned rates of people who quit smoking (7percent). The few numbers of enthusiasts will certainly make a big difference, but to what extent? Here I am raising questions and I leave you to answer them.
The second issue with the word “Change” is that we tend to postpone change to the last possible moment.
Authentically, there must be a crucial reason to start doing what has to be done now. If people believe tomorrow is the time to change then probably they will never do it. Well, people talked about climate change for so long that it became debatable.
Great environmental outcomes as a consequence of the adaptation of COVID-19:
When people stayed at home during the lockdown of COVID-19, major newspapers like The Guardian reports that “Delhi is one of many capitals enjoying improved air quality since restrictions were introduced due to the coronavirus”, check the photo below.
The change is insane and real! No one ever thought this could happen, it is wonderful! The question is what if Delhi turns to look like the left side of the photo? Will this sudden change bring a new vision to the people of Delhi to always prefer to live like the right side photo?
On my side, I call for something new: I hope anyone who reads this to share the idea of ‘a monthend’, you never know, it might happen and be better to the climate:
There must be a call for two day-off every month called “Monthend” just as ‘Weekend’. People are forced by law to stay indoor unless there is a serious need to go outside. If all countries follow this, there will be 24 days every year for the earth to breathe. This will surely help. The vast majority of people did it, everyone can do it too.
I am a supporter of micro-solutions, I leave the macro issues to politicians and people who are interested in politics to address different points of view.
Key Takeaways:
1- This article is about adaptation; linked to climate change*.
2- Climate change is real, and it is happening!
3- 70 percent of smokers want to quit, only 7 percent do it every year!
4- To make a change in your life is a hard job, but not impossible. The article tells you to follow some steps like developing interest and motivation for a perfect way to change something in your life.
6- Maybe we can make something new at a global scale: Let’s add a monthend, it’s a two-day at home every month. People are doing this and the change in some cities is unbelievably amazing! Check the article to see an example.
7- Lack of interest, motivation could be the reason why many people prefer not to get engaged in any change especially Climate Change.
8- Maybe to adapt is smoother than it is to change. People will have to adapt to climate change, again, if we assume point number takeaway 2 is true.
9- Takeaway 2 is not mentioned in the story tho.
*I write about climate change, scroll down to read the full story, and get links to my previous articles.
In my next article, I will discuss “Green Marketing and Climate Chang: Why Businesses are Better-off Turning to Green Business to in 2020.”
My previous articles about climate change:
This article uses a lot of common sense and some scientific evidence. I address two related approaches to solving climate change.
In this article, I explain what climate change and global warming are:
