12. Climate change effects today and should the nature of charity matter?
Climate change — we usually use this phrase to refer to rising average global temperature and all of the devastating effects of it. And while we see many of the results of the warming globe already, plenty of us often consider the “real” outcomes to show in the next 20 — 30 years. A new (peer reviewed) study in Science Advances shows that conditions too-severe for humans are already emerging around the globe today or even in the past few years.
The emergence of heat and humidity too severe for human tolerance — medium difficulty read. Some of the events we are trying to model when predicting effects of global warming are occurrences of extremely dangerous heat-waves. Specifically, scientists attempt to predict when we can expect wet-bulb temperatures to exceed 35 degrees Celsius. When the air has similar temperature to our bodies and is already saturated with water, all of human physiological adjustments to heat fail. In such conditions our ability to sweat is no longer able to cool us down (the air cannot take anymore moisture → the sweat cannot evaporate → our temperature remains too high.) Raymond et al. analyzed data from weather stations around the world reaching back to late 1970s and to find that the warnings from our models may be overly optimistic. In fact, they discovered that such extreme events are already happening in certain populated hotspots, and that their frequency has more than doubled since 1979. This research is particularly important, because while models allow us to understand general trends, the station-based approach highlights localized conditions that may be equally important to understand. The analysis and commentary is as interesting as dreadful, the described methods are solid and the paper itself is not too-difficult to read. While there is a fair amount of statistics and lots of acronyms, the article overall is very understandable and the conclusions are clear. Highly recommended read for anybody who want to be well informed on climate change.
For a lighter read, I wanted to share a comment about charity; specifically, whether acts where the giving person still benefits in some way count as such. The short comment in Nature Human Behaviour touches the heart of the topic that I realized I had a strong opinion about for a long time, but perhaps should not have had one. In my culture, I was used to critical approach towards people who announce their gifts to somebody in need. In fact, I was used to statements like “you are giving to charity only to make yourself feel good.” I am happy to recommend a great, short, thought-provoking piece that made me reevaluate whether my perspective made sense before. (Comments in Nature Human Behavior may be peer reviewed per editor’s discretion)
In defence of charity which benefits both giver and receiver — easy read. (Paywalled, but you can read it online for free thanks to Springer Nature SharedIt.) Have you ever heard stories implying that purely selfless charity, where the giver receives absolutely nothing in return, is superior to other forms? Perhaps you saw comments on social media shaming some celebrity for helping somebody “only for show?” Or maybe you know people who believe that others give to charity “just to feel better about themselves?” Laffan & Dolan argue that all such arguments may ultimately prevent people from giving. The authors bring some interesting studies to back their perspective, including the concept of “moral licensing”, where people feel it’s OK to drop our standards in some areas of live because we’ve done some good deeds in others (an adult version of “I studied really hard today so it’s OK if I do not brush my teeth.”) They suggest that people who feel superior because their charitable acts are “truly selfless” may feel less inclined to give more over time. While there is no research to show whether majority of us actually believe in such charity hierarchy, I did notice that I used to do so myself. I was surprised with my own feelings; even strictly logically, what does “pure altruism” even mean? Should I make myself feel bad for feeling good if I gave money to charity, because otherwise my gift is somehow worse? This paper definitely provoked me to think, in a lightweight, fun way.
