(Note: this is version #1. Likely to be expanded.)
Well-roundedness and the scout mindset
As a core component of being involved with EA, I have adopted the scout mindset, and recommend you do the same if you haven’t already. However, we may find that even in our effort to seek truth as opposed to being led by our biases and existing ideas, we run the risk of missing a factor that has potential to strongly influence our view: something known as shifting baseline syndrome (SBS).
What is shifting baseline syndrome and why is it dangerous?
What happens with this shifting baseline is that each new generation accepts the state of the world during their lifetime as normal, because it is all they have known[1]. People alive now did not experience past conditions or lack knowledge about it, and because of that, lose sight of the true course of development, or more so: deterioration. They might therefore come to believe that “it’s not all that bad” – when in reality it very much can be considered “that bad”.
The term shifting baseline syndrome is mostly used for people’s perception of the state of the environment[2], and more specifically environmental generational amnesia. There are a number of EA focus areas that concern the strife to stop or at least reduce the (causes and impact of) natural disasters, degradations, and dangerous developments which impact our flora and fauna, and sooner or later ourselves (humans) as well. In some regions of the world less fortunate populations have already been met with the results of climate change turning into catastrophe.
Despite this notion, I figured SBS could be usefully applied to approaching other topics relevant in EA discussions as well. Allow me to explain.
Why is SBS a hazard in EA?
When identifying core problem areas to focus on in accordance with EA principles, we look for problems that are first of all severe enough to be considered important. If we are unaware of the entirety of a process because we limit our view to the present-day situation, we miss the full picture and might estimate that something is not as important as it is. Our tolerance unreasonably grows.
For an example, let's have look within our main matter: environmental deterioration and its consequences. People might observe the recent rate of extinction, or current counts of certain species, and conclude from said data that they have not been affected very seriously. Because of their focus on this time period, they fail to see what already happened to species. Their outlook might take a faultily neutral or even positive shape.[3] Meanwhile, the population of said species could have seen significant decline priorly. The same could apply to deforestation[4] or plenty other cases.
Research outcomes, flawed views and their consequences
Not only can SBS influence an individual's view of a situation or scope of a problem, it can also be an obstacle in research. When researchers draw conclusions based on gathered information from a certain period, they might form a different opinion than they would if they were to include earlier data as well. This in turn affects their opinion and the chance that they might urge for action.
EA enthusiasts and professionals base their views on research and decide what is considered important with the help of data derived from empirical evidence (as well as estimates of tractability, but these calculations, too, are rooted in what we do already know). When taking that into consideration, we can say that SBS among researchers can definitely influence the division of attention among practisers of EA.
How can I tackle SBS?
