Science & Technology

Why are people so casual in climate? – So whats up?

Guest essay by Eric Waral

The Conversation asks why the public is so hostile to the extinction rebellion when the world is on the verge of the sixth major extinction.

In the face of chaos, why are we so casual about climate change?

October 19, 2021 9:37 pm AEDT
Tom Pettinger
University of Warwick Political International Studies Researcher

The dire state of global health is the United Nations climate organization IPCC, “Code redFor humanity in the latest report. ”

Still, public involvement in environmental activities remains consistent mute, Especially in wealthy countries Most responsible For the destruction of the environment.

In the UK, for example, peaceful protests by environmental groups such as Extinction Rebellion oppose More than supported.This is despite the limited turmoil caused by these groups already compared to the extreme turmoil. production When Threatened NS Breakdown of climate, Extreme droughts, wildfires, tropical storms, etc.

Recent protests to stop the British highway Asking the government to insulate housing is not a policy reform anger When suggestion To increase the power of the police to arrest protesters.

So why do so many people oppose the call for change? 6th mass extinction?? Why is there a resignation rather than a resistance?

And I think the widespread lack of mobilization is not due to the complete denial of the climate, but to the indifference of the more insidious climate.Climate disorder“.

Recognizing the imminent collapse of our world, this disorder shrugging with privileged people result Those lifestyles elsewhere: increased mortality, frequent exploitation and Environmental movement For those with less privileges.

read more: https://theconversation.com/in-the-face-of-chaos-why-are-we-so-nonchalant-about-climate-change-166040

The author seems to suggest that people are too comfortable to embrace change. We do not support Extinction Rebellion because we are selfish and lazy.

But I think the answer is much simpler. Human belief is a continuum.

How can we answer a series of true or false questions, such as “Is climate change a problem?”

As a software developer, when using artificial neural networks, I see this strange continuum behavior constantly appearing.

Neural networks that try to create artificial intelligence that mimics the architecture of the human brain are not where absolute rules exist. When trying to train a neural network to add two numbers, it is very difficult to get accurate results. Asking a trained neural net for a 2 + 2 answer will most likely return an answer like 4.1, 3.9, or 3.5, unless the neural network is very tightly trained.

Similarly, asking a trained neural network if something is true or false is likely to give an answer that is 70% true or 48% true. Answers of 100% or 99% true are very rare.

Computer scientists usually handle this kind of ambiguity from artificial neural networks by interpreting the answers. So, for example, if your answer is more than 70% true, you might apply the rule of reporting that answer as completely true.

Obviously humans can do concise math, so our brains aren’t exactly the same as artificial neural networks, but in my opinion, this continuum of neural net beliefs appears throughout human behavior.

For example, when many people are asked, they agree that climate change is a problem. But when asked if he would spend another $ 1 to fix climate change, Agreement plummets..

Based on my personal experience when working with artificial intelligence, I believe that this strange belief is not yet a belief, but a manifestation of a continuum of beliefs in the neural network of the human brain. I am. People may say they believe in climate change, they believe enough to say yes, but deeply they make real efforts to solve the problems they verbally agree on. I don’t believe enough.

The current level of belief in society is volatile. Neural networks that return 70% true answers can easily be trained to raise the results to 98% and so on. Reaching 70% is much more difficult than raising 70% to 98%. In my opinion, there is a real ongoing risk that people who are a little worried about climate change can quickly turn into fanaticism.

However, to train an artificial neural network to such an enthusiastic compliance pitch, all discrepancies in the training data must be completely muted. Even some disagreement training samples, even a few voices raised in disagreement, are sufficient to introduce suspicion to keep neural networks away from full compliance.

If you achieve full compliance, the end result of such rigorous training will be surprisingly dysfunctional. Overtraining or overfitting, as AI scientists explainCreates artificial neural networks that are far less capable of dealing with ambiguity and new data than neural networks trained with less rigorously trained or noisy, more inconsistent data. Overtrained neural networks respond perfectly to training stimuli, but not well when presented with new data (see figure at the top of the page).

The similarities with the human state seem to be clear.

Why are people so casual in climate? – So whats up?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/10/19/the-conversation-why-are-people-so-climate-nonchalant/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-conversation-why-are-people-so-climate-nonchalant Why are people so casual in climate? – So whats up?

Back to top button