|
|
|
|
|
|
by jblochjohnson
5945 days ago
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't think the current framework we use for helping people think about their impact is very good. It is not very motivating to show people a bad consequence even when they are obviously doing nothing to cause it. Even when it does show them a bad consequence, it is not one that will actually happen (considering that most of the world will not consume nearly as much as your average American, which is who our surveys' written for). We're trying to find better frameworks, and one of the ones we've been considering is not to worry at all about talking about the size of our users' footprint, but rather to talk about the benefits of various types of changes in consumption if they were widely adopted. That way the negative situation presented isn't some confusing, oversized and hypothetical scenario, but simply the one we think is happening; and the benefits of one's changes aren't hypothetical, but potentially part of some larger (if unlikely) movement. We're looking for the best way of presenting information about this issue and the benefits of actions people can take. If you or anyone reading this have any ideas about you'd want to see someone do this, we'd love to hear them. |
|
|
Additionally, it helps if you paint the most-desired result as attainable. Instinctively we understand that +0 F change is the best. Explain how that might be attained (in a more friendly manner than 'sack and pillage most of the world's population'). The data is against you, but it helps if people feel the ultimate target is not impossible to reach.