Hypothesis Number Two: It's likely the sincere people who are not concerned about...

our ongoing Eco-Crisis have such a view because they analyze and evaluate concepts by means of reductionism.  In that method of analysis, whatever is being examined is broken down into its constituent parts.  Each part is thoroughly evaluated separate from the others, and then the various parts are added together to determine some sort of conclusion regarding the whole.  Such a method can be extremely misleading when dealing with complex (not just complicated) systems.  Complexity is nonlinear.  [A motor vehicle is a linear system; it's "complicated", but the behavior of the "whole" is predictable by examining the individual parts.  Thus, it's not a complex system.]

Instead, for complex items (such as the Eco-Crisis, or even a single ecosystem, or a single living organism), the method of examination described in General Systems Theory should be utilized.  Why?  The approach used in Systems Theory (the updated version doesn't include the word "General") is holistic, not reductionist.  It uses synthesis rather than only analysis of parts.  It is aware of synergy:  a whole system is greater than the sum of its individual parts, which means the behavior of a whole system is unpredictable from the analysis of only its parts.

The above is true because a whole system produces emergent properties, or emergence.  Such properties are found in complex, self-organizing, dynamic, whole systems rather than in individual parts.  Emergence often is unpredicted, and a big surprise to people who adhere to reductionism.  Briefly, following are a couple of examples of emergent properties.

1.  The human body is a complex, dynamic, synergistic system.  It's made up of innumerable parts, from macroscopic to microscopic.  You may examine bones, or blood cells, or the stomach, or brain cells, or the heart, or the adrenal glands...but you will never find the emergent properties of anxiety, fear, anger, or love in those parts.  Only the whole "system" is capable of such.  [The human body produces many other forms of emergence.]

2.  A forest of hundreds of acres also is a complex, dynamic, synergistic system.  Examine a leaf, a strip of tree bark, a beetle, a squirrel, a clod of soil, or even a single tree...and you still won't find the emergent property of rainfall over a large area.  That rainfall often is the result of the process of green plant transpiration in all the trees combined.  Water is taken in by the roots, distributed throughout the plant, and a small portion of it is used to support individual cells of the organism.  The vast majority of it, however, is moved from the leaves to the atmosphere.  Depending upon various factors, it then can result in rainfall.  [Forests also produce many other forms of emergence.]

All ecosystems and all living organisms (even a bacterium) are complex systems.  Synergy applies, nonlinearity applies, and emergence applies.

The point being:  our Eco-Crisis involves complex, dynamic, nonlinear, living systems which only can be properly understood by taking a "systems theory" approach.  It's no wonder to me why people (of all kinds) using a reductionist, linear approach are perplexed, puzzled, and confused over the urgency of the Crisis.  They simply can't see it.  [I'm not talking about folks who see it full well, but are concerned only with promoting corporatism's greed.]

This little essay did not explain how to apply Systems Theory toward understanding and solving the socio-eco-econ-ethical crisis because such an explanation would take multiple, multiple pages.  Books have been written on the subject.  Google it.  Awhile back, I listed several of them on this venue when I shared the bibliography for my first book.  

In two parts:

   http://individualsovereignty.blogspot.com/search/label/Bibliography    In particular, especially see:  Lent, Jeremy 2021; and Ratcliffe, Jennie M. 2021.

With the holistic approach of Systems Theory, we can effectively deal with the present Crisis.  But, to be effective, we must ignore the propaganda coming from corporatists and their political puppets, and we must sway the sincere nonbelievers.

...............

Not only my opinion.  Take Care

Biodiversity Loss and Forests

 The following is from the soon-to-be-published book, The Beginning of the Path to Human Extinction, and HOW TO GET OFF IT - Notes on a Paradigm Shift.  It's a small part of a subtopic, biodiversity loss---

.....................................

When thinking about biodiversity loss, imagine a natural forest. It has a rich variety of trees, shrubs, grasses, mosses, lichens, fungi, animals, and microbes. It’s a highly complex ecosystem which provides many “services”, including those well-known, such as the prevention of soil erosion, the production of oxygen, and the trapping of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. Because of its diversity, a natural forest is resilient. It can bounce back from the onslaught of many destructive factors.

Now imagine that a timber company clears it. It’s logged off, and most of the remaining vegetation (shrubs, etc.) is burned or otherwise removed. Then, in place of the previous forest, trees are re-planted on what essentially is now a timber company “plantation”. Usually, only one or two species are grown. Undergrowth (mostly shrubs) is kept to a minimum, or eliminated completely. In other words, biodiversity has been greatly reduced. In addition, pesticides often are used. Some portion of them find their way into the soil, where they negatively impact any number of necessary soil microbes and fungi. This is a bare bones description of how “forest monoculture” operates.

Which of the two forests – the original, or the monoculture “plantation” – do you think will be more resilient? Which one will shelter and nourish a wider variety of organisms? Which will contribute more to soil fertility? [Artificial fertilizers generally are not good for soil microbes or soil structure. They, along with herbicides and other pesticides, commonly are used on tree plantations.] Which one will better prevent soil erosion? Which one will better resist tree-boring or leaf-eating beetles (which are usually specific to each species of tree)? You get the idea.

Consider, too, the following. Humans cut down (worldwide) an estimated fifteen billion trees per year, and re-plant only five billion. About half the forests which once covered almost half Earth’s land surface are now gone. Only approximately one-fifth of our planet’s old growth forests remain undisturbed and in pristine condition. In general and globally, we simply are not sustainably managing a crucial natural resource.

Forests have been called the “lungs” of the world. Luckily for us, they work differently than do animal lungs. Trees take in CO2 and “breathe” out O2. It’s usually easy to take adequate oxygen for granted, but we really shouldn’t. All green plants should be fully appreciated and valued as absolutely necessary to life on Earth. [A possible exception to that would be noxious weeds, such as various thistles & mesquites – both of which are injurious – and poisonous/deadly nightshade.] Arguably, trees should be at the top of the list of green plants to be revered. If for no other other reason, because they provide us with oxygen and are necessary carbon “sinks” (and that’s critical to the climate problem). It has been estimated that deforestation accounts for approximately 20% of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

At times, we no longer seem to fully appreciate that green plants in general truly are a miracle of Nature. As you may recall from your high school Biology class, the process of photosynthesis is one of the main reasons life is possible on this planet of ours. In the presence of sunlight and chlorophyll, plants convert carbon dioxide and water into glucose (food) and oxygen. The balanced chemical equation is: 6CO2 + 6H20 + energy/sunlight & chlorophyll → C6H12O6 + 6O2. The value of that process is incalculable. Photosynthesis is a colossal accomplishment of evolution.

...........................

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

p.s.  The book should be out sometime next week.