Abolition of slavery holds key to the psychology of climate change and peak oil

What do you say to somebody who doesn't believe you can make people change their habits? Who argues that nobody will ever give up the carbon-rich luxuries to which they have become accustomed - such as cheap flights, big cars, overlit and too-warm houses? And contends that any steps we take towards sustainability (giving up the flights, driving less, turning down lighting and thermostats) are useless in the face of Chinese and Indian economic expansion?

There are historical precedents for the kind of selflessness required, and they deserve scrutiny because they could teach us a great deal about the psychology of change.

One that comes to mind is the movement towards the abolition of the slave trade in Britain (and elsewhere). In just 20 years, campaigners who initially represented a minuscule minority persuaded their compatriots to give up an incredibly useful resource - free labour - merely because it was The Right Thing To Do. (This picture, showing detailed plans and cross sectional drawing of the slave ship Brookes, was distributed by the Abolitionist Society.)

You can readily imagine how their first efforts were rebuffed. "You'll never persuade people to give up the luxuries to which they've become accustomed," cynics must have argued. "And why should we give up slaves if the Americans continue to keep them?"

Comments

[Jo]

The general populus and especially the poor people in England were affected by the American civil war. Huge amounts of cotton had been imported from the souther States to supply the cotton manufacturing centres in Northern Engaln. The war prevented export which meant a lot of people were laid off yet a lot of the general public supported the slaves and abolitionists in America despite the situation it left them in. I think John - Paul has a good point but people need to really understand the situation before they will do anything. It also may be easier to support something that is done for you. In the case of slavery and WW2 decisions were mostly taken by governments, people did support it but Joe Bloggs didn't have to change his behavior on hs own. I don't want more laws but that might be the only way to really change anything.

[mememine69]

What exactly has pollution killed in the last 30 years? And what affect has it been on you personally? How has pollution affected you?

World War 2 may be a better analogy. In order to maintain the balance of power/ prevent invasion citizens of the UK accepted rationed goods and conscription. People perform seemingly selfless acts for the collective good of a nation during war. Harnessing this sounds like the key to me.

[joe]

As even Jonathon Porritt recently explained to me:

"But the difficulties contained in your email – that the only way in which we could jolt people out of that complacency is to start talking about the almost unimaginably horrible consequences that runaway climate change would bring with it. And a lot of the evidence demonstrates that when people are confronted with that kind of exceptionally negative message, they just turn off. Rather than being empowered to get stuck in (both personal and political), they withdraw even more into various patterns of denial, not least the reassurance that continuing scientific controversy seems to bring with it."

We are not only screwed, we don't want to talk about how screwed we are because it is too upsetting.

[Rocky,West Mids]

I've always thought there is a connnection between the abolition of slavery and the invention of machines to do a lot of the work. It's cheaper to buy and maintain a steam engine than to house, feed and guard slaves. The abolishionists were altruists, but with the industrial revolution in full swing they may have been pushing at a partly-open door

AD, another thing to consider however, is that the average citizen didn't have as much involvement or say in what the government(taxes, etc.) could do to change the situation. I think that we are all rapped up in the situation more than we realize, and although there are these large scale proponents of industries that hurt environmental morals, we are essentially the people who may not have owned slaves, but who benefitted off of the slave system (everyone but the slaves). I like Flintoff's point because it allows us to focus on what is "morally corrupt" in our lifestyles: not the fact that we drive our children to school, but that we don't do all that is in our power as citizens to pressure governments to change the oil industry complex.

[Ad]

John-Paul, you're living in cloud-cuckoo land. Ordinary people in the 19th century didn't have to give up anything, since they didn't own slaves. The minority slave owners were handsomly compensated for the 'loss' of their slaves by parliament.
Compare that to today, where the vast majority of people would have to give up something, eg their nice car. How much compensation will the government give me for foresaking my oil-based 'morally corrupt lifestyle'? I'll not start counting that windfall just yet...