My first encounter with this term was in the book ‘People of the Lie’ by Scott Peck. The definition of cognitive dissonance is holding conflicting positions or beliefs which create discomfort, hence we are people of the lie. If we become comfortable with our lie, it means we have changed to ease the discomfort or dissonance created by our dual position.
To my mind, this is a very common human behaviour. We adjust when we tell ourselves the truth would have served no good purpose, or it was just a white lie. To assuage our guilt or dissonance, we have to adjust our position. When we see little value or reward in the lie itself, we feel greater discomfit. They have shown the reward change in an experiment in 1959, by Festinger and Carlsmith. (ref: McCleod,S A 2018, Feb 05 Cognitive Dissonance, Simply Psychology.) They concluded that we need incentive to lie to ourselves, and that incentive is a reward. Festinger is the one who first used the term cognitive dissonance in the 1950s. We are much more comfortable with a lie if it is worth it. So, my reward for using and enjoying technology when I disagree with the damage caused to the environment is – convenience. Conflicting positions will create difficulty and I could ease my discomfort with resolution, usually by changing a position, or justifying it.
Our current viral pandemic of COVID-19 triggered my preoccupation with the subject of dissonance. How do I accept and enjoy the convenience of modern medicine, transport, retail, manufacture, energy, industry, entertainment and technology while I decry the damage to the planet that comes with all of this? In a previous article posted before the pandemic, I take the position of embracing technology because it is inevitable. I now see this was one way to ease my dissonance. One could have a passionate and even sincere belief in progress without a concern for the environment. My discomfort does not allow me to ignore my dual position on the matter.
The solution may be to live with the discomfort or change position completely; live without this computer that I use to write and my cellphone for communication or television for entertainment. Possible? Yes, this is possible because I can remember a time when none of these existed, but can we turn the clock back? Individuals could, but the planet needs a more global solution.
I also sincerely believe progress is an inevitable outcome of innovation, necessity, and creativity. The problem is, what flows naturally from our needs and creativity has been hi-jacked by human greed. Does every person need a cellphone and does every household need more than one computer or television? How much do we need all the high-tech gadgets for entertainment? A regular mantra we hear from tech business is: upgrade, upgrade! Why are products not made to last longer? The answer is always profit. Competition, profit and an insatiable appetite for more and more and faster and faster seem unending.
The modern driving force behind most inventions up to now has been a necessity, but profit has become a more dominant feature. Hopefully, the current world situation of the Corona virus may just change the profit factor to one that is more balanced. Anyone who sees the serious environmental reality for what it is, disastrous, would welcome a change that favours survival rather than profit. However, COVID-19 pandemic lock down and isolation leave us with little hope that the use of technology will decrease. We need technology now more than ever before to protect the health of the world’s populations.
Here is the paradox though, the very technology that is used to survive a pandemic, has the highest carbon footprint there is. The toxic chemicals used in the manufacture of the microchips found in tech products globally, generates a $20 billion dollar industry. So little hope there of things changing soon. To resolve my dilemma of believing in progress while also sincerely hating the damage to the planet, I face an impossible task. I have to get that balance the psychologists recommend reducing the stress this brings. If every technology user on the planet attempted to use less, more effectively, it may help. This could reduce production and reduce disposal of toxic bi-products in the manufacturing processes.
The more I learn about how toxic tech products components are, the higher my stress levels. My latest source of dissonance revolves around the news that Ruwanda is set to become Africa’s silicon valley. This article by Nicky Verd is most welcome by most people on social media. They will develop this project as an environmentally friendly one. My first reaction was, ‘Really? Green Silicon Valley?‘ The very idea boggles my mind! The pollution to ground, air and water generated in America’s Silicon Valley, has persisted for over forty years. So, how on God’s good earth can Ruwanda produce a green silicon valley? What am I missing here? The question may be, what levels of pollution determine ‘environmentally friendly’? What adds to my discomfort is my use of the technology developed by these companies, while I have no solution to the pollution they produce.
During the world’s lock down across the globe, nature has rebounded, and it gave us a rare opportunity to stop and rethink our relationship with the environment. Will we dare to make changes and use technology in a way that protects the planet, to reduce the stress of my cognitive dissonance? Is it possible to find that necessary balance? I have always believed that Africa, with its ancient and unique affinity with the environment, can show the world how to live in harmony with nature without compromise.
Africa can show us how to balance man’s needs with protecting the earth, instead of indulging our greed by raping the planet!
Will Africa rise to become the solution, not the problem?
The End!
Hello , I enjoyed your blog.