350
sustainable direction. We need to establish universal connectedness and a spirit of
wholeness and mindfulness in life while developing agriculture.
Given the number of ongoing global crises, transformation of individuals and of
agriculture may be our only option, whether it is chosen or forced upon us.
Innovations such as emerging technological solutions (incremental changes in technology) are not keeping pace with the extent and severity of global crises. Today’s
modernist civilization is developed on the paradigm of infinite growth, which
encourages unscrupulous consumption of natural resources. Globally, negative
impacts on agriculture and the environment are drastically increasing. Humankind
is entering the third millennium with multiple global challenges concerning the provision of food, water, and energy for a growing population. How do we reduce
global hunger (821 million hungry people in the world (FAO et al. 2018)), address
a dysfunctional global food system (which allows 821 million hungry people and
fosters 1.5 billion overweight people (Magdoff and Tokar 2010)), and expect to feed
9.8 billion people in 2050 as projected by UN (2017). Human relation to the environment is in imbalance and can only be restored by a fundamental shift in consciousness and, in our production and consumption patterns, through personal
transformation.
Humans often live ‘in denial’ and make confronting environmental challenges
difficult. From a climate change point of view, these denials can be grouped into
three different forms: literal, interpretive, and implicatory denial (Cohen 2013).
Literal denial is usually associated with commercial and ideological issues, for
example, the use of fossil fuels. In this case, organized attempts and campaigns are
made in order to undermine, deny, or dismiss the scientific consensus that the use of
fossil fuels has a profound impact on climate change (Dunlap and McCright 2010).
In the case of interpretive denial, the fact that climate change is happening is not
denied, but is given a different interpretation, for example, that climate change is not
anthropogenic, but is caused by a change in solar radiation or in the earth’s orbit.
Perhaps, the most significant form of denial is implicatory denial. Although we are
living our everyday lives with sufficient information to confront global problems,
we choose to turn a blind eye and not to take appropriate actions to change our lifestyle. The hard question remains on how to change human behaviour and alter our
attitude and lifestyles in order to respond to ongoing climate change. It is difficult
to expect behavioural changes to happen voluntarily, as individuals are attached to
their habits and default behaviours (Norgaard 2009). We propose that this behavioural change must be met through globalization and personal transformation. We
need to introduce a transformative wisdom at all levels of education and research
including agriculture. If we really want to address climate change, it is not enough
to have understanding and knowledge of climate change, associated risks, and
impacts of this complex problem (cognitive aspect). We must also have emotional
concern for perceived climate stresses (affective aspect) and the intention to behave
in a way that helps in coping/adapting to climate change (conative aspect). We
believe that only through the combination of these three aspects (cognitive, affective, and conative) can we create fertile ground for human-climate interaction and
move towards a solution to the problem.
B. K. Sitaula et al.
sustainable direction. We need to establish universal connectedness and a spirit of
wholeness and mindfulness in life while developing agriculture.
Given the number of ongoing global crises, transformation of individuals and of
agriculture may be our only option, whether it is chosen or forced upon us.
Innovations such as emerging technological solutions (incremental changes in technology) are not keeping pace with the extent and severity of global crises. Today’s
modernist civilization is developed on the paradigm of infinite growth, which
encourages unscrupulous consumption of natural resources. Globally, negative
impacts on agriculture and the environment are drastically increasing. Humankind
is entering the third millennium with multiple global challenges concerning the provision of food, water, and energy for a growing population. How do we reduce
global hunger (821 million hungry people in the world (FAO et al. 2018)), address
a dysfunctional global food system (which allows 821 million hungry people and
fosters 1.5 billion overweight people (Magdoff and Tokar 2010)), and expect to feed
9.8 billion people in 2050 as projected by UN (2017). Human relation to the environment is in imbalance and can only be restored by a fundamental shift in consciousness and, in our production and consumption patterns, through personal
transformation.
Humans often live ‘in denial’ and make confronting environmental challenges
difficult. From a climate change point of view, these denials can be grouped into
three different forms: literal, interpretive, and implicatory denial (Cohen 2013).
Literal denial is usually associated with commercial and ideological issues, for
example, the use of fossil fuels. In this case, organized attempts and campaigns are
made in order to undermine, deny, or dismiss the scientific consensus that the use of
fossil fuels has a profound impact on climate change (Dunlap and McCright 2010).
In the case of interpretive denial, the fact that climate change is happening is not
denied, but is given a different interpretation, for example, that climate change is not
anthropogenic, but is caused by a change in solar radiation or in the earth’s orbit.
Perhaps, the most significant form of denial is implicatory denial. Although we are
living our everyday lives with sufficient information to confront global problems,
we choose to turn a blind eye and not to take appropriate actions to change our lifestyle. The hard question remains on how to change human behaviour and alter our
attitude and lifestyles in order to respond to ongoing climate change. It is difficult
to expect behavioural changes to happen voluntarily, as individuals are attached to
their habits and default behaviours (Norgaard 2009). We propose that this behavioural change must be met through globalization and personal transformation. We
need to introduce a transformative wisdom at all levels of education and research
including agriculture. If we really want to address climate change, it is not enough
to have understanding and knowledge of climate change, associated risks, and
impacts of this complex problem (cognitive aspect). We must also have emotional
concern for perceived climate stresses (affective aspect) and the intention to behave
in a way that helps in coping/adapting to climate change (conative aspect). We
believe that only through the combination of these three aspects (cognitive, affective, and conative) can we create fertile ground for human-climate interaction and
move towards a solution to the problem.
B. K. Sitaula et al.