The tendency to underestimate global threats is not a character flaw, but a feature of how our psyche works.
Here are the main psychological reasons why this happens:
- Availability Heuristic
We assess the probability of an event based on how easily we can imagine it or recall examples.
Global threat: Climate change is represented by abstract graphs and forecasts for 50 years from now.
Personal threat: A stolen wallet is a vivid, relatable story that’s easy to imagine.
The brain intuitively considers the latter more likely because it is more “available.”
- Optimism Bias
This is the tendency to believe that bad events are less likely to happen to us personally than to others.
People might agree, “Yes, pandemics happen,” but at the same time think, “But I won’t get infected” or “Such an accident won’t happen to me.” This is a kind of psychological defense that allows us not to live in constant fear. - Spotlight Effect
Every person feels like the center of their own universe. We perceive our problems, our immediate tasks (a work deadline, a family argument) as the most important thing. Global threats seem like a distant background on the periphery of our vision. - Decision Paralysis Due to Scale
When a problem is too enormous (e.g., “saving the planet”) and our personal contribution seems like a drop in the ocean, it creates a feeling of powerlessness. The brain prefers to simply “discard” this task as unsolvable to avoid wasting resources. It’s easier to say, “I can’t change anything anyway,” than to constantly experience anxiety. - Distancing in Time and Space
The human brain responds best to immediate and visible threats (a tiger in the bushes).
Global threats are often perceived as something that:
Will happen not now (“sometime in the future”).
Will happen not here (“in another country”).
Will happen to someone else (“not to my family”).
- Psychological Defense: Denial
Acknowledging the reality of a global threat is very frightening. It undermines our basic sense of security. Therefore, the psyche activates the mechanism of denial. It’s easier to convince ourselves that “scientists are panicking” or “it’s all exaggerated” than to live with the awareness of real danger.
What can “switch on” a serious attitude?
People start taking a threat seriously when it overcomes these psychological barriers, meaning it becomes:
Personal: Someone they know got sick.
Tangible: Forest fires approached the city, smog is visible outside the window.
Immediate: An evacuation was announced.
Understandable: There are clear instructions on “what to do.”
P.S. In my childhood, I read Castaneda, and there the fundamental principle is to treat one’s death as the best advisor. Every time you need to make a decision, you should think: what would I do if I died tonight? This approach greatly influenced me; I made many life decisions without hesitation, based on this principle. Later, it became a habit.
I also want to say that Buddhism and the Latin American cult of death are largely based on this same principle. In Buddhism, for example, monks meditate on a decomposing corpse. To rid themselves of desire for a woman, monks are also instructed to imagine how her flesh ages and dies. Constant mindfulness of death is a rule of practice.
Furthermore, I think that thoughts about the reality of the End of the World are not paranoid schizophrenia, as they are often classified in modern psychiatry, but a sign of developed consciousness and awareness. Of course, without fanaticism.
