THE IDIOT’S GUIDE TO LIVING THE GOOD LIFE.

(Opens in a new window)

Image 1. A ‘warming stripe’ graphic. Clicking the image will direct your web browser to the Show Your Stripes Webpage.

How to live a long, healthy life? Generally, living a long healthy life, or increasing the chances of living a long healthy life, requires living in a healthy environment. I’m using the term environment in the broadest sense. For example, in a healthy environment, you will find nutritious food to eat, safe water to drink and safe air to breathe. In other words, a healthy environment is not an environment in which the air, water and land is being polluted by human activities.

Without further ado, this article will discuss the basics of how to increase the chance of living a longer, healthier life and help to prevent a climate crisis (mitigate climate change). First, a note about using and understanding the meaning in language. The following explanations intentionally emphasizes the word “want”. To want something or to desire something is a motivational emotion. Wanting something causes behavioural change. If a person wants to be healthy, they will want, they will be motivated, to find out how to live a healthy life. The point is the “want”. The want to remain healthy is, of course, a very healthy desire to have. For example, the want to be healthy by eating healthy food (a healthy diet). People’s behaviours regarding their diets are partially an instinct, partially copied behaviour, and partially education. For example, every person feels disgusted at the very thought of eating dog poop (a universal human behaviour).

Image 2. A photograph of dog poop (just in case readers needed reminding)

Basically, the reason why dog poop smells so bad to humans is because dog poop is unhealthy for humans to eat. Humans don’t need to be taught that dog poop smells bad (an instinct). Many people adopt the eating habits of their family & culture (copied behaviours). However, It’s not a coincidence that no human culture eats dog poop. Some people study nutrition. What the science says is more healthy food to eat (Education. But, we don’t need to be educated that eating dog poop is unhealthy).

To reiterate, the key point is to want to be healthy—a universal human desire. However, many adults do make unhealthy choices, for themselves & society in general due to: a lack of education, or will power, peer pressure, monetary agendas, etc. Or due to a lack of choice. Such as feeling forced, pressured, to work in unhealthy environments (i.e., because people in industrialised societies need money to buy food, to pay the rent, etc)

(Opens in a new window)

Image 3. A text generated image of a man smiling and shopping in a fruit & vegetable market. Choosing a diet that consists of fruit & vegetables is a healthy choice (e.g., some vegetables are packed with protein). Clicking the image will direct your web browser to ‘Science Vs’, Vegans: Are they right, podcast webpage.

This paragraph as a few statements and questions for readers to reflect upon. Personally, dog poop smells bad to me (intentionally using colloquial terms such as “bad”). The thought of eating dog poop makes me feel disgusted. If I tried to eat dog poop, I’d probably vomit even before any entered my mouth. Does your sense of smell also correctly inform you that dog poop is harmful to eat? But, does wood smoke smell bad to you? Or does your sense of smell incorrectly inform you? Does wood smoke not smell that “bad” to you? (i.e., inhaling wood smoke can’t be that bad because it doesn't smell that bad?). Does a tobacco smokers sense of smell correctly, or incorrectly, inform them that inhaling tobacco smoke is harmful? And yet, inhaling tobacco smoke and wood smoke is extremely harmful. Life-threatening if a person inhales smoke for many years. Basically, tobacco smoke, wood smoke, diesel & petrol vehicle exhaust emissions, etc, are all forms of air pollution. Therefore, the question is, why has humanity inherited a correct sense of smell within the context of dog poop, but an incorrect, in other words, misleading sense of smell within the context of inhaling air pollution? (what went wrong? And what can be done about it? More on these questions later in this article)

(Opens in a new window)

Image 4. An image of two worlds. One of these worlds can be our future. The other will be our demise (e.g., will cause food crops to fail & widespread extinction of animals & plants)

The solution to mitigate climate change (& ecological degradation in general) is that more people have to want to stop harming themselves. They have to want to stop polluting themselves. They have to want to stop polluting the air they breathe (that everyone breathes), for example. People have to want to stop burning fuels! People have to want to not take part in the behaviours and activities that are emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Then, and only then, will we have the number of people required, with the right type of motivation, to make the necessary sociopolitical and socioeconomic changes to our societies (to change our lifestyles, our civilizations—to save our own civilizations from the effects of our own ecologically damaging, including polluting, activities) That includes not wanting to take part in any air polluting activities, big or small, such as flying on jets, sitting around campfires, driving combustion engined vehicles, burning wood & coal at home or in power stations, etc. To reiterate, the point is to want to! (that will change behaviours). There are other human activities that are causing the planet’s climate to change, such as deforestation. However, burning carbon, in other words, “fossil” fuels (e.g., jet fuel, oil, diesel, petrol, gas, kerosene, etc) and biofuels (e.g., wood fuel), is increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (& causing the planet’s climate to heat up).

(Opens in a new window)

Image 5. The graph shows monthly mean carbon dioxide measured at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii. The carbon dioxide data on Mauna Loa constitute the longest record of direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere. Click the image to be directed to the NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory website.

Greenhouse gases such as methane aside for the sake of simplicity (e.g., generally, people not wanting to eat meat & not wanting to breathe in air pollution would manifest as a reduction in all the greenhouse gas emissions). Of course, if meat tasted like dog poop, eating meat wouldn't be a common behaviour. If burning fuels gave off gases or carbon particles that smelt like dog poop, burning fuels wouldn’t be such a common ‘I want’ behaviour (people would want to avoid those ‘distasteful’ activities & replace them with technologies that didn’t emit a foul odour). Although many forms of air pollution do contain chemicals that humans can smell, wood smoke and diesel fumes for example, carbon dioxide is odourless and transparent (it can’t be smelt or seen with the naked eye). At this point, the more biologically ‘savvy’ (educated) readers may be thinking that inhaling carbon dioxide isn’t harmful. However, burning materials such as solids (e.g., coal & wood), liquids (e.g., diesel & petrol) or gases (e.g., natural gas), causes the release of a cocktail of harmful chemicals (carbon dioxide is only one of those molecules). Human activities that release carbon dioxide is harmful within the context of causing global heating (that is causing the climate to change at a comparably rapid pace). However, the point is that burning fuels is harming human health (period). Therefore, if the medical evidence about air pollution was understood or believed by a population of humans, that knowledge would motivate the type of behaviours that mitigate air pollution (reduce air pollution). More than the point that burning those fuels is also causing climate change. People care about their immediate & long term health. Also, it has often been said that the people that care about preventing human caused climate change, feel powerless to mitigate climate change (e.g., due to the corruption from the oil & gas industries & their associated political organisations). But, this sense of powerlessness is generally caused by the apathy and lack of action of the majority of people (Especially in a democracy). If approximately 30% of people in any population (as a benchmark figure) were educated to understand that air pollution is seriously harming their health, this would cause a major shift in the population's attitudes (over time). Some readers may be thinking, to paraphrase, “but people do know that traffic pollution is harmful!”. The truth is that they don’t understand. For if they did, many people would behave in different ways. They’d be avoiding inhaling air pollution as best they could. Sure, people may have heard that breathing in traffic fumes can harm their health, however, go to any city and the odds are that most people are not wearing air pollution masks when they are walking alongside traffic (they’re not protecting their health from the effects of inhaling air pollution, even when it’s obvious that the air is being polluted by combustion engined vehicles). Therefore, the question is, are they suicidal? Do they want to seriously harm their own health? Or is it more probable that people, generally, have not realised how much air pollution they are being exposed to & how it’s harming their health? People have not realised how air pollution is damaging their health. People do not recognise the effects of exposure to air pollution (even after it’s too late to prevent the worst effect. A premature death)

For example, a person wakes up in the morning and lights up their wood stove (polluting themselves and anyone that is exposed to the wood smoke). Having a wood stove in the house also means that the people in the house will be exposed to higher levels of carbon particles (compared to houses that don’t have a wood stove or open fire place). Every time the wood stove door is opened to light the wood stove or add more logs to the fire, carbon particles will enter the room's air supply. In houses with wood stoves or an open fire place, this can be seen by the soot that accumulates on horizontal surfaces (if the surfaces were not regularly “dusted” or wiped clean). Soot, also known in less concentrated amounts as microscopic carbon particulates, also accumulates in people’s bodies (in the tissues and organs). They are being polluted whether they realize it or not (they’re certainly not fully aware). And the fuel industries won’t help people to realize this. Quite the opposite, they greenwash people (e.g., using misleading advertising featuring psychological trickery. AKA con-artists)

(Opens in a new window)

Image 6. People that live in homes with open fire places or wood stoves are exposed to more indoor air pollution. This is a text generated image. The “AI” has broken the grim reaper's scythe. Click the image to be directed to ‘The Doctors & Scientists against woodsmoke pollution’ website.

I developed this basic universal strategy to mitigate climate change, whilst also improving human health, by asking myself the straight forward question, “what if everyone was like me? Would that make the levels of societies air pollution better or worse?”. The key to my healthier behaviour is the knowledge that motivates me to go out of my way to avoid breathing in polluted air (e.g., I wear an air pollution mask when I smell air pollution). Typically, the air pollution is being caused by other people’s activities. Furthermore, I go out of my way to avoid polluting the air (many people do not & they’re typically air pollution & climate change apologists). It’s that simple! On this point I can recall the many times that air pollution apologists have said something like, for example, “who do you think you are telling people that it’s wrong to drive their diesel car, they have to earn a living!”. However, as per usual, the air pollution and climate change apologists are missing the general point entirely. The apologists intentionally miss the broader point. They focus on common narratives to deflect attention away from the broader point being made. In other words, the apologists try to discredit the messenger by focusing on narrow-minded points such as, Mrs smith has to use her diesel car to drive her kids to school, for example. The easier way to describe the general point is to explain a common case example of how someone is polluting their own air because they’re completely ignorant (about the harm they are causing themselves).

Before I describe the general point, I want to remind readers that there are many people who take part in discussions about air pollution and climate change who are simply habituated liars. A form of socio-pathology. They’re not genuine people. They are, for example, more interested in the continuation of business as usual (e.g., selling fuels) They’re con-artists. Although, I don’t like that phrase because lying isn’t an art form. It’s typically a form of social exploitation (E.g., “con-artists” cause harm). Of course, in contexts in which the behaviour is explicitly some form of trick (e.g., a magic show) the audience has consented to being tricked. Has the world population of humans consented to being tricked by the fossil fuel industries & their associated businesses and political allies? More generally, people that live the most polluting lifestyles typically talk greenwash & avoid taking any personal responsibilty for their polluting actions.

So, the general point regarding air pollution. I’ve often observed local people, farmers in this example, burning stacks of tree branches on their land. They even light bonfires upwind from their own family homes (e.g., where children live and play). A partially informed observer may think that these farmers simply don’t care. However, think about it. What’s more probable, that these farmers are psychopaths that intentionally harm their own family's health? Or that they’re simply ignorant? (Having wrote that, that would make the people that sell fuels using greenwash psychopaths. But that’s a different social context. Their psychopathology is driven by greed & self-deception). The point is that the farmers would not be polluting themselves if they were fully cognisant that they were polluting themselves (nobody wants to develop cancer, mental disorders, heart conditions, etc). Air pollution negatively affects every part of the body because the blood circulatory system (cardiovascular system) transports microscopic carbon particles to every organ in the body (including the brain). The general way to describe the effects of prolonged exposure to air pollution is that it ages you (hence the premature death medical statistics).

It's necessary to point out that many General Practitioners (GP’s. AKA Doctors) have not informed themselves about the science of air pollution. For example, if a patient is diagnosed with lung cancer, the GP may ask “do you, or have you, smoked?”. They probably won’t ask, “do you have a wood stove or open fireplace in your home?”. GP’s took a long time to catch up regarding the harm caused by smoking tobacco. At the time, many Doctors smoked tobacco. How many Doctors take part in air polluting activities? A conflict of interests often biases people’s judgements.

Image 7. A text generated image depicting people travelling on a passenger jet aircraft. There is a conflict of interests between wanting to reduce air pollution and travelling on polluting jet aircraft. That's why the people that travel on jet aircraft and or work in the industry are typically air pollution and climate change apologists (there are a few exceptions to every norm. e.g., people that do sincerely want to mitigate climate change, but, very occasionally, and reluctantly, use Jet travel because another form of transport isn’t available to reach their destination. e.g., electric trains & hybrid electric-sail ships). That’s why the passengers in the image all have long noses. Or rather, if people’s noses did grow longer the more lies they told, those that take part in more polluting activities would have the longest noses of all (shame that physiology doesn’t actually happen)

As a personal anecdote. I was sitting in a Barbers shop waiting for my turn for a hair cut. This was in July 2023, when multiple wildfires had started in Greece. There was a family of four sitting opposite me (Two parents and two children). They were complaining that they had to cancel their family holiday to Greece because of the wildfires. This is only one out of so many social encounters which makes me feel pessimistic about humanities future. Whilst the more intelligent Scientists are very concerned about the effects of global heating, such as an increase in forest fires, many members of the public seem to have left their lights on, but nobody is apparently home. They have certainly heard (e.g., on the News) that jet travel is causing global heating—they simply don’t want to take any responsibility for their air polluting actions. An air pollution and climate apologists (someone that always users excuses to justify immoral activites, typically by refering to other people. e.g., seeking the support of the air polluting majority that also typically think someone else should solve their air polluting problems for them) would excuse their, and their own, choices by saying, to paraphrase, "who do you think you are saying that hard-working people should not go on holidays abroad!”. However, the planet’s climate doesn’t give a duck about people’s lame excuses. This is actually basic ethics. They know that the activities they’re choosing, recreational activities in this context, are polluting the air we all breath and are causing climate change, they choose to do them anyway. To reiterate, fuel executives also know that the fuels they sell cause air pollution and are causing the climate to change, they promote the sale of polluting fuels anyway.

If people shouldn't feel guilty for wanting to take part in activities that they know are harming people and are causing a climate crisis, what should they feel guilty about? These are not simple guilty pleasures such as over consuming a chocolate cake. Air polluting activities are killing people. Climate change is killing people. However, I am aware that the moral angle of killing other people hasn't changed many people's behaviours. And that's why we need to explain to people how air pollution is also effecting them personally in harmful ways. I'm not saying this will be easy, because very often people simply don't want to hear the truth. Primarily because they're the ones that are causing the harm. They're the ones wanting to take part in air polluting activities such as jet travel. As already mentioned, there are also social contexts in which people's choices have been limited because they live in a culture in which the majority of people are not motivated to focus on the solutions to mitigate air pollution. However, generally, jet travel is simply another example of rich people choosing the most air polluting activities. At it's most extreme, this is rich people travelling using their own private jets (and that’s an example of rich people that have more money than sense. But, they tell themselves & others stories to prevent themselves from feeling bad)

Basically, if the truth about air pollution was more widely understood or believed by most people, that truth would motivate the required cultural level change to mitigate climate change (a cultural evolution). Furthermore, if the truth about climate change was more widely understood or believed by most people, that truth would motivate the required cultural level change to mitigate climate change (a cultural evolution). But, educating and getting people to care about climate is a harder challenge compared to educating people about the effects of air pollution on their own health. The reason why I use the jet travel example is because if we reached a cultural stage in which the majority of people were refusing to fly on jets, because of climate change, we’d be half way there to solving climate change. The motivational aspect, required for a 'green' cultural evolution, would have been developed. The people in society would have the right attitudes required to mitigate climate change. We are not close to being half way there (yet?). Also, people that fly on jets, either passenger or private, typically represent the richest people in any society. If rich people are spending most of their money on air polluting activities? (rather than investing in electric trains, for example). Cause and effect.

Some readers may have noticed that this article has been written within the framework or logic of deductive reasoning. For example, jets pollute the atmosphere, therefore, we should reduce jet flights. Wood stoves pollute the air we all breath, therefore, we should reduce the number of wood stoves. Air pollution & climate change apologists are full of excuses not solutions, therefore, we shouldn’t pay attention to their weak justifications to pollute the air. We want to hear about the solutions. Not the complaints & lies of those that want to carry on taking part in air polluting activities and or profiteering by selling polluting fuels or jet flights, for example. Logic & simplicity, but not overly simplifying the subject. Basically, to mitigate climate change, we need to mitigate human behaviours. The usual approach as been for science communicators to explain that climate change will cause ‘bad’ events to happen in the future. Whilst the climate change is bad approach, is evidence based, it hasn’t and won’t prevent those ‘bad’ climate events from occurring. It’s not, it hasn’t been, a sufficient personal motivator to develop behavioural change on a cultural level (Or rather, it has for me, but not for the average person, evidently). Basically, this is due to conflicts of interests. For example, business people want to make money now. Their desire to make money outweighs their desire to tell the truth. Their desire to make money outweighs their desire to not sell harmful products such as carbon based fuels (i.e., they simply carry on as usual. AKA business as usual, which includes selling products and services using greenwash. e.g., “carbon capture” & “carbon offsetting” schemes). However, if the “consumers” (AKA the public) understood, and I mean truly understood, how harmful it is to breathe in polluted air, that would cause a cultural level behavioural change (just as it did for my behaviour). That’s because of basic human nature—people don’t want to prematurely die. People certainly don’t want their health to slowly degrade to the point where they suffer from a prolonged, painful death. A prolonged, painful death is exactly what prolonged exposure to air pollution causes. Readers should keep in mind two very important medical facts: 1. Provided no permanent damage to health has been caused, a person's health will improve once they quit smoking and mitigate breathing in other forms of air pollution, such as wood smoke or traffic emissions. 2. These statements are based on population averages. For example, out of two groups, the people in the smokers group—will develop more diseases and have a shorter life expectancy (that’s the general medical evidence when also controlling for other factors such as diet, etc). For example, the group of people that inhale more air pollution during their lives—will develop more diseases and have a shorter life expectancy (that’s the general medical evidence when also controlling for other factors such as exercise, diet, etc).

The question is, considering the dire effects of breathing in air pollution, why, after decades of scientific research & public communication on the subject, do the public not go out of their way to avoid breathing in polluted air? There are multiple psychological reasons for this. As already mentioned, reducing air pollution is a conflict of interest for many people (either in business or leisure). The motivation to make money is rather simple to understand. But, what about the people that want to take part in air polluting recreational activities because they enjoy them? What’s going on in their minds? What could be more important than looking after your own health and the health of the people you care about? This question misses the point! The point being that the multitudes of cultural level conflicts of interests means that many people have not accommodated the information that would inform them how harmful air pollution is. Furthermore, offer a person a glass of dirty water to drink (or Dog poop to eat)—they’d experience disgust at the very thought of drinking it (or eating it). And yet, most people do not experience disgust when they smell wood smoke, for example. Drinking contaminated water and breathing in contaminated air is harmful. Why haven't humans inherited the (good) sense to avoid air pollution? That question is beyond the scope of this article. However, briefly, burning wood provided an evolutionary adaptive advantage. Generally (overall), prolonged exposure to air pollution causes a premature death, after the age of reproduction (evolutionary biologists will understand this point). And of course, there wasn’t any traffic emissions in Homo sapiens environment of evolutionary adaptations. Basically, technology has changed, but human psychology hasn’t caught up with recognizing the threats that new technologies cause. That’s why your ‘average’ human does not instinctively recognize air pollution as harmful. That’s why we need to educate humanity so that more people cognitively understand (educated) that breathing in air pollution is extremely harmful. Educate people to recognize air pollution by their sense of smell (e.g., wood smoke & diesel fumes). Or, if the air pollution is odorless, to recognize that a machine or appliance that burns fuel is a machine that is emitting air pollution (e.g., microscopic carbon particles that, once inhaled, enter a person’s blood stream)

(Opens in a new window)

Image 8. A screenshot from The Union of Concerned scientist's website. Click the image to visit the webpage for ‘The Climate Deception Dossiers’.

All this ‘education’ or science communication will be so much easier after we educate more people to look after their own health—by wanting to avoid breathing in polluted air. Not wanting to avoid breathing air pollution is a psychological misalignment (maladaptive behaviours). A psychological misalignment because it goes against people’s want to sustain their health. Consider this, how many more people would be aware that burning fuels was harmful if the fuel industries advertising was banned? Generally, if greenwash had been banned a decade ago, that would mean that the public was generally being informed by the scientists. Rather than the industries misleading advertising campaigns. The disinformation (AKA lying) spread by corrupt business leaders and corrupt politicians. Greenwash, also known as disinformation, also known as lying to make money, is ubiquitous (society is awash with the biased information spread by biased & dishonest people. Mostly, people with personal business & recreational interests that do not align with reducing air pollution). Disinformation is the main reason why it’s been so difficult to educate people about the harm of air pollution. There are organizations of people, typically quite rich people, that are intentionally trying to mislead people about the harm of air pollution (there is a lot of money to be made by selling fuels using misleading narratives). They will try to downplay the harms caused. They will try anything, say anything, but the truth. Because the truth would lose them money! (and that’s what they care about above all else). That’s why fuel companies and some politicians are promoting the extraction of more oil ang gas, even whilst people are being harmed by air pollution and climate change. Being rich evidently also has a psychological social ‘toxic’ effect on some rich people’s minds (those that sustain their wealth selling and or promoting harmful products & services)

Image 9. An image of an air polluting product that is being sold in the UK using misleading rhetoric. The brand is called ‘ecoal50’. An attempt by the manufactures to mislead consumers. I added the text “carbon based fuel” & “sold using 100% misleading zombie bullshit” to mitigate the greenwash.

People can become comparably stupid if they’re exposed to a lifetime of greenwash. They literally believe in stupid ideas (or at least express stupid ideas). For example, a man, told me proudly that his diesel car must now be “carbon-neutral”. I didn’t even bother to challenge his delusion (where do you start?) We start by trying to educate the people that already have the prerequisite knowledge & right morality to be educated (i.e., they just need to trust the honest scientist, for example. Not mistakenly trust the lies from the dishonest fossil fuel lobbyist [sales people]). For example, there isn’t much point in walking up to a man that has just set fire to a pile of tree branches on his land, with the hope that you can educate him (about the chemistry and physiology needed to understand why he’s harming his own health). The air polluting person is primed to simply be offended (e.g., to become hostile) if their behaviours are challenged. There isn’t much point in trying to educate a tobacco smoker about the harm caused by inhaling wood smoke (& air pollution in general. Unless they accept that smoking is harmful, and they want to quit). By extension of their behaviours, the air polluter is typically either the most ignorant or the most unethical in regard to air pollution (the hardest to educate). Although, easier to educate than a fuel executive. To be clear, fuel executives and fuel lobbyists in general, do understand that the fuels they promote are harmful to human health and are causing climate change, they promote the fuels anyway (nice people? Well, perhaps to your face at least! Especially when they’re selling you something for money)

In summary, the aim of this document has been to explain how to educate and motivate individuals in any society to not want to harm their long term health. To not want to take part in activities that pollute the air they have to breathe. To explain how to motivate individuals in any society to want to mitigate climate change. In order to achieve this aim, it has been necessary to use deductive reasoning and ask the basic questions (back to basics). In other words, whilst writing this article I have aimed for the ‘Keep It Simple Stupid’ (KISS) approach. For an example of a KISS statement that is backed by the science. Human caused climate change is being caused by human activities that are releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. To qualify that statement, I would usually reference lots of, let’s be honest, complicated science. And that’s part of the problem. Greenwash has had its costs, both within the context of not mitigating air pollution and climate change, and by ‘dumbing down’ the public. However, generally, most people are not stupid. They are simply the victims of their own conflict of interests, their desires that cause air pollution and living in a culture in which greenwash is ubiquitous (lying for money, including trying to coverup harmful activities is ubiquitous). Air pollution is a major contributor to disease worldwide. Most of the global population resides in places where air pollution levels, because of emissions from industry, power generation, transportation, & domestic burning, considerably exceed the World Health Organization's health-based air-quality guidelines. Air pollution is an urgent worldwide public health crisis because it is ubiquitous, has numerous serious adverse human health effects, and is changing the planet’s climate in ways that will increasingly become more disastrous for human civilization. This article has explained how to make climate change more ‘personal’. This article is yet another call for urgent action to mitigate a public health crisis—that will become an ecological crisis if not mitigated in time. Therefore, don’t be silenced by the “zombie” air pollution & climate change apologists. They know not or care not about the harm they are causing.

(Opens in a new window)

Image 10. I downloaded the main ‘zombie’ image from the internet. And then added the all the text, the fire, the ‘ecoal50’ image, the zombie hand and the googly eyed human skull. Click the image to find out what the ‘zombies’ don’t want you to know.

If you appreciate this article, or even if you don’t, please consider becoming a member. That will help me to pay my rent, for example, whilst voluteering my spare time to focus on climate corruption & science communication. However, you can also show your appreciation for (probably) insulting you, based on a population average psychology, by sharing this article.