The Finite Pool of Worry Hypothesis

“According to Weber’s psychological theory of the finite pool of worry, people avoid dealing with multiple negative events at the same time. Consistent with this theory, as people worry more about the COVID-19 pandemic, they tend to neglect the problem of climate change. Here, we examine the number and content of climate change discussions on Twitter from 2019 through 2021. We show that as COVID-19 cases and deaths increase, climate change tweets have a less negative sentiment. There is also less content associated with fear and anger, the emotions related to worry and anxiety. These results support the finite pool of worry hypothesis and imply that the pandemic redirects public attention from the important problem of climate change mitigation..”

-Oleg Smirnov and Pei-Hsun Hsie, “COVID-19, climate change, and the finite pool of worry in 2019 to 2021 Twitter discussions.” PNAS. October 17, 2022.
119 (43) e2210988119.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2210988119

This is the first time I have come across the finite pool of worry hypothesis. It strikes me as a subset of the paradox of choice problem. As choices proliferate, the cognitive load of understanding the various tradeoffs in the options gets exponentially more difficult, and we have to find a way to reduce our choices and make a decision.

One way that we reduce our choice is by using Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. If we are worried about getting our immediate needs met and for our safety, then we will not have much room left over for worrying about climate change and its impact on future generations.

As we move up the hierarchy of needs, then we need to select between things to care about. How does plastic pollution and “forever chemicals” compare to climate change as an existential risk? It’s probably a safe bet that low probability existential risk not effecting people personally will get evaluated differently than something that has the potential to directly impact someone.

For example, the risk of climate change is evaluated differently, over time, depending on whether people think there is some relationship to climate change and the current risks they face. If you think ice caps melting might impact your coastal property in the next two decades, you might think about it differently than people 50 years ago did, when the discussion was of problems in 2100 CE.

Also, anthropogenic climate change is discussed differently than say climate change that happens due to meteorite impact or a supervolcano. Presumably, anthropogenic climate change includes issues of both of culpability and the view that it is under our control. We might not feel the same about the other two, and we may put it outside our sphere of concern.

This concept provides a lot of interesting food for thought.

Eat [and Drink] Less Plastic

Drink water from your tap. Drinking water is one of the biggest contributors to microplastic ingestion, but bottled water has about double the microplastic level of tap water, according to Mason, making it a poor choice for those who want to consume less plastic. Some bottled waters have also been found to have high levels of PFAS chemicals. Mason says that unless you know your tap water is unsafe, you should opt for that over anything in a plastic bottle.”

-Kevin Lorea, “How to Eat Less Plastic.” Consumer Reports. August 13, 2019.
  • Drink water from your tap.
  • Don’t heat food in plastic.
  • Avoid plastic food containers.
  • Eat more fresh food.
  • Minimize household dust.
  • Reducing plastic pollution is going to require government intervention.

Open question: Does microplastic pollution and its effects on hormones and reducing fertility an existentional threat to the human species?

The Plastic Industry’s Fight to Keep Polluting the World

“A Bag’s Life is just one small part of a massive, industry-led effort now underway to suppress meaningful efforts to reduce plastic waste while keeping the idea of recycling alive. The reality of plastics recycling? It’s pretty much already dead. In 2015, the U.S. recycled about 9 percent of its plastic waste, and since then the number has dropped even lower. The vast majority of the 8.3 billion metric tons of plastic ever produced — 79 percent — has ended up in landfills or scattered all around the world. And as for those plastic shopping bags the kids were hoping to contain: Less than 1 percent of the tens of billions of plastic bags used in the U.S. each year are recycled…

…A 2018 study found that 93 percent of bottled water samples contained microplastics. While all the big brands tested positive for microplastics, the worst was Nestlé Pure Life, which claims that its water ‘goes through a 12-step quality process, so you can trust every drop.’…

…One study found that half of recycled plastics in India contained a flame retardant associated with neurological, reproductive, and developmental harms.”

—Sharon Lerner, “The Plastic Industry’s Fight to Keep Polluting the World.” The Intercept. July 20, 2019.

You know, in case you need a little nightmare fuel.

Plastic Fibres Found in Tap Water Around the World, Study Reveals | Environment | The Guardian

“Scores of tap water samples from more than a dozen nations were analysed by scientists for an investigation by Orb Media, who shared the findings with the Guardian. Overall, 83% of the samples were contaminated with plastic fibres.

The US had the highest contamination rate, at 94%, with plastic fibres found in tap water sampled at sites including Congress buildings, the US Environmental Protection Agency’s headquarters, and Trump Tower in New York. Lebanon and India had the next highest rates.”

—Carrington, Damian. “Plastic Fibres Found in Tap Water Around the World, Study Reveals.” The Guardian. September 5, 2017.