More mystical psychobabble, this time from the priestesses of Gaia:
At present, ecopsychology seems to be struggling with this question. Philosophically, the field depends on an ideal of ecological awareness or communion against which deficits can then be measured. And so it often seems to rest on assuming as true what it is trying to prove to be true: being mentally healthy requires being ecologically attuned, but being ecologically attuned requires being mentally healthy.
Of course it is circular. Everything is circular in pantheism.
Recently, The American Psychologist, the journal of the American Psychological Association, invited the members of the organization’s climate-change task force to submit individual papers; Thomas Doherty is taking the opportunity to develop his categorization of responses to environmental problems. His model, which he showed me an early draft of, makes distinctions that are bound to be controversial: at the pathological end of the spectrum, for example, after psychotic delusions, he places “frank denial” of environmental issues.
The denialists, you see, are actually schizophrenic, since they live in an imaginary world where fake science doesn’t matter.
The most telling feature of the model, however, may be how strongly it equates mental health with the impulse to “promote connection with nature” — in other words, with a deeply ingrained ecological outlook.
Strap ’em down and sedate ’em, boys! Their refusal to buy a Smart Car shows that they have a psychotic urge to destroy the planet!