“Whatever the explanation is, adult humans apparently have a tendency to stick to a certain mode of behavior even if it is rationally a bad choice. This lock-in mechanism, caused by apparent self-reinforcing adherence to a mode of behavior, tends to promote inertia, a lack of responsiveness to changes in the environment.”
Source: p.5 marten Scheffer and Frances R. Westley. The Evolutionary Basis of Rigidity: Locks in Cells, Minds and Society. Ecology and Society 12(2):36
The theory of Rational choice implicates that a choice should not be made in accordance to the previous investment but by the expected future costs and benefits. Regardless of the theory, people still tend to use the prior investment in the decision process. People stick to the tactics that have invested in in the past, regardless of the current situation or predictions which render the choice irrational. -This Sunk-cost effect is even larger in groups of people, because people in groups usually try to maintain a previously reached consensus. The implications of this irrational behavior is that groups stay longer than necessary in unfavourable situations, this has even led in the past to collapses of whole societies.[1]
There are several historical examples of sunk costs situations in societies. Around the 15th century, Norwegians on Greenland were faced with a sudden period of extreme cold. Because of this, the harvests of their crops became increasingly less productive and they became more and more undernourished. Still, they stuck to their known agriculture techniques instead of adapting to their neighbor’s Inuit skills who were well fed because of their fishing and hunting methods. The Norwegians did not survive, the whole colony died from famine. Another famous example are the Meso-American societies who built enormous temples which can still be admired today. These enormous structures were one of the reasons why the Mayas who lived there felt unable to quickly leave in times of severe drought, leading to their decline.
In recent history there is the example of the supersonic passenger plane, the Concorde. Before the completion of the airplane it was already clear that it would be very unlikely to make a profit with the project. But because there was so much money invested, the UK and France did not want to pull the plug.[2] Today we see the same with large building projects and the military F-35 Program, better known as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF): the costs have risen extremely, and there are several better and cheaper alternatives available.
At this moment there is still not an immediate societal problem that mobilizes a large part of the population. Because of the relatively low oil prices, alternatives are comparatively expensive, making it difficult for consumers and investors alike to move away from fossil reserves. The energy related CO2 emissions have become stabilized over the last two years (2014 and 2015), while the world’s economy was growing, for the first time in 40 years.[3]
As long as there still is cheap oil available, the most distinct problems for which the BBE is a solution (unavailability of energy and resources)might be too abstract for a lot of people. At the same time, there is a moral duty to abstain society from these problems, therefore action must be taken before the challenges are directly tangible. One of the ways to involve people in an earlier stage is through the production of social representations and public engagement. For example by organizing small biobased projects such as a community dinner, where all elements are made with biobased materials, including the plates and menus.[4] Another way of involving a larger part of society is by not communicating technological changes “towards” people, but to communicate with them in an early technological phase.
In this conference talk, Marten Scheffer explains how changes in complex systems are characterized by tipping points. In the last 5 minutes he also describes changes in society:
[1] Janssen et al. (2003)
[2] This even led to the name “The Concorde effect” for sunk costs situations (Dawkins and Carlisle 1976)
[3]See https://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2016/march/decoupling-of-global-emissions-and-economic-growth-confirmed.html
[4] See Sleenhoff et al. 2015, p81