Mental Health, Pandemic and Sustainability: What World Do We Want? We Need to Talk About Environmental Psychology

Opinion

There is a strong cognitive challenge to observe that this principle of self-binding can be combined with the principle of fair sharing, a perspective that does not tell us how all generations can cooperate with each other while a contract is no longer possible if we assume that Jonas’ approach is applied here [1]. Although these are challenging times, the human potential to maintain a sense of purpose during hardship has been convincingly described (Frankl, 1963). Various experiences provide persuasive evidence that people routinely find or impose meaning and a sense of coherence during times of uncertainty [2,3]. However, empirical studies, in times of extreme and real adversity, are scarce and those that exist need greater care, since crises differ in several critical dimensions, such as duration, number of people affected, or regional specificity. The Covid-19 we are currently facing, which include potential infection and hospitalization, severe economic losses, widespread adverse mental health impacts, and indeterminable timeframes for the full restoration of conventional services.

We can highlight three person-environment interactions that were violently disrupted by Covid-19 and consider their likely impact on the experience of purpose: how we engage with work, how we engage in education, and how we deal with physical problems. Notably, these domains of interaction have been central to the environmental and ecological perspectives of psychology [4,5] as well as to the study of purpose in life [6]. As uncertainties around this biohazard continue to proliferate, we briefly highlight how Covid-19 can impact every person-environment interaction in ways that are detrimental to the maintenance, development, or enactment of goals. There are long-standing studies in Environmental Psychology, which have discussed disasters of this proportion [7,8] predicting how people will interact with these new environmental challenges, even during a disaster. It is important to recognize that, unlike other calamities, no damage to the built environment was sustained. Indeed, the schools, neighborhoods, and workplaces in which individuals cultivated their sense of purpose remain intact. The challenge, then, is to meet this moment with a rigorous research agenda designed to inform how people can feel intentional when opportunities to meaningfully engage in their daily activities are altered.

Finally, just as the fight against this pandemic is likely to change societies in profound and permanent ways, we call for an openness to change for issues that will need to incorporate further discussion of the environment. As a resource for engagement in life, we look forward to paying attention to these person-environment interactions and discovering lasting ways to help people maintain a greater sense of responsibility and environmental care. These high-risk situations, which involve a strong social or environmental impact, must be treated in a condition that requires a maximum degree of responsibility, so that they do not imply negative effects. The effects of technological action are, in many cases, difficult to predict, it is necessary to adopt conservative principles that take all these aspects into account [9-11].

Conclusion and Final Remarks

As we suggested from the beginning, the essence of Environmental Psychology is the physical context and its relationships. Context is everything, as it is an inseparable part of explaining people’s transactions with the environment. Exactly as Jonas argued the relationships between environments and people need to be incorporated into our analytical framework. Yes, there is every reason to argue that this should be the new impetus for a more ecologically responsible society, since the implications in these relationships between man, his freedom and the environment will require the incorporation of a new analysis if we want to find solutions. to the challenges they present today. We need to believe that current normality is a “failed” process, there are no other options for human societies, a philosophical, psychological, and educational shock is necessary, to develop new criteria, for technological development, we need a process of re-signification of reality for the establishment of new subjectivities in the modern world.

Conflict of Interest

No conflict of interest

Acknowledgement

None

References

• Oliveira Jelson (2014) Understanding Hans Jonas. Petropolis: Voices.
• Jonas Hans (2006) The Principle of Responsibility: essay on an ethics for technological civilization. Rio de Janeiro: Counterpoint.
• Sedikides Constantine, Wildschut Tim, Stephan Elena (2018) Nostalgia shapes and potentiates the future. The social psychology of living well pp.181-199.
• E Sundstrom, Bell PA, Busby PL, Asmus C (1996) Environmental Psychology 1989-1994. Annu rev psychol 47(1): 485-512.
• Winkel Gary, Saegert Susan, Evans Gary (2009) An ecological perspective on theory, methods, and analysis in environmental psychology: Advances and challenges. J Environment Psychol 29(3): 318-328.
• Ryff Carol D (2014) Psychological well-being revisited: Advances in the science and practice of eudaimonia. Psychother psychosom 83(1): 10-28.
• Brown Katrina, Westaway Elizabeth (2011) Agency, capacity, and resilience to environmental change: lessons from human development, well-being, and disasters. Annu Rev Environm Resou 36(1): 231-342.
• Saegert Susan, Winkel Gary H (1990) Environmental psychology. Ann Rev Psychol 41(1): 441-477.
• Dua Mikhael (2016) Responsibility for Life: A Descriptive View on Hans Jonas' Ethics. Philosophy 6(4): 191-198.
• Jonas Hans (2004) The life principle: foundations for a philosophical biology. Petropolis: Voices.
• Sternberg Robert J (2000) Cognitive psychology. Padova: Piccin.