A Brief Dunk In The Rabbit Hole

lockedupsafe

New Member
Hi all,

I made an account to post here as I've read some other posts in this section and they resonated.

Been on a bit of a rollercoaster over the last few weeks. Mid-July I started getting anxiety again after reading a really pessimistic article about the likely progression of climate change. It's that brand of anxiety that doesn't go away, it just lingers, affecting everything. My wife is due to give birth to our daughter in September, our first child, and whilst I was already lacking optimism that we could solve the climate crisis before the collapse of civilisation, as new headlines came out about melting sea ice, boiling oceans and huge chunks of Europe being on fire, I basically got overwhelmed by the thought of our baby having to grow up in a dying society.

A day later I decided to take a look at r/UFOs again for the first time in a year or two, and saw all the fuss about David Grusch and his recent interview and article in The Drive. Within another couple of days, the congressional hearing was scheduled. I was completely hooked in - my anxiety got masked with an ADHD-like period of hyperfocus on the subject. This was probably also fed by the fact that I was a little burned out from my attempts to start a creative business (a tabletop wargame). Basically, the resurgence in UFOlogy was perfectly timed to provide me with a distraction or coping mechanism from my own mental health crisis.

What's weird is that I was more-or-less aware that was happening as it happened. I knew it was a failure to confront my own anxiety, but also, there's no way to confront my anxiety, the climate and the world are still deteriorating - there's nothing I can take control of in that regard. I think the most illustrative point was when, thinking about aliens, and how we might communicate with aliens if they really were here, got me thinking about Arrival, and then the framing device around Arrival. I won't spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen it but suffice to say, just thinking about a film had me crying at my desk.

Over the next couple of weeks I basically got obsessed with UFOlogy in a way I haven't been before. I've always found the topic fascinating but I've always been at a bit of a distance from it emotionally, waiting for some actual conclusive evidence to turn up before I got invested (which of course, never did). I think the thought of non-human intelligences is fun, and it's optimistic, and the thought that contact with another sapient species might bring us new technology and a new sense of unity really gave me hope. Specifically, hope that my daughter might not have to learn how to fight for survival in some collapsing neo-fascist hellstate but might get to grow up in a world of near-infinite possibilities. Basically, David Grusch's testimony became my ontological coping mechanism.

In the last few days I've completely turned around on the subject.

As I started falling down the rabbit hole, I would see names like George Knapp and Jeremy Corbell*, who had fascinating accounts of things, but would almost immediately discredit themselves through association with the likes of Bob Lazar, John Lear and the Skinwalker Ranch thing. However, Ross Coulthart actually interviewed David Grusch and seemed like a serious journalist, but since the hearing is falling back to vague allusions and naming the thing, but not explaining it, so he gets to sound clued-in and authoritative. With his latest "I've been authorised to reveal that my source has a great-uncle who has seen a photo of a UAP at Area 51," thing, I've just completely lost faith in him altogether. Garry Nolan was absolutely fascinating, a really qualified, intelligent academic, but he too is going down the route of "I've seen some photos, they're really interesting, I can't share them yet, but I will, and they're amazing, but no you can't see them," which I just find obnoxious at this point.

* I actually watched Corbell's documentary on Bob Lazar a few years ago, and whilst I think Lazar is a wonderfully whacky character, I thought the documentary was terrible, so I was already primed to distrust Corbell.

Over the last three or four days, I've come to realise that there really is nothing beneath the surface of this whole thing. Every sighting is inconclusive, every promise of revelation is empty, nothing is substantiated. I think I had to reach this conclusion myself, since I think seeing something strange and not being curious about what it could be, is as bad as jumping to wild conclusions that it must be supernatural.

A lot of people are incredibly dismissive of UFOlogy in a way that I think is deeply unhelpful and condescending. Ultimately, there really are things that we see that defy explanation and are interesting to explore. My favourite example is the Green Triangles video. Learning about that, and what Bokeh is, and how optics work is really interesting. That's always been my position - UFOlogy is amazing because you get to learn stuff about the real world you'd never otherwise learn. You see something strange and in an attempt to understand it, you get to go on a deep dive into military aviation, or camera technology, or atmospherics, geology, all sorts of things.

The problem is, as I'm climbing out of this brief rabbit hole, I can feel my climate-anxiety returning. Our daughter is still on the way and, in the meantime, our prime minister has promised to build EVEN MORE oil-drilling sites in the North Sea. China is still building new coal power plants, the sea ice is still at its all-time low, and apparently July is the first ever month to see a +1.5C temperature deviation. Just this morning I realised that my obsession with UFOs had been replaced with frustration, but now that frustration was giving way to that sense of dread, and the only option I seem to have is to cling on for dear life and hope to give my daughter as happy a childhood as I can manage. I can already feel myself getting upset again.

On a closing note, I'm still interested in David Grusch's testimony, if only because it has an actual, possible conclusion. He's claimed that half-a-dozen or so witnesses involved in "UAP Crash Retrieval programs" have testified - which to me, means we can stop scrutinising his claims and just wait for those testimonies to be confirmed. If they are confirmed, then maybe there really is something to all of this. If they aren't, then... Grusch might be going to prison for lying under oath. There's a nice binary element to that which suits me, and for once it's not just stories told in a bar, there's actual testable data there - do those witnesses exist or not?

I think it's also fascinating that the NRO have apparently imaged tic tac-like craft, according to official FOIA documents, along with some kind of command-and-control vessel, with superficial similarities to the 2004 Nimitz incident. This seems, to me, to be the first time two of the many dots on the UFOlogy map might have a line between them, and I do at least find that compelling. Whether or not the Nimitz incident was actually a classified airship, or a misidentified F18, the fact that there's now another government agency with official records detailing a similar observation is yet again testable data - and I hope we at least get to test it eventually.

Sorry about the long post. I just needed to get it off my chest. I'm getting back into my usual routine now, getting back to game design and getting back to my usual level of anxiety. I will always daydream about aliens / NHI, because I really hope we one day get to meet some, but I do feel a bit annoyed and embarrassed about how much mental and emotional energy I've put into the topic over the last few weeks.

Cheers all,

Jon
 
I feel your pain. In my day it was the Population Bomb and threat of nuclear war. We were all doomed. My kids grew up to have happy productive lives in spite of it. Their kids? They have a good start.

Climate change is real but hopefully more and more of us will do what we can to help slow it. May your daughter's future be bright.

If nothing else the UFO hearing was a nice distraction from Trump's indictments and Hunter Biden's laptop. I doubt even aliens could make sense of it all. ;)
 
hey, welcome to metabunk. I think your rollercoaster ride will resonate with many people on this forum - me included. I've been a 'ufo fan' for the last 35 years, I even remember reading about Bob Lazar in the '90s when his story first came out. As an engineer or really clicked with me and I still love his story (it'd make a great movie) however I don't think any of it is true.

Metabunk is a great site to see some independent and objective analyses of famous UFO cases - some of which look completely inexplicable at first glance, but by detailed teardowns of the data the real answer comes out. my favourite of these is the Aguadilla UFO which is hailed as one of the best pieces of evidence for UFOs ever. there's even a 200 page report by scientists showing how the craft moved using its anti gravity propulsion system and how it dives into the ocean without a splash. however - the work done on this forum by people like Mick has shown that in fact it was probably just a Chinese lantern and the extraordinary things it does are just optical illusions. This this ufology all over. Optical illusions and mis identifications by genuine people.

anyway, welcome to the site, good luck for your new arrival, and please get stuck in and help us to debunk more false claims.
 
Last edited:
As a piece of experimental performance art, Bob Lazar is wonderful. I think the issue is that he is compelling, but it's easy to be confused about why he's compelling, and to end up believing him instead of just enjoying all of his stories. He's extremely sketchy and yet I do find myself rooting for him in a weird way.
 
In the last few days I've completely turned around on the subject.

As I started falling down the rabbit hole,

I've often had the experience of feeling like Schrodinger's cat. One day you see some story and it's like 'Hey...maybe UFOs are real'. And then the next day you see some damning counter evidence and it's like ' Nah...the whole thing is bunk'. It's like being in some curious quantum superposition. The skeptical side of me usually wins the day. I wonder how common this is....I suspect quite common.
 
He's claimed that half-a-dozen or so witnesses involved in "UAP Crash Retrieval programs" have testified

Grusch claims over 40 intelligence and military personnel shared their knowledge of UAP retrieval programs with him.
None took the opportunity to testify before Congress, though I can't think of a better- or safer- opportunity.
-I realise I'm taking "testify" rather literally here, but the fact is, none of Grusch's informants chose to share their information with the elected representatives of the American people at a time when they were investigating Grusch's claims.

There's a nice binary element to that which suits me, and for once it's not just stories told in a bar, there's actual testable data there - do those witnesses exist or not?

The testable data would be if someone identified a location where an alien spacecraft, or recognisably alien remains or artefacts, could be found, or at least presented convincing proof that such things existed. After all, Grusch is claiming that agencies within the USA possess these items.
So far (AFAIK) not one of Grusch's forty or so people have made any attempt whatsoever to support him (or to comply with the evident interest and will of the US Congress).

Specifically, hope that my daughter might not have to learn how to fight for survival in some collapsing neo-fascist hellstate
Don't be too downhearted about the future, lockedupsafe. I was surprised at the high level of participation and goodwill shown during the recent pandemic. And think how quickly that "Nightingale" hospital was built!
The UK Prime Minister, the Irish Prime Minister, the UK Home Secretary, the Mayor of London and the First Minister of Scotland are all of recent Asian descent, which would have been inconceivable when I was a kid.
And unless you visit an airport or parts of central London, you're unlikely to see a police officer carrying a gun- something that often surprises friends from abroad. The majority of UK police officers haven't received any training on how to use a firearm. It pays to be vigilant, but we're a long way from becoming a neo-fascist (or communist) state, I think.
 
That's always been my position - UFOlogy is amazing because you get to learn stuff about the real world you'd never otherwise learn. You see something strange and in an attempt to understand it, you get to go on a deep dive into military aviation, or camera technology, or atmospherics, geology, all sorts of things.
That's precisely why Metabunk is always interesting. It's not just me doing the deep diving, it's seeing other people contribute their knowledge, too.

China is still building new coal power plants
Apply your debunking skills to the issues that upset you: try to get the big picture, not just what the fear-mongerers are saying.
China is increasingly looking to secure its future energy needs with sustainable alternatives. In accordance with the 2016 Paris Agreement, China committed to make non-fossil fuel energy 20 percent of its energy supply by 2030 and to peak CO2 emissions by 2030. Chinese President Xi Jinping expanded on that commitment in a speech to the United Nations in September 2020 when he announced that China aims to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060.

Amid efforts to pivot to cleaner energy, China has emerged as the world’s single largest investor in clean energy transition. In 2021, China invested $266 billion in energy transition measures, accounting for more than one-third of the global total ($755 billion). The United States invested the second-largest amount, at $114 billion, followed by Germany ($47 billion), the United Kingdom ($31 billion), and France ($27 billion).

SmartSelect_20230809-134407_Samsung Internet.jpg

 
However, in perspective:
1024px-China-electricity-prod-source-stacked.svg.png
Weirdly enough, my source disagrees, although it's using the same data basis:
SmartSelect_20230809-164347_Samsung Internet.jpg
( https://chinapower.csis.org/energy-footprint/ )

Who's right?

4000 TWh = 14.4 EJ, your source seems limited to electricity while mine tracks coal consumption overall, leading to higher values and a different trend. Doing it your source's way means efficiency gains in the coal power plants that lead to less coal consumption are disregarded.
 
Last edited:
Sadly, the key takeaway from all of this is that renewable / clean energy is only helpful in regards climate change if it replaces coal and other CO2-emitting power sources. What's actually happening is that we're increasing both renewable and fossil fuel energy production globally. So, with us having just had the warmest July ever - things can only get worse in the immediate term. This also prolongs any recovery - fossil fuel exploitation needs to plateau before it can decrease, and meanwhile the atmosphere will be retaining more and more solar energy in the form of heat. Not to mention all the run-away effects like CO2 and methane released from melting sea ice, permafrost, warm waters absorbing less CO2, etc. etc.

That's why I'm so pessimistic - China's pledge (as far as I remember, may have changed) was to stop its EXPANSION of fossil fuel exploitation by 2035 - so we have, theoretically, another 12 years of increasing emissions above today's already catastrophic levels, and that's not taking into account a bunch of failed promises by other nations. The blue line, "Global Coal Consumption", in @Mendel's chart is slightly reassuring, but we've also got oil and natural gas to think about.

Basically, there are indications (depening on which analysis you believe) that we've already passed the point of no return, or that we're at least very close to it, and we're still steamrollering ahead. I think I need a drink.
 
so we have, theoretically, another 12 years of increasing emissions above today's already catastrophic levels
Fossil CO2 emissions reached an all-time high of about 38.3 Gtpa last year, raising eyebrows and questions about the world’s ability to deliver on ambitious climate goals to limit warming to between 1.5 and 2.0 degrees Celsius. However, our comprehensive emissions modeling points to an imminent emissions inflection point. Our data shows a peak of 39 Gtpa in 2025, but that timeline could move up to as early as next year if the short-term macroeconomic outlook accelerates the energy transition.

"Grain of salt" and all that, but it's looking better than you think.
Basically, there are indications (depening on which analysis you believe) that we've already passed the point of no return
Oh, that's not contentius. Global warming is predicted to be 1.5 to 2⁰C in the medium term, current efforts are to prevent it getting worse than that. Politics would've needed to listen to the Green movement in the 1980s to avoid that—very frustrating for those who've watched this for 40 years now.
 
Welcome to Metabunk from a fellow eco-panicker who also hyperfocuses on weird rabbit holes! I spent three days reading nothing but compost toilet reviews once because I felt guilty about being forced to commute! It did nothing and I was still anxious afterwards, but I know a ton of weird information about pooping without plumbing now!

You sound like you're going to be a great dad, as you're really self aware about your mental processes. That is a big deal, and it will help your little one learn about their emotions, too. Metabunk is a great place to learn how to be rational about scary headlines, too, as Mendel said. I'm glad you're here.

When I'm anxious about the ecological state of things now, I try to focus on doing small, easy things to help the environment. For example, I freeze vegetable scraps and wilted veggies and when I have enough, I use them to make vegetable broth: it's free and reduces food waste. I learned how to mend clothes instead of throwing them out. Mending is so soothing, and it gives my hands something to worry about instead of my head. I try to be gentle to myself, and I accept that I'm not perfect. I'll probably never be fully zero waste, but what I can do helps me feel better. I wish you the best.
 
Last edited:
Politics would've needed to listen to the Green movement in the 1980s to avoid that
At risk of being a bit contrary, I'm old enough to remember many people with Green sympathies wearing "Coal Not Dole" badges (buttons) in 1980s UK.
In Germany and Britain, the Green parties (Ecology Party in UK up to '85) were far more anti-nuclear than anti-fossil fuels.

External Quote:
Coal, oil and gas will continue to play a vital part in our energy strategy, but their use must respect the necessity for conservation and the protection of the environment. At the same time we must develop widespread energy conservation programmes and introduce renewable energy supplies. Nuclear power must be phased out...
... The Green Party would:
> close down all nuclear reactors within four years.
https://green-history.uk/library/doc-archive/category/15-green-party, Green Party General Election Manifesto 1987
 
External Quote:
introduce renewable energy supplies
this has been the Green agenda for ages, because nuclear power is just another way to poison the planet for generations. "We failed to invest in renewable energy, therefore the Green party must now support nuclear power" is not as logical as you think it is.
 
I try to focus on doing small, easy things to help the environment.

Personally I often feel that I am wasting my time. As fast as my ecologically balanced garden soaks up CO2 and provides habitat for insects and birds...the neighbours just wantonly chop down trees, astroturf their lawns, and concrete over their front gardens so they can park yet more fuel guzzling cars.
 
I'm old enough to remember many people with Green sympathies wearing "Coal Not Dole" badges (buttons) in 1980s UK.
In Germany and Britain, the Green parties (Ecology Party in UK up to '85) were far more anti-nuclear than anti-fossil fuels.

Indeed...I left Greenpeace for that very reason. I'd gradually become a supporter of nuclear energy. Modern nuclear plants are vastly safer than those at Chernobyl or Fukushima. Franco-German corporations such as Areva make some of the best nuclear plants in the world. I looked on in horror as Germany abandoned nuclear energy...and ironically is now having to use more fossil fuels.

University College London estimate that every year some 8 million people around the world die as a result of burning fossil fuels. That is thousands of times higher than the number who have died from incidents at nuclear plants.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2021/feb...ws that more,disease, strokes and early death.
 
Indeed...I left Greenpeace for that very reason. I'd gradually become a supporter of nuclear energy. Modern nuclear plants are vastly safer than those at Chernobyl or Fukushima. Franco-German corporations such as Areva make some of the best nuclear plants in the world. I looked on in horror as Germany abandoned nuclear energy...and ironically is now having to use more fossil fuels.

University College London estimate that every year some 8 million people around the world die as a result of burning fossil fuels. That is thousands of times higher than the number who have died from incidents at nuclear plants.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2021/feb/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-responsible-1-5-deaths-worldwide#:~:text=The study shows that more,disease, strokes and early death.
I agree with the idea that fossil fuel use must be reduced. But don't underestimate the visceral fear of both the known and the unknown regarding nuclear disasters. The idea of long term contamination over a huge area is indeed a disastrous prospect, and it's harder to mentally assess the comparatively slow motion disaster of fossil fuels.

Everyone is aware of Chernobyl, Fukushima, and other nuclear events, and in a world where the unthinkable DOES sometimes happen, assurances of "vastly safer" plants are met with nervous titters and crossed fingers. I sat in a movie theater and watched the movie "The China Syndrome" with its dramatic line about "an area the size of Pennsylvania will become permanently uninhabitable" ...and I saw it the same week that the Three Mile Island incident had just happened in Pennsylvania. The audience was understandably subdued.

Unnecessarily frightened? Perhaps. I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out one principal reason that nuclear can still be a hard sell for those of us who have lived through a number of terrifying incidents.
 
Indeed...I left Greenpeace for that very reason. I'd gradually become a supporter of nuclear energy. Modern nuclear plants are vastly safer than those at Chernobyl or Fukushima. Franco-German corporations such as Areva make some of the best nuclear plants in the world. I looked on in horror as Germany abandoned nuclear energy...and ironically is now having to use more fossil fuels.

University College London estimate that every year some 8 million people around the world die as a result of burning fossil fuels. That is thousands of times higher than the number who have died from incidents at nuclear plants.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2021/feb/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-responsible-1-5-deaths-worldwide#:~:text=The study shows that more,disease, strokes and early death.

I stopped supporting nuclear (fission) energy many years ago, when I realized it's a stopgap solution which could last maybe 100 years, while at the same time creating a problem of long-lived nuclear waste which will last for tens of thousand of years, more than the whole written history of humanity.
 
I stopped supporting nuclear (fission) energy many years ago, when I realized it's a stopgap solution which could last maybe 100 years, while at the same time creating a problem of long-lived nuclear waste which will last for tens of thousand of years, more than the whole written history of humanity.
Radioactive rock has always been present in the earth. KBS-3 storage is less radiactive than natural deposits of uranium. If you're that worried about radioactivity, you should surely be prioritising digging up all that evil uranium first, and doing somthing to reduces its radioactivity - like using it as nuclear fuel, and then putting it in KBS-3 afterwards - no?

As someone somewhat local to the region I just hope that Finland's open and scientific approach to the problem, as evidenced by the Onkalo facility, can help them profit from the countries that are too scared to go ahead with such things because of the deep seated distrust of such progress largely due to perceived (and often very real) corruption and other trust-related issues, more than ignorance of the science. Quite frankly, the locals are right is most parts of the world. But that doesn't mean no-one can do it right.

I presume that your "100 years" is a uranium figure, which firstly has the "we will never discover any new deposits" fallacy baked into it, and secondly seems to be ignoring the fact taht the far more prevalent thorium is just as good (if not better, now we've learnt our lessons about how uranium reactors can go wrong) as a nuclear fuel. Any tech that can tide us over for many hundreds of years is absolutely tech we should be exploiting.

Disclaimer: I own a lot of yellowcake, and have shares in SMR companies (but not in mining companies, because "we will continually discover new deposits" is equally fallacious).
 
What's weird is that I was more-or-less aware that was happening as it happened. I knew it was a failure to confront my own anxiety, but also, there's no way to confront my anxiety, the climate and the world are still deteriorating - there's nothing I can take control of in that regard.

Hey there. I just wanted to comment on what you said here because it reveals an assumption you may hold about the nature of anxiety and about what can be done in response to anxiety. The way you worded this implies that the only way to confront your anxiety would be to have some measure of control over the thing that is causing your anxiety, in this case it would be climate change. And since you feel powerless to do anything about climate change, you therefore don't think there's anything that can be done about your anxiety.

This isn't true. Anxiety is a physiological stress and fear response to an internal or external stimulus. One way to overcome anxiety is by changing some aspect of the external stimulus that we think is causing it. If being around spiders makes you anxious, one perfectly reasonable thing to do is to avoid being around spiders to the best of your ability. This works reasonably well but isn't exactly a cure, since a) you're simply avoiding the thing you're anxious about, and b) you don't always have control over your environment such that you can count on always being able to avoid the thing making you anxious.

There are many things we can avoid reasonably well (like spiders), but countless other things we have no control over (in my line of work, one of the greatest causes of anxiety is what will happen when the inmates I work with go to court. Will they be sentenced to prison for a long time? Probation? Released? The utter powerlessness and lack of knowledge about their future is a massive source of anxiety for the incarcerated folks I work with).

But we do not need to have power and control over the things that make us anxious in order to confront our own anxiety. What we *can* and *do* have power and control over to a greater degree than many people realize is our own physiological response to the things that make us anxious. Anxiety is one way your body alerts you to a perceived danger or threat. Climate change is certainly a danger, but not the kind that is immediate enough for you to live in a constant state of fear over. There are many of us who recognize the dangers of climate change but nevertheless respond to the knowledge of said danger in a calmer, non-anxious way, because for such perceived dangers and threats anxiety is all but useless in being able to change the situation.

There are many different ways you can learn to change your body's physiological stress and anxiety response to something like climate change. Anxiety medication is obviously one option, though it's only a bandaid and doesn't fix or cure anything.

The tried and true methods of overcoming anxiety in the field of clinical psychology are
1) Progressive muscle relaxation/Mindfulness meditation/hypnosis & self hypnosis, and 2) Exposure therapy.

When you are anxious, the sympathetic nervous system becomes overactive. This keeps you in an overly heightened state of stress both physically and emotionally. The parasympathetic nervous system becomes underactive, unable to restore you to a calmer state.

Learning how to meditate, or to do progressive muscle relaxation, or learning how to do self hypnosis are powerful ways you can gain back control of your parasympathetic nervous system, which in turn gives you control over the anxiety you feel throughout your body. Many people often feel like anxiety is simply something that happens to them and which they're slaves to, and one of the most powerful things people can learn in therapy is recognizing that this isn't the case at all, that we can in fact learn to have control over *it* by learning how to consciously regulate your parasympathetic nervous system.

The second part, which I find to be the most helpful since it essentially amounts to a "cure" to your anxiety rather than a bandaid, is to engage with any kind of exposure therapy that enables you to become desensitized to the thing that makes you anxious.

The amazing thing about the human mind though is that we don't even need to physically be in contact with the thing that makes us anxious in order for us to become desensitized to it. Simply *thinking* about the thing you fear in a controlled environment is enough for exposure therapy to work. And that's a good thing since in the case of climate change there's nothing physically you could be exposed to that would work, what you're feeling anxious about is *a thought*, or the mental image that forms in your mind when you think about climate change. Your body is responding to a mental image of what climate change looks like in your mind by activating a fight/flight response.

And the way to effectively stop this from continuing to happen to you for the rest of your life is by essentially teaching your body that the mental image associated with climate change in your mind is not in fact an immediate threat to your safety that requires the mobilization of the sympathetic nervous system.

I can 100%, absolutely, with no reservations, recommend EMDR therapy for working through the powerful anxiety you feel when you think about climate change. It's typically used for PTSD, but the exact same procedure used for PTSD is also used for anxiety disorders with equal effectiveness.

Working in a jail environment with such massive amounts of anxiety and trauma have given me the chance to learn most of the well known evidence based practices for treating ptsd and anxiety. And out of all the methods I've been trained in, nothing has ever even come close to being as effective at healing trauma and anxiety or as quickly as EMDR. The other methods work too, but they're much slower and in an environment like the one I work in, I don't have that much time to dedicate to every person I work with.

So this has been a long winded way of trying to say, question your assumptions about your anxiety. It is true that individually we are powerless to do much about climate change. But it is not true that because we are powerless to do much about climate change it therefore means we are also powerless to change our physical and mental responses to it. Our bodies (and minds) are immensely more powerful than we often realize, and physical fear responses that we've learned can be unlearned.

You're not powerless against your anxiety, and I hope you can find someone who can help you see that first hand, both for your sake and your family's sake. I'm wishing the best for you.
 
I can 100%, absolutely, with no reservations, recommend EMDR therapy for working through the powerful anxiety you feel when you think about climate change. It's typically used for PTSD, but the exact same procedure used for PTSD is also used for anxiety disorders with equal effectiveness.

hhmm everytime i go to the doctor and tell him "i want x because i read it on the internet" i get a big long lecture about seeking health care on the internet.
 
I can 100%, absolutely, with no reservations, recommend EMDR therapy for working through the powerful anxiety you feel when you think about climate change. It's typically used for PTSD, but the exact same procedure used for PTSD is also used for anxiety disorders with equal effectiveness.
Never heard of it. Sounds like it might be worthy of its own thread:
External Quote:
Pseudoscience

EMDR has been characterized as pseudoscience, because the underlying theory and primary therapeutic mechanism are unfalsifiable and non-scientific. EMDR's founder and other practitioners have used untestable hypotheses to explain studies which show no effect.[7] The results of the therapy are non-specific, especially if directed eye movements are irrelevant to the results. When these movements are removed, what remains is a broadly therapeutic interaction and deceptive marketing.[15][53] According to Yale neurologist Steven Novella:

[T]he false specificity of these treatments is a massive clinical distraction. Time and effort are wasted clinically in studying, perfecting, and using these methods, rather than focusing on the components of the interaction that actually work.[24]

EMDR has been characterised as a modern-day mesmerism, as the therapies have striking resemblances, from the sole inventor who devises the system while out walking, to the large business empire built on exaggerated claims. In the case of EMDR, these have included the suggestions that EMDR could drain violence from society and be useful in treating cancer and HIV/AIDS.[54] Psychology historian Luis Cordón has compared the popularity of EMDR to that of other cult-like pseudosciences, facilitated communication and thought field therapy.[55]
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_movement_desensitization_and_reprocessing
 
Never heard of it. Sounds like it might be worthy of its own thread:
External Quote:
Pseudoscience

EMDR has been characterized as pseudoscience, because the underlying theory and primary therapeutic mechanism are unfalsifiable and non-scientific. EMDR's founder and other practitioners have used untestable hypotheses to explain studies which show no effect.[7] The results of the therapy are non-specific, especially if directed eye movements are irrelevant to the results. When these movements are removed, what remains is a broadly therapeutic interaction and deceptive marketing.[15][53] According to Yale neurologist Steven Novella:

[T]he false specificity of these treatments is a massive clinical distraction. Time and effort are wasted clinically in studying, perfecting, and using these methods, rather than focusing on the components of the interaction that actually work.[24]

EMDR has been characterised as a modern-day mesmerism, as the therapies have striking resemblances, from the sole inventor who devises the system while out walking, to the large business empire built on exaggerated claims. In the case of EMDR, these have included the suggestions that EMDR could drain violence from society and be useful in treating cancer and HIV/AIDS.[54] Psychology historian Luis Cordón has compared the popularity of EMDR to that of other cult-like pseudosciences, facilitated communication and thought field therapy.[55]
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_movement_desensitization_and_reprocessing

Oh boy. Here we go again.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00923/full

"Data from meta-analyses and Randomized-Controlled Trials included in this review evidence the efficacy of EMDR therapy as a treatment for PTSD. Specifically, EMDR therapy improved PTSD diagnosis, reduced PTSD symptoms, and reduced other trauma-related symptoms. EMDR therapy was evidenced as being more effective than other trauma treatments, and was shown to be an effective therapy when delivered with different cultures. However, limitations to the current evidence exist, and much current evidence relies on small sample sizes and provides limited follow-up data."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022395619313160

" Our meta-analysis indicates that EMDR is efficacious for reducing symptoms of anxiety, panic, phobia, and behavioural/somatic symptoms. Further research is needed to explore EMDR's long term efficacy on anxiety disorders."

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20008198.2020.1729633

"A recent increase in RCTs of psychological therapies for PTSD, results in a more confident recommendation of CBT-T and EMDR as the first-line treatments. Among the CBT-Ts considered by the review CPT, CT and PE should be the treatments of choice. The findings should guide evidence informed shared decision-making between patient and clinician."

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,41&q=EMDR+eye+movement&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1693053905304&u=#p=YsDB5RLdz90J

"Clinical research evidence is contradictory as to how essential EMs are in PTSD treatment. More positive support is provided by analogue studies. With regards to potential theoretical support, some evidence was found suggesting bilateral stimulation first increases access to episodic memories; and second that it could act on components of working memory which makes focusing on the traumatic memories less unpleasant and thereby improves access to these memories.

Conclusions

The results suggest support for the contention that EMs are essential to this therapy and that a theoretical rationale exists for their use. Choice of EMDR over trauma-focused CBT should therefore remain a matter of patient choice and clinician expertise; it is suggested, however, that EMs may be more effective at reducing distress, and thereby allow other components of treatment to take place."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0005791612001000

"The effect size for the additive effect of eye movements in EMDR treatment studies was moderate and significant (Cohen's d = 0.41). For the second group of laboratory studies the effect size was large and significant (d = 0.74). The strongest effect size difference was for vividness measures in the non-therapy studies (d = 0.91). The data indicated that treatment fidelity acted as a moderator variable on the effect of eye movements in the therapy studies.

Conclusions:

Results were discussed in terms of current theories that suggest the processes involved in EMDR are different from other exposure based therapies."


It is also recognized by the VA in its list of evidence based practices:

https://www.mentalhealth.va.gov/get-help/treatment/ebt.asp

Feel free to make its own thread.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top