A simple appeal to reason for my climate change denying friends

Despite what you may believe, in the domain of climate change, there is no longer a debate among scientists — they have reached a consensus. 

Between 90 and 97 percent (depending on the meta-study you read) of credible studies align in their claim that 1) climate change is happening, and 2) humans are the primary cause.

You can choose to disbelieve this fact. 

You've doubtlessly watched YouTube videos that have claimed it's all a hoax. You've read seemingly credible articles that refute it. Influencers and people you respect have confidently declared it to be untrue. 

Let me repeat this unambiguous, underappreciated truth: Regardless of what you've heard, there is a strong, nearly universal scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is real. [^{1, 2, 3, 4, 5}]

What is scientific consensus, and how does it happen?

As the results of scientific studies are released, other scientists examine them and try to either confirm or refute their findings. It's by this process that we very slowly build "scientific knowledge." 

As researchers repeat observations and experiments and verify previously reported results, evidence begins to mount. Other scientists design other experiments and measurement methods that lend new perspectives to a body of research.

Over time, as observations are confirmed through a vast multitude and variety of studies by different parties — and when all those findings converge and agree — eventually, a consensus emerges among scientists.

An example would be the scientific consensus that smoking causes cancer. One study is not enough. But over time, as others confirm those findings, and as more studies are done that show the same results, eventually, a consensus emerges.

When that happens, we carefully venture into the realm of calling something a "fact."

Before you object, yes, a scientifically "proven" fact may turn out to be wrong. Everything we "know" in science is merely valid according to a particular confidence level. As in all of life, there can never be an absolute certainty; only degrees of likelihood.

To summarize: consensus is not about what one scientist or one study says. It happens when the vast majority of research has made clear, beyond a reasonable threshold of doubt, that something is true or false — much like a verdict in a courtroom.  

What about opposing research?

There will always be studies that contradict the widely accepted conclusions. These are an essential part of science. They challenge the working theories, and in doing so, force scientists to be even more critical and careful as they revisit their research.

An opposing theory can effectively destroy a body of evidence, or it can end up strengthening it. Good science is always falsifiable — meaning it has the potential to be disproven. Falsifiability is the difference between science and pseudoscience. 

As new research challenges existing conclusions, and then those challenges are, in turn, convincingly and thoroughly refuted, it effectively strengthens the original argument.

And so we arrive at our current situation. The body of scientific research on climate change has already effectively debunked the five to ten percent of studies that oppose the accepted consensus.

And yet those opposing theories live on, perpetually reposted on social media and quoted by politicians that don't understand the processes described above.

Why does the debate live on, then?

As a result of the widespread lack of understanding regarding the function and workings of scientific consensus, although there is no longer a meaningful debate among scientists, there remains a heated debate in politics and on social media.

Notably, this debate only really thrives in the United States. In Europe, the general population and most politicians have long ago moved on from, "Is this real?" to "How do we address this?"

Another unfortunate and telling reality is that the primary predictor of whether or not you believe in anthropogenic climate change is your party affiliation.

I repeat. It's not your level of education, not your grasp of the scientific method, but your political inclination that will determine your opinion on the subject. 

I find that incredibly disheartening. 

Another factor is most people's inability to discern what constitutes reliable information. Every day, I encounter posts on social media that link to incredible articles containing either long-refuted talking points or false claims.

I regularly see people post doctored covers of magazines or misattributed quotes because they cannot be bothered with even the most basic fact-checking. 

Encouragingly, Facebook's fact-checking algorithms are helping to fight this, either by completely removing content that's known to be misleading or by including "fact-check" labels on suspicious links. 

However, in my experience, nearly everyone who has had content flagged by Facebook has interpreted this as evidence of a conspiracy theory, lending further proof to the idea that climate change is a hoax and that Facebook is contributing towards it. 

What's the motive?

Climate change deniers have several working theories as to why the "climate hoax" exists.   

I frequently hear, "There is big money and fame for scientists that promote climate change." Multiple studies have pointedly demonstrated, however, that scientists who deny climate change have much more to gain in terms of exposure and funding. [⁶] 

The other theory I continually hear from political conservatives is a broader, more abstract, one. It goes something like: Democrats are propagating this climate hoax to scare the masses into adopting economically-damaging policies and move our country into a socialist controlled regime where we will all be forced to give up our personal freedoms. 

This story is too vague to refute, and I won't even try. As with all conspiracy theories, believers can reshape and reinterpret any contrary evidence to reinforce their narrative. In other words, it is not falsifiable.

On the other side of the spectrum

Much has been written about the phenomenon of climate change denial. If the scientific consensus is so strong, how on earth can so many disbelieve it?

For a long time, people didn't believe the science that said smoking caused cancer. A considerable part of this was because the wealthy tobacco industry lobbied relentlessly and funded research to debunk what the medical professionals were saying.

A similar thing is happening today. Climate change policies threaten the wealthiest companies on earth: the oil and gas industries. Publically, they do much to promote sustainable, renewable energy. Covertly, they are culprits in fueling the climate change denial machine. 

I often hear deniers use phrases like "follow the money." They're implying it will lead us to the "deep state," or the democratic party. The reality is, though, that the energy sector is the most significant and most influential player in the arena. 

And as Sam Butcher said, the politicians who accept money from these industries are quite literally selling our future for present profit.

When ignorance becomes immorality

Do you remember Pascal's wager? It's better to believe in God and be wrong than to disbelieve and be wrong. The former may result in 80 years of missing out, while the latter may result in eternal damnation. 

If you're a climate change denier, I beg you to consider the severity of the issue and its potential consequences.

What if you are wrong? 

What if it's true, and our unbridled emissions are wreaking irreversible havoc on the earth? What if our children and grandchildren will be living with the consequences of our stubbornness for generations to come? What if you were misguidedly helping to ensure this terrible outcome? 

If you're right, we may indeed be duped by "the socialists" into giving up some of our freedom and adopting economically damaging policies. 

If you're wrong, we're heading into an era of mass-migration, food shortages, drought, ecological breakdown, destruction, and death.

And so I implore you to look beyond the politics and public discourse and have a good look at the real state of scientific consensus. 

A thousand years from now, as you look back from heaven or nirvana or pluto, at least you will be able to say you were fully informed, and you did everything you could to steer people in the right direction. 


Sources

1. J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

2. J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

3. W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

4. P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

5. N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

6. A.M. Petersen, E.M. Vincent, A.L. Westerling, Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians, Nature Communications, 10 (2019), p. 3502

Password Wisdom

What matters with passwords is length.

The longer it is the more impossible it will be for a computer to guess it.

Special characters and numbers are not nearly as important as length.

And don't worry about using dictionary words. As long as they are in combination with other words, it makes no difference. Even if a computer tried guessing your password using all dictionary words, it would never guess something like "feelgoodflowerpower" because it would not know where one word ended and another began.

The above password has 19 characters, each of which could be any of ~50 unique symbols. That means the possible permutations are 19 to the power of 50--something close to the number of known particles in the universe. Impossible for any super computer to guess.

Shorter combinations of letters and numbers like "London2012" are easier for a computer to guess, but more difficult for you to remember!

The best passwords are phrases that you find easy to remember. Something like "iwasbornsomewhereinlondon". This is so easy to remember, quick to type out, and is also tremendously secure.

Forget using combinations of letters numbers and special characters that are hard to remember and difficult to type. Phrases are the way to go.

Ancient Sunlight

I recently heard a sustainability professional refer to oil as "ancient sunlight." It struck a note with me. It was a sharp, poignant, paradigm-shifting statement.

It really is true. Through photosynthesis, the earth has been collecting energy from the sun for billions of years and slowly storing that energy in the form of fossil fuels. Like a battery.

Since the industrial revolution, when we learned to tap into those ancient energy reserves, our growth has been exponential... and artificial. We are using past savings to fund present spending. We are living off the earth's capital, rather than its interest.

It is unnecessary. The sun provides more than enough constant energy input for the earth to sustain itself, and I believe it can (and will someday) sustain all human activities as well.

Time To Get A Password Manager

It astonishes me how many people still use "123456" or "password" as passwords for important accounts. The annually published list of most popular passwords is disheartening. I really have no sympathy for people when their email address gets compromised and they send viruses to their friends--followed by an apology a day later. But the reason is obvious: we all have so many accounts, with so many services, how are we ever supposed to remember all the username/password combinations?

Most people have a handful of easy passwords they use for all their accounts. They don't always remember which password goes to which account, but after trying a few times, they usually get in. Other people use all the available hard disk space in their brains remembering dozens of passwords, attempting to keep them all unique. These people make frequent use of password recovery services. Other people write all their passwords down on paper, or in a file. But unless you are willing to take the security risk and carry this around with you, it is of little use.

Password managers like LastPass are the best solution I know of. It's called LastPass because your master password is the last password you will ever need to remember. I've been using it for years. I don't know, or need to know any of the passwords for my many accounts. They are all unique, long, random strings of characters. LastPass remembers them for me, and fills them in for me automatically. It's really genius.

LastPass runs as a browser plugin, or as a background service on your mobile device. You log in once (per session) using your master password, and then every website or app you visit which asks for credentials, LastPass automatically fills them in for you. Not only does this save tremendous amounts of time, but it saves precious swathes of brain space.

It is also far more secure than any other method of storing passwords. Your password database is encrypted with 256-bit, government level encryption, and all decryption only happens locally so that your unencrypted passwords are never, ever sent over the internet, even on "secure" connections. It is so secure, in fact, that if you forget your master password, not even the people at LastPass can recover your database for you. I store not only internet account passwords, but it's where I keep ALL my sensitive information like account numbers, social security numbers, etc.

Lot's of people I've spoken with are skeptical about using these types of services, but I don't understand why. It is so much more secure than relying on your own memory, or writing passwords down on paper. Making all your passwords unique and strong means that if someone hacks into one of your accounts, your others are still safe. And you never have to worry about being without LastPass because you can access your database from any internet-connected device if you need to.

I've been promoting this for a while now. If you are one of those people that uses the same password over and over, or that spends way too much brainpower remembering unique ones, take this opportunity to finally get your sh** together. Get organized. Get secure. It will save you time, brainpower, and protect you from potential disaster.

A Brief Critique of Consequentialism and Ethical Relativism

It feels unpopular in today’s post-modern culture to subscribe to deontological ethics. It was made clear during a recent course I took, for example, that the majority of young thinkers tend towards consequentialism and ethical relativism. It is even less popular, within deontological ethics, to subscribe to divine command theory. This view is often seen as old-fashioned and traditionalist—or worse, judgmental and bigoted. Many believe that rather than being a valid and logical philosophy, it is only the dogmatic result of religious belief. This, however, is not necessarily true. I hope to demonstrate that in many regards it is superior in its explanatory power and usefulness than other views.

Consequentialist ethics look solely to the outcome of an action to determine if it was ethical or not, ignoring the intention of the actor. To the degree that an action produces a good condition, it can be said to have been ethical. One problem with this approach is that does not provide a way to define good and bad. What is good? For whom is it good? Without scrutinizing an act according to some law or convention, the good of an act becomes completely relative. The act’s rightness becomes a matter of opinion. Consequentialism fails to provide criteria for what is right and wrong, and this failure makes it largely useless for making objective moral judgments.

Consequentialism also creates possibilities where well-meaning actors perform unethical acts by accidents of chance—e.g. a man trying to prevent a traffic accident, but by doing so making it worse. Though his intentions were good, the act would be unethical.  Conversely, a criminal intent on evil might unintentionally produce good conditions, thus making the act good. Intuitively we know this does not make sense. The intentions of the actor must be taken into account. In our judicial systems we do distinguish between premeditated crimes and crimes of opportunity. Consequentialism tries to negate this human intuition under the misguided belief that rationalized arguments originating in the neocortex are the only source of valid moral judgements.

This can be connected to Haidt’s Social Intuitionalism (2001) which shows that when eliciting situations occur, an intuitive judgement about its moral content is made. Only then does higher reasoning follow and the subject either confirms his or her initial intuition, or rejects it. This was seen clearly in the recent SBE class where students initially indicated, almost unanimously, that necrophilia was morally wrong. After discussions, however, increasingly more students concluded that the lack of negative consequences meant there was in fact nothing particularly wrong with the action. By applying consequentialist reasoning, the initial intuitive judgement was rejected in favor of an “enlightened,” presumably more valid viewpoint. I would argue that the rejection of moral intuition is not a correct approach to ethics. Rather than leading to more valid conclusions, this approach is nothing more than the post-hoc justification of immoral actions.

But then where do moral intuitions come from, and why should they be considered more valid than consequentialist conclusions? One school of thought gives them an evolutionary origin. The drive to survive—and the need to work together to do so—has ingrained within us a set of instincts which help keep the fabric of society intact. Moral intuition is, in this view, merely a functional trait that contributes to survival. This however fails to account for phenomena such as counter-preferential choice. Why do we feel a “moral resonance” when we witness someone sacrifice his or her life for another—or for a higher cause? Another view is that moral intuitions are sociocultural constructs that we unconsciously learn as we grow, much like language, and become second-nature to us. This idea is elaborated by Mikhail (2007) and could account for counter-preferential choice—if for example, selflessness and sacrifice were highly valued in the social context of one’s upbringing.  But this fails to explain why a society or culture would adopt such non-essential, non-survivalist values in the first place.

A third view, the one that I subscribe to, is that moral intuition is merely another word for an almost forgotten term—conscience. The conscience is a moral compass, existing within every human being, informing him or her constantly of the difference between right and wrong. This very idea necessitatesthe existence of moral “laws” that transcend social consensus or instinct. Just as a real compass always points to the magnetic north—a physical location that remains unchanged regardless of viewpoint, culture, time or place—the moral compass points to real, absolute and unchanging moral laws that are not relative or subject to differences in opinion—for they are in fact divinely decreed. This is not to say that absolute moral laws can always be absolutely known or that any person or institution understands them perfectly—it is only to say that they exist. They must exist, for only then can any meaningful discussion about the “rightness” or the “wrongness” of an action (or its consequences) take place.

Arguing ethics in the absence of a belief in moral absolutes is like arguing about which way is “up” while floating through space. Right and wrong (including extremes such as pedophilia) become only conventions, and the basis for any convention can always be called into question or changed. True north, on the other hand, is immune to differences of opinion and requires no consensus for it is a physical reality that would continue to exist even if no humans ever lived. A man can be said to be going “west” or “east” and such a statement is actually meaningful. If no global frame of reference exists, talk of direction has no real meaning—and this is precisely the case when ethics are discussed irrespective of absolute moral laws. Thus, divine command theory is more useful than consequentialism because it provides a solid framework by which ethics can be discussed in a meaningful way, morality can move beyond mere consensus and the rightness or wrongness of actions can be objectively evaluated.

Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological review, 108(4), 814.

Mikhail, J. (2007). Universal moral grammar: Theory, evidence and the future. Trends in cognitive sciences, 11(4), 143-152.               

The Sufficiency Solution?

There are many obstacles in the quest to achieve true sustainability in our industrialized society which has for centuries been accustomed to a take-make-waste model of consumption. Radical changes are needed in our economic paradigms in order to ensure that we, as a global society, can continue to increase global economic prosperity while at the same time conserve our ecosystems, and help to establish social justice and equity. The challenge of sustainability is to simultaneously create economic, social and environmental benefits, and has been famously defined as the ability to “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs” (WCED, 1987).

Corporations are probably the largest, most powerful and influential player in terms of setting direction for society, and they must take the lead in adopting sustainable practices. In order to do this, many new ways of thinking will need to be employed and many new strategies and innovations will need to be developed. One of the biggest obstacles in this regard is that often managers fail to see either the necessity or the potential benefit—or simply see sustainability efforts as an impediment to growth. These assumptions remain despite much research that has shown strong business cases can be made for adopting sustainability as a corporate objective. Hart and Milstein (2003), for example, show how the multiple dimensions of sustainability can be connected to the multiple dimensions of shareholder value and thus demonstrate that sustainable strategies can be implemented that are not only good for society and the planet, but can represent increases in real shareholder value.

Generally, however, as the understanding of the necessity and opportunity associated with corporate sustainability permeates through the world of management, more and more businesses are taking their role as sustainability leaders seriously, and many are taking steps towards decreasing the negative impacts they have on the environment and society. While some more radical sustainability advocates insist (perhaps rightly) that these incremental changes are not enough, in reality economic systems cannot change overnight and it is important that corporations start somewhere. Many innovative business thinkers have developed strategies and programs that have at least set them on the path towards corporate sustainability, not only decreasing negative impacts but in some cases learning to exploit new markets and previously undiscovered opportunities.

One potential avenue for pursuing sustainability that is often overlooked by business—perhaps because it is not so clear how it can be turned into shareholder  value for a firm—is the idea of sufficiency, sometimes called eco-sufficiency. In plain language this term could be simply called frugality, modest living or sober living; it carries the implications of voluntarily choosing to live with fewer material possessions, consuming less, saving more, and thereby making less of an impact on the environment.  This lifestyle is becoming somewhat of a trend in some (primarily affluent) areas, and advocates often believe that living in such a way can increase personal happiness while helping to ensure the preservation of the earth for future generations. Other popular terms for this lifestyle choice include slow-living, simple living or minimalism. It is feasible that corporations can make use of this growing trend—even encourage it—to further their sustainability goals and even create new business opportunities.

Within corporate sustainability programs and initiatives there is much focus on the supply side of the firm, namely towards creating efficiency or decreasing the negative impact relative to the production of product or service provided. While this approach can help to save costs for the firm and reduce waste, it has also been shown that this approach can have a rebound effect (e.g. Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002). As production costs (and therefore prices) for products with negative impacts are reduced it can lead to an increase in overall production/consumption and therefore an increase in absolute negative impact. While each product may be less polluting (for example), the increase in total products sold due to lower costs has a net effect of increasing the total pollution. The problem here is that as production costs are reduced and prices go down, consumer demand tends to increase. While the company can boast a more efficient use of resources and a relative decrease in negative impact, the overall problem actually worsens.

Therefore, a logical alternative (or perhaps a supplement) to efficiency is to focus on the consumption side by reducing the demand for products or services that cause environmental or social harm.  In terms of the well-known equation I = PAT, while efficiency is geared towards reducing impact by lowering the technology factor, sufficiency takes another approach by effectively decreasing the affluence factor (Alcott, 2008). Corporations can only do so much in making their products sustainable when there remains a demand for unsustainable products. As long as a strong and stable demand for certain products exist, there will be companies striving to meet that demand by manufacturing the sought-after goods. And so it is important to realize that consumers have a role to play in corporate sustainability as well. By reducing demand for products which are unsustainable, consumers have the power to reduce negative impacts on the environment and on society. According to the Royal Society (2012), possibly the best way to decrease the negative human impact on the planet is to decrease the resource consumption of those sections of society which currently consume the most.

The idea of product stewardship postulates that corporations should take responsibility not only for the processes in their firms which are directly under their control, but all the effects of a product from resource extraction to disposal. One could argue that this then includes a responsibility to manage the demand side of business as well as the supply. By working to reduce the demand for unsustainable products, such products can be phased out and substituted for more sustainable ones. While some may argue that consumer demand is not within the scope of management’s control—after all, consumers want what they want and manufacturers respond to those wants—it is widely known that marketing plays a large role in directing consumer preference. If companies are willing to accept responsibility for the impacts of their products in the larger economic, social and ecological environment, ought they not also take responsibility by doing all they can in order to redirect consumer preference to products with a lower negative impact?

The difficulty is that many corporations have large investments and interests in consumer demand for unsustainable products. Many businesses thrive off continuing to sell products like SUV’s which are far less fuel-efficient than more compact cars. A shifting of consumer preference towards sufficiency would then been seen by such companies as a development detrimental to business. But companies producing SUV’s are not the only ones who might worry over such a trend.  A general decrease in consumer wants could mean less economic activity in general, and that is hard to stomach for an economy that is obsessed with constant growth. While environmental and social improvements might be realized from such a trend, is it possible for economic prosperity to continue to grow under such circumstances? Some research indicates that sufficiency-driven business models can indeed open the door for new and profitable opportunities.

Bocken & Short (2015) provide economic rationale for sufficiency by conceiving of it as “an effective core strategy for sustainable business model innovation, initiated and driven by companies themselves, rather than merely a reactive strategy to an external influencing factor on business.” They demonstrate through case studies that innovative business models can exist that work to curb consumption by moderating demand. If implemented carefully, things like avoiding built-in obsolescence, making products last longer, education and awareness, and conscious changes in marketing techniques in combination with new innovative revenue schemes can help promote sufficiency and ultimately lead to more sustainable business and value creation.

Other literature, however, shows some problems with the model of sufficiency. Alcott (2008) argues that just like resource-efficiency, sufficiency is subject to a negative rebound effect. He argues that as initial demand for products goes down, prices are reduced which, in turn, increases demand by others. It seems, therefore, that in order for sufficiency to be effective as a strategy for corporations to become more sustainable, a certain critical threshold would need to be reached so as to largely eliminate the rebound effect. If a large enough number of consumers in affluent nations would begin to show interest in such a lifestyle, business would adapt to cater towards these new trends; they would be forced to innovate to meet the changing patterns of demand.

In conclusion, while corporations remain the largest and most important leaders in setting the direction for society, controlling the means by which sustainability can be achieved, it is certainly important to consider the role of the consumer in the process. Corporations are responsive to their customers and as trends in consumption change corporations will strive to meet those changing needs. As it becomes clearer to the general public that sustainability is a matter of global and human concern, it may be that paradigm shifts which lead to attitudes of sufficiency continue to grow. The companies that manage to innovate now and find new ways of capturing value in such a new economic environment by capitalizing on sufficiency lifestyles will secure a competitive advantage in the future. In this way corporations and consumers together can contribute to a more sustainable world. 

Alcott, B. (2008). The sufficiency strategy: Would rich-world frugality lower environmental impact? Ecological Economics, 64, 770-786

Bocken, N., Short, S. (2015). Towards a sufficiency-driven business model: Experiences and opportunities. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions (2015).

Dyllick, T., Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the Business Case for Corporate Sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11, 130-141

Hart, S., Milstein, M.,  Caggiano, J. (2003). Creating Sustainable Value.  The Academy of Management Executive, 17(2), 56-69.

The Royal Society, (2012). People and the Planet, Available at: http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/people-planet/report/ (accessed 16.09.15).

World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 8.

Passion versus commitment

When it comes to marriage in the Western world we let our passion take the lead. We fall in love first, and afterwards, if it seems right, we commit to it by saying the vows. I'm not necessarily saying this is a bad model. I'm not even saying that it is the primary reason for the high divorce rates in the West... Arranged marriages are old fashioned and primitive, and despite the low divorce rates in places where they do arranged marriages, the couples don't actually love each other.

Well, I happen to know some arranged-married-couples who would argue otherwise.

But actually I'm not here to write about marriage; I only planned on talking about passion and commitment. Strange, how did marriage come up?

I was recently thinking about what motivates us to work, especially in the context of volunteerism or the non-profit sector. It feels like it's almost becoming trendy nowadays to be passionate about causes. But is passion the right motivator? From what I know about humans, passion is fleeting. It comes and goes. And that is why we need commitment in (at least) equal measure. Passion without commitment will burn low, fade away, run out and leave us disillusioned.

Yesterday, I asked on Twitter: "Does commitment follow from passion, or does passion result from commitment?" Most people responded, "both," and I agree. As in the case of marrying, passion often leads us to make commitments. But it can also work the other way around. Committing to something can cause passion to grow. And here is why: We tend to be passionate about things that we are good at and know a lot about—things in which we've invested time and energy. (Tweet that!)

Passion waxes and wanes. If you want to cultivate it, commit to something and give it your all. Passion will grow as your expertise grows. As you work towards something for years, gain specialized knowledge about a topic, and become an expert in the field, you will find yourself more passionate about what it is you're doing because you are invested.