People have known about mass biodiversity loss and the human actions that drive it for decades now, and yet we have largely failed levels to change our behavior to protect the environment. What’s failing to motivate people to change? Some conservation psychologists have partially blamed the negative way we communicate about environmental issues for paralyzing audiences into doing nothing because they feel helpless to change such a big problem. Instead, many psychologists have called for using positive emotions in communication to motivate an audience, but there’s still little research showing whether that’s a more effective approach or not. To study whether positive or negative emotions are really more motivational for inspiring change, I looked at how different emotions were used in the discourse about an emerging conservation technology called de-extinction as a case study. De-extinction claims to be both a tool for fighting biodiversity loss and for inspiring more positive and inspiring narratives in conservation. In this thesis, I examine those claims by exploring five emotions that the discourse around de-extinction elicits: fear, guilt, grief, awe and hope. I examined the motivating power of those emotions and what kind of actions de-extinction discourse motivates or fails to motivate through the way it uses those emotions. I found that de-extinction discourse erases negative emotions and boosts positive ones as many conservation psychologists recommend. However, de-extinction discourse accomplishes this in misleading ways: it minimizes the sense of importance of ongoing extinctions by framing extinction as a reversible phenomenon, and it overstates the ability of technology alone to combat the extinction crisis without requiring societal change. As a result, de-extinction discourse could risk making the public less motivated to take personal action to forward conservation goals. I conclude that positivity or negativity should not be the central concerns for motivating action, but rather efficacy and honesty.
The COVID-19 pandemic places significant strain on the U.S. healthcare system due to the high number of coronavirus cases. During the pandemic, there was much unknown about the virus, its course of the disease, COVID-19 diagnosis, treatments, or other imperative information needed to contain the virus. Resources within the healthcare system, such as PPE and healthcare workers, were in short supply and exacerbated the difficulty of managing the viral outbreak. Peer-reviewed articles suggest that telehealth, the application of electronic information and telecommunication technologies in healthcare, proved useful in public health and clinical care during the 2020 public health emergency due to a novel virus. The scoping review broadly assessed themes of telehealth’s strengths and weaknesses during the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings could suggest how virtual medicine may be a helpful tool to improve access in addition to the quality of care in the future of medicine. Assessments of case studies suggest that telehealth helped provide care to large patient volumes by aiding with communication, data collection, triage, remote patient monitoring, and critical care. Limitations of expanding telehealth subsequent to the pandemic include, but not limited to, a lack of national standards for practice and restrictions of utility for certain populations. Populations may include those with low socioeconomic status, specific cultural practices, and beliefs, or physical and cognitive ability barriers. Outlining the benefits and limitations of telehealth may suggest how virtual medicine can provide valuable in day-to-day medical practices and other pathogenic outbreaks.