# data[].attributes.body
Watch the first couple of minutes of Alex Edmans’ TED talk. In pairs:

Who was Belle Gibson, and why did people believe her story?

What is ‘confirmation bias’, and how widespread is it?

Would you have been taken in by Gibson’s story?

# data[].attributes.body
Watch the clip about the anti-quarantine protests that occurred in the US during the Covid crisis..

Why did these people have a different interpretation of Covid-19 to the scientific community?

What did John Oliver mean when he said that many people “found it easy to fold this virus into narratives that they've been carefully building up for decades”?

What is a ‘media bubble’ - and why are they hard to escape?

# data[].attributes.body
In pairs, read the article about accepting advice on managing  the world's natural resources.

How does the article link to the reluctance of people to change the way they think?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ecosystems will continue to collapse around the world unless humanity listens to the expertise of indigenous communities on how to live alongside nature, a prominent Amazon leader has warned.

Tuntiak Katan of the Ecuadorian Shuar people, who is vice-president of the pan-Amazon organisation representing communities in the river basin, said governments were spending millions of dollars on environmental consultants while largely ignoring the land management skills of the planet's indigenous people that could help combat the climate crisis and biodiversity loss.

Speaking to the Guardian from the Ecuadorian Amazon, Katan, who became the first indigenous representative at a UN climate action summit last year, said environmental "catastrophes" such as the fires that devastated the world's largest rainforest in 2019 would continue unless the contributions and human rights of indigenous people were respected.

Indigenous communities support around 80% of the planet's biodiversity despite accounting for less than one twentieth of the human population, according to the World Bank.

Katan's warning came as a new study revealed that parts of the Amazon rainforest under the stewardship of indigenous peoples sequester carbon better than areas with little protection, leading to less deforestation and degradation.

"We are the defenders of nature, of the life of the forests, of our territories," said Katan, vice-president of Coordinator of the Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon River Basin ( Coica). "The world is investing lots of money to implement public policy to combat climate change, help conservation and restoration. But these policies are made in offices by technical experts with little or no knowledge of the Earth."

Biodiversity loss was named as the third biggest risk to the world in terms of likelihood and severity this year by the World Economic Forum, ahead of terror attacks, infectious diseases and interstate conflict.

Children from the Huni Kuin tribe on land ravaged by the 2019 Amazon fires. Photograph: David Tesinsky/Mediadrumimages

Despite the concerns expressed by the global elite in Davos, there was no indigenous representation at last week's forum in the Swiss ski resort, according to Katan. He said he would welcome the opportunity to attend next year's forum to outline an indigenous economic model based on maintaining the health of the world's soils, rivers and the forest.

"If the proposals, knowledge and management practices of indigenous people are not listened to, there will be more big catastrophes. The issue of fires in the Amazon will continue, the degradation of forests and water will continue, deforestation will continue," Katan added.

This month, the UN unveiled the draft of a Paris-style agreement on nature calling for a commitment to protect at least 30% of the planet, dramatically reduce pollution and promote the participation and practices of indigenous people.

Katan said: "We are well-coordinated with our brothers and sisters from Indonesia, the Congo, communities in the Arctic and from the Pacific. We've been discussing issues with our brothers and sisters from all parts of the world.

"In Indonesia, for example, they also have a lot of knowledge about how to manage tropical forests. But the same story is being repeated here as in other parts of the world: the lack of recognition of their knowledge and the lack of respect for the human rights of indigenous populations."

Anti-indigenous sentiment is increasing in some parts of the planet. This month activists said they would sue Brazil's far-right president Jair Bolsonaro for his latest racist comments in which he questioned the humanity of indigenous communities.

In one of his weekly Facebook broadcasts, Bolsonaro declared: "Indians are undoubtedly changing ... They are increasingly becoming human beings just like us."

A person holds cardboard crosses that read 'indigenous land' during a protest against budget cuts on public education by President Jair Bolsonaro's government. Photograph: Silvia Izquierdo/AP

The new study from the Woods Hole Research Center in Falmouth, Massachusetts, found that between 2003 and 2016, 90% of net emissions came from outside protected lands in the Amazon.

Scientist and lead author Wayne Walker said: "Our work shows that forests under the stewardship of indigenous peoples and local communities continue to have better carbon outcomes than lands lacking protection, meaning that their role is critical and must be strengthened if Amazon basin countries are to succeed in maintaining this globally important resource, while also achieving their commitments under the Paris Climate Agreement."

The findings add weight to the recommendations of a report on land use and the climate crisis by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found that areas held or managed by indigenous peoples had much less human impact on the environment.

The report also highlighted the lack of consideration of indigenous views and knowledge in understanding large regions and ecosystems.
Find more age of extinction coverage here, and follow biodiversity reporters Phoebe Weston and Patrick Greenfield on Twitter for all the latest news and features

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trust our expertise or face catastrophe, Amazon peoples warn on environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Indigenous leader urges focus on native knowledge as study shows rainforest areas under tribal stewardship manage carbon better

# data[].attributes.body
Once you have built up a perception of the world, you will ignore any information to the contrary… changing the way that you think is going to be quite cognitively costly.

Hannah Critchlow

What do you think Critchlow meant, and what are the implications of her point?

# data[].attributes.body
Changing our thinking takes effort because it means questioning what we’ve always believed. People don’t just need new facts to change their minds, they need to overcome their natural resistance to change.

# data[].attributes.body
People can be narrow minded if they are exposed to a singular way to see the world for too long, which in most cases, the majority of their life.

This can stir up from the instinct to fear the unknown, the fear of being wrong and the instability of questioning their previous knowledge.

People tend to avoid introspection and being self aware due to the fear of self doubt, hence the avoidance of opposing opinions, defensiveness, aggression and ignorance, leading to a close minded perspective.

-Group Miri, Sayu, Astor, Hana

# data[].attributes.body
I think Critchlow meant that once you have built up your own beliefs, you will end up ignoring information that is different from your beliefs. So, it will take many costs ( time ) to to change the way you think.

# data[].attributes.body
I think it means that changing the your perceptions that once believed that its is unlikely to change that perception because it takes so much effort. We thought that the reason to this is because we are afraid to think that what we believed were wrong.

Group TRD

# data[].attributes.body
I think Critchlow meant that our brains like to stick with what we already believe, and it is hard for our brains to accept new ideas that challenge those beliefs.

Some people may dismiss other beliefs and refuse to reconsider their views. To help people learn or see new things, it is important to walk through different thoughts and go step by step throughout the process.

# data[].attributes.body
This quote means that we can't change our perception once we have built up a perception, because we will ignore what differs from what we think.

# data[].attributes.body
Belle Gibson is a person who has diagnosed with a severe damage on her head and taking care of the brother and mother without father, she was able to cure the disease. people believed this because it was realistic and its inspiring. Conformation is when people believe that the given information is a fact. I would have been taken in by Gibson's story because it is very inspiring and motivational.

# data[].attributes.body
Belle Gibson is a woman who got cancer and was sentenced to four years to live. I believe that people believe this story because it is a dramatic and logical story that people want to encourage her. It stimulates human emotional instincts. Gibson's theory took me in while I listened to the video. Confirmation bias is when people believe something with no proof.

# data[].attributes.body
Belle Gibson was to be a famous person who cured the cancer by exercise and food management, but the story was lie. People believe her story because the story was very emotional, and people did not think this story could be a lie. "Confirmation bias" is one type of bias that they believe what they want to believe whatever was supporting that claim. It is widespread by stirring masses emotions, and making lots of them believe it. We were also believed, because the story was very emotional, and did not doubt that this story could be a lie.

# data[].attributes.body
People believed in Gibson's story because people did not know about her and did not have enough knowledge to understand that brain cancer cannot be cured by exercise and healthy eating. It was an impressive, nice story, and so people wanted to believe and be confirmed that the story was true. We would have taken and believed Gibson's story. People are too used to scrolling through social media and confirming every information, easily believing in everything they see. This enlarges the effect of her story to a wider spread.

- Riona, Hana, Sayu, Miri

# data[].attributes.body
1.People believed her story because of how she is acting as a victim. If somebody is in an unfortunate situation, people especially on the internet would not even bother to question it since it is considered to be offensive. And possibly get canceled.

2.Confirmation bias is the tendency, where people tend to seek for the knowledge, that support the personal belief or simply just pleasure.

3.Probably yes, when the information about it spread, people will toss around the information as if they are true. So I would've believe that eventually since people around are believing it. Though, I would might have done some research about it if I am curious about the story enough.

# data[].attributes.body
Belle Gibson told a false story, which was a shocking story that people believed was true. The reason why we believed her story is that we wanted to believe the story was a happy ending story.

Confirmation bias is when we believe something too much and do not doubt that it is false.

We were taken in by Gibison's story because it had an emotional effect.

# data[].attributes.body
Belle Gibson had went viral for her story of defeating cancer via her diet options and exercises, as well as her perseverance within her entire life from fending for her family and taking care of both her brother and mother.

Confirmation bias is where one takes new information in and establishes it as true or evidence to back up their theories and beliefs. In this case, Belle's story, even without any proof of its certainty, was taken as fact that proves her recipes on her app heals people and their illnesses. Confirmation bias is almost impossible to avoid due to how fast paced information fluctuates in modern times with the evolution of technology and the internet. We drink in new information daily without question, and never take the time to stop and think of whether or not is true.

I personally would not have believed her story due to my background knowledge on cancer and research, but without that, I may have made reference to her story and used it as evidence to prove something.

-Astor

# data[].attributes.body
Belle Gibson was an Australian woman who lied that she had brain cancer and got better by eating healthy and using natural treatments. Many people believed her because they wanted her story to be true. People who love nature, eat only plants (vegans), or don’t trust doctors and medicine, felt happy to hear her story. Confirmation bias means people believe things that match what they already think and ignore things they don’t like. I absolutely wouldn't believe her story. Sometimes cancer improves on its own, but that has nothing to do with eating only plants. She was talking about food (only eating vegetables) felt like she had an ulterior intention. Also, in my opinion, believing personal stories and experiences spoken on the internet is nonsense.

Seigen

# data[].attributes.body
Belle Gibson is an Australian who got cancer and recovered completely, only by eating vegetables and fruits. And she made an app to manage her health. But she did not suffer from cancer, and it was a lie. The story of Belle Gibson that is edited, so that story made people believe.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Belle Gibson is an Australian influencer who shared her false story on social media, that she recovered remarkably from cancer by healthy diet, not relying to medical products. People believed her story by the realistic and tragic features, and how she successfully recovered, because it is emphasing and impressing.

2. "Confirmation bias" is believing information that is relatable with your belief and knowledge, which is very common in diarylife.

3. Yes, I would symphasize with her, believing her story. (Wakana, Yuzu, Kaede)

# data[].attributes.body
Belle Gibson was an influencer who faked having brain cancer. She created an app that would give information about healthy foods that "cured" her throughout her story.

Confirmation bias is when we believe what we think without having any evidence.

I would not have been taken in by Gibson's story because she did not provide any evidence, which makes it suspicious.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Belle Gibson was an Australian influencer. Many people believed her story because she was an influencer.

2. Many people believe things they see on the internet easily and more if they match our opinions our bias.

3. I think that I would believe it because it haves hope and has a strong message.

# data[].attributes.body
1. People had different interpretations of COVID-19 because of what they possibly heard from people close to them, like family members or social media.

2. He means that people want to believe what they already know and have built up through their experiences, and deny anything that contradicts it. Similar to a conspiracy theory.

3. The "media bubble" is similar to an echo chamber, a closed system where opposing ideas are excluded. They are difficult to escape because it is difficult to notice and become self-conscious about them.

# data[].attributes.body
People had different interpretations of COVID-19 because many people believed in ridiculous conspiracy theories due to their lack of education. The influencers made the theories sound like it is scientific and proven with evidence. People were manipulated and confirmed with those claims without further thought.

Many people denied the ideas promoted by the government from a feeling of doubt built up before COVID-19. Instead, they believe the ideas on the internet. This is because people watch social media in their daily lives, which shows many claims that are interpreted as "facts" and toxically denying oppositions.

A media bubble is when only one perspective of information is displayed because of algorithms and extreme beliefs. Information spreads around the world quickly, and people become brainwashed before it is disagreed with and argued.

# data[].attributes.body
1. People have a different interpretation of Covid-19, because what they believe varies from person to person.

2. I think he means that people tend to interpret ideas in a way that align with our own thought or belief, because it is much easier to accept it.

3. Media bubble refers to the situation where people is only exposed to biased information that strengthen their existing belief. They are hard to escape, because in most cases, people don't realize that they are actually captured inside it.

# data[].attributes.body
There was much information spread out in the media. Some are true, but some might be wrong. Or, they might have heard the story directly from friends. The arguments and details about COVID were everywhere.

It shows how COVID was a serious problem for humans. Information that relates to us or that poses a danger will spread more quickly.  So he meant that COVID had a big impact on humans.

A media bubble is a situation where people get caught in limited information and perspectives. It’s difficult to get out because a group of people believes that information and we misunderstand that it is safe.

# data[].attributes.body
People thought COVID-19 was not deadly compared to Influenza because the virus is invisible and difficult to understand what we can't see physically.

John Oliver means that people try to believe what they want to believe. They believe what they wish to be true.

A media bubble is when someone mostly sees news, videos, and posts that match what they already believe or agree with. It's like being stuck in a bubble where only your opinions and views are repeated over and over. It is difficult to escape because it is difficult to doubt the fact and confirm if it is true.

# data[].attributes.body
These people have different interpretation of COVID-19 to the scientific community because they may heard about that from different people who they believes.

He means that some people believe it is not a serious problem, and is just narratives that they've been carefully building up for decades.

Media bubble is the bubbles only showing what you want to see or tend to believe it, and it is hard to understand different perspectives even though you have your own, so it is hard to escape.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The protesters were not mainly arguing about the science of COVID-19 itself, but rather opposing government policies like lockdowns and mask mandates. Their focus was more on political issues such as personal freedom and government control, than on scientific facts about the virus.

2. Oliver meant that people fit the virus into beliefs they already had, such as distrust of government or belief in conspiracies.

3. A media bubble is when you only see news that matches your views. They're hard to escape because algorithms and habits block out other perspectives. In addition, news sources often label opposing beliefs as "lies," making it difficult for people to recognize their own biases.

Seigen

# data[].attributes.body
1. People had different interpretations of COVID-19 because of people misunderstanding the information about COVID-19. During COVID, there was a lot of information that was widely spread, including fake news. From this information, there were many, many arguments that didn't rely on the truth.

2. People are making mistakes about which information to rely on. Although the government is emitting the truth about COVID, people said that it is tiresome to check those information and started to check the information on SNS ,which may lead to confirmation bias.

3. Media bubble is the situation that people believed on what they think that it is true and ignore other thoughts either that information was true.

# data[].attributes.body
1. People have a different interpretation of COVID-19 from the scientific community because information heard from people whose a relationship has made them think differently.

2. He means that people try to exclude the ideas that were promoted by the government about COVID-19, and believe the idea that is heard from other close relationships, people, or the internet, which is not a reliable source.

3. Media bubble is situation where people earn information mostly from internet which might be not true. They can not escape from the media bubble because it is difficult to people think that information you got is not a fact. People do not want to think that their self is wrong.

# data[].attributes.body
1. People had different interpretation of covid 19 to the scientific community because most of the people thought covid 19 was just another non deadly flu or something, which is totally different.

2. He means that the people around the world doesn't listen to what the government says and instead listen to the friends and families, thinking they are more reliable.

3. Media bubble is situation where people get their informations from the internet, which is likely to be not true. It is hard to get out because it is hard to get out of the perception, that thought it was true.

# data[].attributes.body
1. People have different opinions because people who are close to them have their own perspective, and that is also affecting them. Also, people tend to believe what they want to, so even if they hear an opposite opinion, they only take in the statement they want to.

2. When the COVID spread, even tho the disease was a new thing, people applied their past knowledge and didn't accept the truth.

3. A media bubble is described person staying in a small society. They are hard to escape because people in the small society are people whom you put your trust in and are really close to.

# data[].attributes.body
People have different interpretations of COVID-19 due to believing a wider range of trustworthy sources, including many arguments.

People are being misled about which sources to trust. However, people always believe what they wish to be true, which can be a misunderstanding.

A media bubble is a situation where people are exposed to media, opinion, and content that reinforces their beliefs. it is hard to escape from the bubble because social media platforms use algorithyms to show you more of what you already know, which narrows your beliefs.

# data[].attributes.body
Many people at the time had a bad impression on the government, and so the idea of the medical industry providing vaccinations and medications for them was contradictory, therefore they had a different interpretation on the subject. Inserting narratives that fit their original opinion creates a reality that is more suited to their perspective, hence also a boost in ego as it creates the idea of them being 'right'. As these people tend to surround themselves within communities of similar beliefs, only the same perspective is repeated, hence a media bubble that shields out opposing ideas that could potentially threaten their initial view on the subject. This is called a 'media bubble' mainly due to the fact that the algorithm online is shaped to our preferences, only showing us what we agree with and enjoy. In addition, we are the ones to control and decide what information we desire to consume, which leads to only picking out interpretations that fit our image.

-Astor 19

# data[].attributes.body
1. They didn’t trust the government or science. Some people thought Covid was made up to control people. Scientists used facts and data, but these people believed more in their own opinions or what they saw on social media.

2. He meant that some people already believed in things like government lies or conspiracies. When Covid came, they added it to those beliefs instead of looking at it with fresh eyes.

3. A media bubble is when someone only sees news or posts that agree with their views. It’s hard to get out because social media keeps showing the same type of content, and people don’t like reading things they disagree with.

# data[].attributes.body
People had different interpretations of COVID-19 due to the misunderstandings of different beleifs and information. During the widespread spread of COVID, people spread all kinds of fake news and misinformation. These types of information were all around the internet, so you would need to think and search carefully if it's true or not.

John Oliver's statement reflects how people want to believe what they already know and shut out the thoughts or information that do not follow it.

The media bubble is an echo chamber, and they are difficult to escape because it is hard to take in new ideas and thoughts that contradict what you think and what your group thinks.

# data[].attributes.body
1. A different interpretation of COVID-19 from the scientific community arose because people perceive and feel things differently.

2. He meant that people believe that they already know and build up, so that long-held beliefs take precedence over new facts.

3. On social media and YouTube, you only see content that is similar to what you have liked.

As a result, it becomes difficult to encounter opposing opinions or facts, making it difficult to break media bubble.

# data[].attributes.body
・I think people had confirmation bias which they limited their surrounding information. That will make an interpretation of covid 19

He meant by that people reject and rely on ideas by mistake.

Media Bubble is when people do not accept other opinions or ideas and have a closed community. It is hard to escape because it is often hard to realize.

# data[].attributes.body
1. People had different interpretations towars Covid-19, because people assumed random ideas on social media as a valid information, misunderstanding the true context with scientific evidence. 2. He means that people more often believe thought related to your beliefs which are actually structured by bias and uncertain ideas from internet, because it is more relatable for you and is easier to accept. 3. A media bubble is when people are stuck in a specific and biased perspective of informations. This is hard to escape because it is strongly linked to our indivisual echo-chamber. Kaede Sogo

# data[].attributes.body
I think these people have a different interpretation of COVID-19 of the scientific community because people look get informations from different social medias. (examples: Instagrams, TikTok, newspapers ...)

I think the meaning of "found it easy to fold this virus into narratives that they've been carefully building up for decades" is to believe a thing based on their perspective before.

The meaning of a 'media bubble' is to look and listen to an opinion that is the same opinion. The reasons are becase social media is made from our interest so it only shows our intersts.

# data[].attributes.body
・People had different interpretations because people had different knowledge about COVID. This was because some people believed what they heard from families, SNS and freinds.

・I think he means that we receive information that follows our beliefs, and we deny information that we don't want to believe.

・Media bubble is a situation where a person can only get a particular information. You cannot get a wide range of information when you are in a media bubble. It is hard to get out of this because you don't have the recognition that you are in a media bubble.

Hana H

# data[].attributes.body
1. Could be from many different factors, but in this case, it is most likely to be because of how some people trying to spread the certain conspiracy theory. And manage to make certain amount of people believe and spreead it around further. In basic, some person overthink stuff and try forcefully connect the dot and dot. They did that probably decause they are in denial of what the surrounding belief are like.

2. It suggest that they found it to be an opportunity, to support their conspiracy theory, that they were or are keep suggesting through out the decades. This is like trying to convince people into thinking that governments are trying to trap our mind to keep the monopoly alive before the outbreak. And then when the pandemic started, they will start using this to link back with their idea.

3. Media bubble is simply just an echo chamber. The only difference is that the echo chamber confirms our belief and the media bubble shapes how we know. (Is what I believe)

# data[].attributes.body
Studies show that forests managed by indigenous people are healthier and better at storing carbon. But despite this proof, governments still don’t change their ways. People don’t want to change their thinking, because they trust the old ways, ignore evidence, and sometimes look down on indigenous knowledge. And they would not respect and reject minority opinion.

# data[].attributes.body
This article links that people don't accept the Indigenous values and knowledge. The indigenous people's knowledge is more accurate than scientists, and the results prove this, but pride prevents them from accepting it knowledge. They also insist that the indigenous people's ideas are anachronistic, they refusing to broaden their horizons and have a narrow perspective.

# data[].attributes.body
Even though scientific research already proved that indigenous people are far more capable of protecting environment, many international organizations doesn't try to incorporate their advise. This is, because many experts look down on such indigenous people. They don't want to acknowledge their ability, thus are reluctance to change the way their think.

# data[].attributes.body
Hiroto, Kei, Seigen

The organization is not talking to the religious people because their thoughts is percieved as unscientific. In environmental management, developed countries are labled as professor.

# data[].attributes.body
Within the article there are multiple occasions of lack of consideration towards Katan's input and advice. There were mentions of racism and de-humanization towards indigenous groups that have differing values in comparison to the modern government. The reluctance and conservative views of Jair Bolsonaro too highlights this, speaking as if Katan and his people were not humans just yet but becoming them.

People seem to fear the idea of not being superior to others, especially those who they deem to be unadvanced compared to modernized societies. Due to the low reputation indigenous groups hold from not being as 'technologically advanced' in perspective to these modern governments, the idea of allowing their control, to need their help may be humiliating or an attack against their ego.

The refusal of a much more efficient solution to the protection of earth only enhances this ignorance which Katan and people from indigenous groups similar to where he had came from has to face.

-Astor 19

# data[].attributes.body
Although indigenous people have protected forests for a long time and have a lot of knowledge about land and nature, the government and experts trust the technical reports in the office more than the experience of aborigines. They spend a lot of money on consultants, but seldom listen to the opinions of the aborigines. Even though studies have proved that indigenous people are more effective in protecting forests, many people still stick to the original practice. This is because they are used to trusting a certain source of knowledge and are unwilling to accept new ideas, especially people from different cultures.

# data[].attributes.body
People are ignoring the knowledge from indigenous people and using knowledge from specialists. The considered reason is...

Colonialism

Humans undervalue or dehumanize indigenous communities. People are considering that the thinking of indigenous people has not caught up to the thinking that we have now. Neglecting indigenous communities.

# data[].attributes.body
Indigenous people are concerned about their environment. And presenting that we are doing better. But because Indigenous people are a minority the elite will not listen to them. Also, the governors have bias that makes them think that they are better, and technology is better. Because of this, they have reluctance towards changing the way they think

# data[].attributes.body
I think the reason why people don't have reluctance to change their thinking is because they have a bias/stereotype that indigenous people's thinking is incorrect. Even though indigenous people have scientific evidence, people are ignoring them and don't listen to them at all.

# data[].attributes.body
Nowadays there are less indigenous people who have knowledge on controlling the environment. Instead, people who know little or nothing about the Earth is on top of them. Having less indigenous people can lack of information about the real situation which can decrease the attention of people with environmental problems.

# data[].attributes.body
The indigenous people suggest managing the forest in the way the indigenous society has kept it. However, they were not called and discussed in summits or events that try to improve the biodiversity of the Earth.

Most people do not have the knowledge that the ethnic groups have, because we create boundaries, unconsciously and consciously. We do not believe in their ideas due to feelings of racism against those indigenous people, even though the indigenous people are more knowledgeable because they have been living in the region for a long time. A clearer solution is provided with reality and has been continuously done for decades, but people are too reluctant because we believe more in scientific knowledge, which sounds more effective and sufficient compared to the traditions of the indigenous people that have not yet been proven a lot by many researchers, so we deny them.

- Sayu Hana and Miri

# data[].attributes.body
In the article, it talks about how the government not changing the way of their thinking or doing nothing from the scientific evidence shows that it is leading to a climate change. This is mainly because government think that indigenous people are wrong. Unless the the government are willing to listen, its more likely to have more "catastrophes", rather than creating theh solution for it.

# data[].attributes.body
1. People think indigenous people lack technology. We have avant-garde technology, and people relate this directly to their knowledge. Due to these kinds of biases, people look down on indigenous people and think they have better ideas than indigenous.

2. People consider it is difficult to apply their knowledge of reducing pollution and working for the environment to our living, since their living and ours are completely different. Using cars and other technologies in our daily lives is essential. Therefore, applying their knowledge is considered to be unrealistic.

# data[].attributes.body
This article link that people have the tendency not to believe or undervalue the minority. Quite frankly, if the experts, celebrity or the person who you respect say the same, they are more likely to listen to that information. There are so many reasons why they reject the knowledge aside from the racism since we all know the deal with it. Another reason I could come up with is the fact that the indegenious people are usually not in contact with the people outside, which make them have the reputation of being barbaric or just dumb. Also, they also have the reputation of being closed-minded. To visualize that, it's like we are the colonizer from the Western countries, looking at the uncontacted tribes.

In conclusion, people tend to not believe them because of the reputation of "minorities" making it looks like some gimmick from old delusional people.