Human hard wiring

I have written for other forums brief essays on the future of humanity in the light of what we know about human evolution (including evolutionary psychology, our 'hard wiring') and the human situation in the 21st century. A list of all the essays is at the foot of the page.

The species Homo sapiens evolved over about 200,000 years - that's 10,000 generations - when the consequences of the decisions they took had no impact on the global environment and thus their survival. It is only in the last single generation that our ecological footprint has exceeded the planet's ability to absorb the impact of our destructive behaviour. That is, we humans have evolved in circumstances where we have been able to make all our decisions as if the planet's resources were infinite. Another way of looking at this is to say that we are hardwired to avoid considering global perspectives.

Every other animal is similarly hardwired and you see the effect of this with occasional plagues - which always end in a dramatic drop in the population of the plague species (locusts, mice, reindeer, algae etc.). You might say "Hey, what about me?" I'd say that you and I have exactly the same hard wiring; however you and I have - to some extent - over-ridden some of the effect of this hard-wiring by the application of our intellect. We make conscious decisions to reduce our ecological footprint. But we reduce our ecological foot print only when we make conscious choices to do so. It doesn't come spontaneously and naturally. We may even become habituated to it, but it's not a heritable trait. Thus, I walk to work, I work without an electric light when there's enough daylight etc. But do I eschew all use of electricity? All use of a car? No way - the old hard wiring kicks in and enables me to easily rationalize my decision - any decision.

Notice a second bit of Homo sapiens hard wiring? My ability to deceive myself, my ability to rationalize my decisions to fit in with my beliefs and to hell with reality. For any sensible, Earth-friendly decision to be made in a democracy, the majority of voting citizens have to exercise their conscious intellect to counter their hardwired instincts. This is possible and it's sometimes done, but very rarely. In fact, in most cases it is done by a re-framing of the issue by those who can see the problems - so it is acceptable to the hard-wired brain. That is, rather than portraying the issue as a win-lose situation (win for the environment/lose for humans), a successful campaign will have to portray it as a win for humans, even if the campaigners have to employ deceit to achieve their victory.

"Pork barreling" is present in all societies, but it is deeply embedded in the American psyche. Americans rejoice in their "frontier mentality" and the notions of "taming nature", "bending nature to human needs", and many others. Short term gain at the expense of anyone (except, sometimes, immediate kin) and everything is what all species do and it always worked - over the short term. Then the species overshoots, dies back and starts the cycle over again. This is what the "selfish gene" is about.

Arguments for "efficiency" are also potentially dangerous. If we become more efficient, this takes the pressure off the environment, sure, but what do Homo sapiens do in the face of reduced pressure? Do they leave well alone? No way! We even have a phrase for it: "Nature abhors a vacuum". So humans will fill the area of reduced pressure with some other form of impact - usually by increasing their numbers. In so doing they reduce their options when the next crunch comes. Garrett Hardin identified this as "The Tragedy of the Commons" 40 years ago this year. It is one of the landmark papers in ecology. It explains so much about human behaviour that anyone who reads it and thinks through its implications rationally (not allowing their hard wiring to obcure its implications) sees the world - and the place of humans in it - very differently.

I keep on campaigning in my way, being cheerful and helping others see reality, but not expecting to change the hardwiring of a species or to disengage the selfish gene in our species. Trying to help others not to fight biological reality (actually "biophysical reality", but that term's a bit academic) and hoping to establish a way for a sufficient proportion of humans to see this reality. Perhaps, if there is a stark shock, then hard wiring will waken sufficient numbers to seek ways to survive reality and lead them to answers that are consistent with our species long-term survival in this reality. It's a tough call, and - sadly for humans and many other species - may require repeated stark shocks to keep a sufficient proportion of humans behaving sensibly forever.

* * * *

Essays on the future of humanity in the light of what we know about human evolution and the human situation in the 21st century:

Essay 1: Human = reindeer
Essay 2: Hope
Essay 3: I=PAT
Essay 4: Evolutionary psychology and climate change
Essay 5: Conservation - the passing of the word and the idea

Evfit home   Back to evolutionary psychology

Page up-dated 18 December 2008