Living for the Moment while Devaluing the Future
Posted by Nate Hagens on June 1, 2007 - 1:12pm
Topic: Sociology/Psychology
Tags: behavioral economics, climate change, discount rates, evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology, impulsivity, neuro-economics, oil depletion [list all tags]
The debate on the realities of both climate change and Peak Oil has moved from 'are they real?' to questions concerning timing, magnitude and impact. At the same time, expanding research in 'temporal discounting' in economics (called 'impulsivity' in psychology), is shedding light on how steeply we value the present over the future, a trait with ancient origins. Knowing this tendency, how can we expect factual updates on peak oil and climate change to behaviorally compete with Starbucks, sex, slot machines, and ski trips? Science is rapidly increasing our knowledge about the planet. To affect change however, we might have to become equally knowledgeable about ourselves. Below the fold is an overview on human discount rates, their evolutionary origins, and their relevance to the mitigation and adaptation to climate change and peak oil.
"Dumbo, caught obsessing about higher planetary CO2, did not leave any descendants"
INTRODUCTION
Much analysis and effort is being made in environmental science, ecological economics, energy analysis, and grassroots blogging (including and especially on theoildrum.com) to improve and refine data on our natural resource problem. But is "education" enough? Can reading Khebab's and Euan's posts about the upcoming peaking in world oil production push us to make forward thinking policy choices while we are still buying $2 gasoline? Would a report raising the value of the Amazon basins ecosystem services from $1 trillion to $10 trillion make a difference to those who read it? Why or why not?The understanding and application of behavioral economics and evolutionary psychology will play an integral role in the battle with the two-headed monster Peak Oil / Climate Change. This first of several 'demand related' posts will highlight our innate bias to place more weight on the present than the future via steep discount rates.
Before some definitions, lets start with an example.
AN INTERVIEW
Following the release of the initial segments of the recent IPCC report, I called a good friend to get his reaction. (After I told him I would post his responses, he requested anonymity – lets just call him Thomas)
Nate: What do you think about the IPCC report that came out today stating by the year 2100 global temperatures will rise between 3-7 degrees? And sea levels will rise by between 17-34 inches?Though the above conversation is of course only a sample size of one, it effectively highlights two prevalent evolutionary concepts that are related to climate change and oil depletion. The first is the biological concept of inclusive fitness popularized by Richard Dawkins in "The Selfish Gene" and related to ecology in the famous "Tragedy of The Commons" by Garret Hardin. This concept of individual selection over group selection in a world of declining resources and sink capacity will be covered in my next post. The interview also highlights how distant events seem not to intrude on ones daily thought process, until they become close enough in time to affect our normal routines. I assure you my friend Thomas is not losing sleep over Peak Oil or global warming.Thomas: I read "State of Fear" by Crichton – most of those scientists are just playing with models – they really have no idea how its all going to play out. Plus we are in a general warming trend anyways.
Nate: I disagree with that, but let's assume the scientists are right, even conservative, would you change your behaviours or view of the world.
Thomas: Dude that's 100 years from now. I'll be dead. My kids will be dead. Its someone else's problem.
Nate: Ok – what if instead of 17 inches, there would be a 17 foot sea rise by 2100?
Thomas: Well, I'll still be dead and it will still be someone else's problem. Though I imagine the world would be a wild place were that to happen. That's alot of water.
Nate: Ok – what if instead of 2100, the 17 foot sea level rise would happen by 2050, maybe not in your lifetime but definitely in your childrens? And what about their children?
Thomas: It depends if it happened all at once or was gradual. If it was all at once, I'd either be prepared or deal with the consequences. I'd certainly tell my boys to buy land inland Oregon and California around 2045 though. Still - a long way off for me to worry about it.
Nate: Ok – imagine that it happened in 2015 – a 21 foot sea level rise.
Thomas: Dude – you do realize that Dennis Quaid movie was fiction right?
Nate: I know – just hypothetically
Thomas: Well, I'd probably move pretty soon from New York somewhere to the Rockies. I'd start moving my retirement assets out of stocks and into bonds because 17 feet is going to cause a hell of a recession, not to mention global upheaval. I wouldn't change my job or anything but probably would prepare my children a little better to face a chaotic world. Would everyone know it was going to happen or just me?
Nate: Ok what if the Greenland ice sheet melted this summer and there was a 17 feet sea level rise this August?
Thomas: Well now youre getting plain nutty. But if that happened, I'd liquidate all of my investments, take my wife and kids on some expensive trips to Africa and other places that might be changed forever, then hunker down. Probably get stocked up Y2K like, just in case, and just enjoy life as best I could - what can I do anyways? These things all have a momentum of their own – nothing me or my family could do would make much of a difference. I like eating meat and I like my SUV. Nate you should work for Greenpeace or something.
THE EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN BRAIN
"In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation."Just a decade ago, an observant generalist could see cracks in the foundation of the standard social science model(SSSM) (and for that matter standard neoclassical economics). It is now apparent these models have fatal flaws and that we are in the liminal space defining what will supercede them. The SSSM posits that we are born a blank slate and during our lives culture infuses us with our language, instincts and behaviours. We now know that we have been shaped through millions and millions of years of mutation, migration, genetic drift and natural selection and that we are not born a blank slate but a creature optimized for activities leading to resource acquisition and reproduction. Culture is very important, but it is the mortar, not the bricks. Nature and nurture are inseparable, and both play a role. But we unequivocally posess genetic leashes - some are long (what do I want to eat for lunch?) and some are short (if Jennifer Garner kisses me, I will like it.). This post will attempt to go beyond economics and psychology and first look at why we so strongly value the present, an answer found in biology, Darwinian ecology and evolutionary psychology.
-- Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1859
In "The Adapted Mind", Leda Cosmides lays out 5 core principles of Evolutionary Psychology:
1. The brain is a physical system. It functions as a computer. Its circuits are designed to generate behavior that is appropriate to the environmental circumstances.2. Our neural circuits were designed by natural selection to solve problems that our ancestors faced during our evolutionary history.
3. Consciousness is just the tip of the iceberg; most of what goes on in your mind is hidden from you. As a result your conscious mind can mislead you into thinking that our circuitry is simpler than it really is. Most problems that you experience as easy to solve are actually very difficult to solve-they require very complicated neural circuitry.
4. Different neural circuits are designed for solving different adaptive problems.
5. (and the famous one) Our modern skulls house a stone age mind.
Though the revolution started with Darwin, the last decade has put the finishing touches on explaining who and what we are as humans. There are still some periods with missing links, but from the small mammals that survived the Chicxulub meteor 65 million years ago, through Proconsul 20 million years ago, to the chimp/human split over 5 million years ago, the compounding of slight changes that improved mating, reproduction, and survival of offspring success have honed us into the most successful species on the planet (by some measures in any case). I'm not sure what is more amazing, the fact that we evolved from tarsiers, or that we have managed to figure out we evolved from tarsiers.
The ancient civilizations of our history books are only 5000 years old, a time period of 1/5th of 1% of the time since our ancestors first sharpened stones (2.5 million years ago). Genetic data suggest that our species was once as endangered as the mountain gorilla today (Stringer/Mckee). At that bottleneck and others, what stood between human extinction and the 6.5 billion of us today? What behaviours were selected for and selected against? Everyone reading this post today is descended from the survivors of that and subsequent periods.
The relentless progress of brain and behaviour
"The human brain bears the stamp of 400 million years of trial and error, traceable by fossils and molecular homology in nearly unbroken sequence from fish to amphibian to reptile to primitive mammal to our immediate primate forerunners. In the final step the brain was catapulted to a radically new level, equipped for language and culture. Because of its ancient pedigree, however, it could not be planted like a new computer into an empty cranial space. The old brain had been assembled there as a vehicle of instinct, and remained vital from one heartbeat to the next as new parts were added. The new brain had to be jury-rigged in steps within and around the old brain. Otherwise the organism could not have survived generation to generation. The result was human nature: genius animated with animal craftiness and emotion, combining the passion of politics and art with rationality, to create a new instrument of survival". E.O. Wilson - "Consilience"We actually have 3 'brains' within one (termed the Triune brain, shown below). About 1,000,000,000 years ago, multicellular life started to form on the planet. Simple 'brains' that responded by moving towards or away from stimuli gradually evolved into more and more complex forms until they reached the stage of reptiles and amphibians, about 600 million years ago. Since the brain never sleeps, each subsequent mutation or new species added layers (through the 4 mechanisms of natural selection) on top of what existed before it. The 'reptilian' or primitive brain controls basic instinctual survival behaviour and thinking. It is here that our 'board of directors' reacts to fight or flight stimuli, without us consciously being aware of it. (Indeed, research by Benjamin Libet has shown that our decisions are made 500 milliseconds (1/2 second) before we are consciously aware of them. "Culture" presumably has the remaining 400 milliseconds to veto the decision since we need 1/10 of a second to process the behaviour). With the eventual arrival of what we now call mammals 200 million years ago, new structures had been 'added on' to brains - the amygdyla, the hippocampus and hypothalumus. With the emergence of this mammalian brain (also called the limbic system) organisms showed emotion, memory and feelings that led to associated behavioral response patterns. Finally, in the higher mammals, apes and humans, the neo (or new) cortex developed. This is where 'rational' thought is processed. This brain region controls higher order functions like reason, speech and Hubbert Linearization. But human emotional response patterns depend on the neural pathways that link the right hemisphere of the neo-cortex to the mammalian brain which in turn links to the reptilian brain.
The Triune Brain (Mclean 1959)
THE MECHANISM
The mechanism between brain and behaviour is the pursuit of a similar mixture of neurotransmitters that allowed our ancestors reproductive success in periods of privation. Dopamine, a core neurotransmitter plays an integral role in our short term desires. If you've ever bought a pair of shoes you'd been wanting for 6 months or hit three 7s on a slot machine, or been the first customer at a Starbucks when they opened, you know what dopamine activation feels like. A relevant medical story has been in the news of late. Parkinsons disease results from not enough dopamine in certain areas of the brain - a drug Mirapex is given to Parkinsons patients that increases dopaminergic activity. In the last few years however, dozens of Mirapex patients have checked in to Mayo Clinic with bizarre symptoms - church pastors were having extramarital affairs, normallly conservative people became compulsive gamblers - one person lost $100,000 gambling in a very short time. Apparently, it is not easy to find the right dosage of Mirapex and many of these patients were now receiving too much dopamine.
Functional MRI showing dopamine activation in normal patient vs Parkinsons patient
This is concerning, considering Dr. Peter Whybrow, one of my thesis advisors, and the author of American Mania, suggests Americans, due partially to a genetic bottleneck favoring ambitious migrants, and leveraged by our frenetic culture are becoming 'dopamaniacs'. The dopaminergic system is clearly is one of the drivers of our short term behavior. In short, more dopamine craving means less concern about Peak Oil and climate change.
MALADAPTATION?
Our culture presents a smorgasbord of options that allow us to 'feel' like our ancestors did when they were successful. Neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky likens the physiology of two grand master chess players to a marathon runner - the body is experiencing the same neurotransmitters (presumably, they did not have chess back on the Pleistoscene). Many of the options available to us that engage our neurotransmitters are maladaptive. Pornography, fast food, arcade games, lottery tickets, etc. all give us feelings identical to those our ancestors were good at pursuing. But now they often trick our brains into thinking they too will lead to evolutionary success.
Cultural Options - Maladaptation?
SO WHAT IS A DISCOUNT RATE?
Everyone is familiar with the 'discount rate' in the financial markets. It's the rate that the Federal Reserve charges its member banks. Its also the rate that a stock analyst might use to discount a companies future earnings stream back to the present. Imagine a company whose entire business plan is to sell a product in 10 years – say at the Olympics – they make no money until then but a lot of money in that one year, say $100 million. How much would investors pay for this company? Certainly something less than $100 mil, as that money wont come for 10 years. They would determine what the risk was of actually getting that $100 mil 10 years hence, then determine what an appropriate rate of return would be, say 15% per year. Discounted at 15% per year, $100 mil is $24.75 mil- that is what they should be willing to pay. So in this example, the discount RATE is 15% and the discount FACTOR is 24.75%, or how much something in the future is worth today. The higher a discount rate the lower the discount factor will be. A discount rate approaching 1, means things in the future have no value at all in the present moment. A discount rate of zero means that $1 dollar in 2050 is worth $1 today.
The Human Hyperbolic Discount Rate
The original neoclassical assumption was that the discount rate curve was exponential, meaning that we discounted the same from period to period. Actual economic experiments however show that the shape of the discount curve is hyperbolic, or as Harvard economist David Laibson prefers quasi-hyperbolic. This means that the early periods have much steeper discount rates than later periods. Laibsons research indicates that peoples discount rates are 12% during days 0-5 but drop to 4% in days 20-25. We REALLY prefer the present.
Animals (and humans) have their own internal discount rates exogenous from the market on how they choose between the short term and longer term options offered them in life. Since many animals have short lifespans, they have been shaped through evolution to gather resources and reproduce quickly before they die (this is not a conscious motive – they innately pursue behaviours that were historically successful). Different species have different discount rates, though all are steep, much steeper than our financial systems rates. If you leave for the weekend and give your goldfish 3 days of food at once, you will probably return to a dead bloated goldfish - they have discount factors close to zero and discount rates close to one. One reason humans discount rates arent quite as steep is probably due to our sunk costs. If we didn't have mortgage payments and college funds for our kids, our discount rates might even be steeper. Its quite logical – animals that deferred opportunities to eat, might come back and their food was stolen, or they might have been eaten themselves in the interim – the long arm of selection would have favored organisms that valued immediacy over those who preferred to wait.
Humans care more about Peak Oil than rats or pigeons
Researchers on animals and humans measure discount rates using the following technique. They offer a small short term reward (SS) as well as a larger long term reward (LL) with differing time delays depending on the experiment. To calculate the discount rate they repeat the experiment until the subject is indifferent between the 2 choices – based on how large the future reward must be, they can compute a discount rate and discount factor, similar to the business example above. With animals, the discount rate tests are almost always food, while with humans they are often money or drugs (e.g cocaine addicts). A recent study on two different monkey species suggests an ecological basis for differing discount rates. Two monkey species, similar genetically and in habitat but differing in diet were studied using food rewards. One species was a gummivore - it scratched on trees and waited for the sap to ooze out which was its main food source. The other species was an opportunistic insectivore, grabbing whatever insect it would see and could catch. As hypothesized, the monkey whose feeding behaviour had evolved to require patience had lower discount rates than the other species in laboratory tests. How cool is that?
NEURO-ECONOMICS
Neuro-economics is a rapidly expanding field that combines traditional economics experiments with fMRI or PET scans. Economist David Laibson has made an amazing observation. During economic games, subjects who choose the LL (larger long term reward) had their prefrontal cortex activated. Those who chose the smaller short term rewards showed neural activity in the limbic system, or emotional mammalian brain.
The discount rate measured by the two different active neural regions
This graph shows that humans in effect have 2 discount rates. The blue line shows our 'thinking' discount rate whereas the steeper red line shows our emotional discount rate. This is clearly suggestive that we make decisions in different parts of our brain. It also proves (not that we needed proof) that emotions have the ability to trump reason.
DISCOUNT RATE STUDIES
Some people balk at evolutionary psychology because they feel it is deterministic and doesn't apply in all situations. I agree. However it does give an accurate general template for how people interact with eachother and the world. If I say that 'men are taller than women', that doesnt mean that ALL men are taller than ALL women, just that on average this is the case. (Not the case on TOD staff, fyi). I have shown that our evolutionary origins tilt us towards valuing the present more than the future. Not as much as lower animals, but much more than purely 'rational' beings. The table below shows some research results suggesting certain members of society have even steeper discount rates than others. Specifically, those who smoke, do heroine or cocaine, gamble, are mentally ill, consume alcohol, or are young. Of import is studies on cocaine addicts show that not only do they discount cocaine steeply versus the future - but they discount other things as well. In other words, if you have are addicted to something, you tend to value the present more than the future in other areas of life too.
Not on the table is a study by anthropologists Wilson and Daly showing that when shown a pretty female face versus an average one (activating the limbic system) men's discount rates increase and they subsequently make irrational monetary decisions. Women, by contrast, made equally rational decisions whether they had been shown pictures of handsome men or those of average attractiveness. (7) Somehow I believe this study.
DISCOUNT RATE STUDIES (2)
Increasing research in the side fields of economics is painting a clearer picture of our tendency to value the present. The above graph is suggestive of different sub-groups of society that exhibit higher discount rates than average. Anecdotally, I originally promised Professor Goose I'd write this piece a month ago, but perhaps since I'm single, male, drink wine and coffee, play poker on the internet, and have been called 'crazy' by some of my friends, I wrote the entire post in the last 24 hours. Its a good thing I don't smoke or do cocaine or it would never have gotten written. However, since I am aware of my own steep discount rates (also called procrastination in favor of other more fun and intersting things), I devised a solution. I decided to consciously email the entire TOD staff and alert them this post was in the queue this week. In effect I made a social contract and would have suffered embarrassment that I let the team down if I blew it off. More research in this area is necessary - social contracts may provide solutions for a society driving towards a cliff but addicted to driving.
THE FUTURE EATERS
Australian biologist Tim Flannery has called the human species "The Future Eaters". Indeed, paleo-anthropology suggests many historical societies collapsed due to resource depletion even though they must have been aware of it. The example made famous by Jared Diamond is 'what was that Easter Islander thinking that chopped down the last tree'? The best documented recent mass extinctions of flightless birds and other large mammals from New Zealand and Madagascar show that humans were to blame. Though Neandertals and early Homo Sapiens did hunt game without hunting it out, upper Paleolithic hunters were more numerous and better equipped for mass slaughter - 100,000 horses killed at one site, a thousand mammoths at another. Given the millions of years of shaping of our neural circuitry, it is hard to imagine that our mental structure has changed that much in the last few thousand years. Indeed, for those who are not high on the oil subsidy banquet and need food stamps to survive, scientists have shown a 10-15% decline in caloric intake during the month, implying a steep discount rate exists when food is the primary concern.(1)
WHAT THE HECK DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH CLIMATE CHANGE AND PEAK OIL?
If you're still with me, Im impressed, as the above diagrams and verbage are quite disparate. Yet so is our situation. Environmental icon Gus Speth, in "Red Sky at Morning" laments that the single biggest failing of his generation of environmentalists was that they just 'talked'. We have tens of thousands of well intentioned environmentally minded scientists and activists in this country and others. I pose no answers in this post, because I don't have them. But I am certain that a fusion of the brain sciences and evolutionary biology into the environmental and energy discussions will be a large step forward.
Ultimately we are after impact. If we spend 99% of our efforts on educating people on the facts of peak oil, yet nothing happens, it would be better to spend 50% of our efforts on education and 50% by example. For example, researchers attempted to persuade young students not to litter either by teaching them about ecology and pollution or by telling them they were neat and tidy compared to other students -only the latter had a positive effect.(4) E.O Wilson suggests "A stiffer dose of biological realism is in order..The only way to make a conservation ethic work is to ground it in ultimately selfish reasoning. An essential component of this formula is the principle that people will conserve land and species fiercely if they forsee a material gain for themselves their kin or their tribe." All of our past environmental successes (DDT, Ozone depletion, unleaded gasoline, etc.) had some sort of smoking gun - an emotional trigger. The problem with climate change/peak oil, is when we do get the emotional trigger, it may be a gatling gun on full bore.
After preparing this (what I thought was novel) post, tonight I found that Larry Karp at Cal-Berkeley has written a paper on the same topic, titled "Global Warming and Hyperbolic Discounting" Here is the abstract:
ABSTRACT: The use of a constant discount rate to study long-lived environmental problems such as global warming has two disadvantages: the prescribed policy is sensitive to the discount rate, and with moderate discount rates, large future damages have almost no effect on current decisions. Time-consistent quasi-hyperbolic discounting alleviates both of these modeling problems, and is a plausible description of how people think about the future. We analyze the time-consistent Markov Perfect equilibrium in a general model with a stock pollutant. The solution to the linear-quadratic specialization illustrates the role of hyperbolic discounting in a model of global warming.
THE BOTTOM LINE
1. Education about oil depletion and climate change is not enough. We need to incorporate how people react to information. If companies like Daimler Chrysler are using neuromarketing to sell more cars, an equal effort needs to be made on the environmental and energy front.
2. Two of the planets largest problems, climate change and peak oil, are in the future. As such, our evolutionary derived penchant to focus on the present lacks the discipline to think and act ahead. Either accelerating the expected 'bad news' or making the expected bad news 'worse' are both ways to increase the weight we place on these events.
3. We can't easily reduce our discount rates. But having a team of middle aged female monks running the climate change team may not be a bad idea (I'm only half kidding).
4. There are so many scientific disciplines running parallel courses. Somehow we need to integrate them into a logical framework that makes sense and is practical. I don't expect President Bush will soon appoint a Secretary of Darwinian Ecology but the time is now to combine the sciences.
5. Though it's difficult, we can learn from our mistakes. Those on Easter Island, Rome and the Mayas and Aztecs were neurally not dissimilar from us. To recognize they valued the present even when they could forsee the future (cutting down the last tree) means we have to acknowledge ahead of time that our intelligence will be trumped by our emotion, and plan accordingly.
5b. In writing this post, it dawned on me that much of the work we do in raising peak oil awareness is received by readers as kind of an interesting horror movie. Yes - tell me more scary facts and I will sit at my computer and read them. But its the rational brain that is receiving this information. And its not budging behavior much.
5c. Understanding that stress increases peoples discount rates suggests to me that the events surrounding peak oil (and perhaps climate change) will reach an inflection point. We need to hit the emotional triggers well ahead of peak oil. Once people are stressed and things become difficult, accessing peoples rational minds will be all the harder. Plus, greater awareness of resource depletion might trigger increased consumption, as people try to get their share.
6. I think steep discount rate is another term for addiction. Humans are addicted to life. Some more than others.
P.S. Lets do lunch!...;)
REFERENCES
1. "Is There a Daily Discount Rate? Evidence from the Food Stamp Nutrition Cycle"(pdf), Shapiro, Jesse, et al, Harvard, November 2003
2. "Intertemporal Choice" (pdf) Chablis et Al, The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics 2007 (to be published)
3. "The Ecology and Evolution of Patience in Two New World Monkeys"(pdf) Stevens et Al,
4. "The Evolutionary Roots of Our Environmental Problems: Towards a Darwinian Ecology" Penn, Dustin, The Quarterly Review of Biology Sep 2003 Volume 78 No 3.
5. "Separate Neural Systems Value Immediate and Delayed Monetary Rewards", Mclure, Laibson, et al SCIENCE Vol 306Oct 2004
6. "Why Be Nice? Psychological Constraints on The Evolution of Cooperation" Stevens et al TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Feb 2005
7. "Do Pretty Women Inspire Men to Devalue the Future?" Wilson, M, Daly, M. Biology Letters May 2004
Nathan John Hagens
The University of Vermont
www.theoildrum.com
email thelastsasquatch@yahoo.com
If all biological nature is driven by Darwinian evolution and brain chemicals then what higher purpose could there be than obeying one's selfish genes? My serious reaction to reading all this stuff about Darwinism and brain chemistry is that it makes me want to have lots of children. To me, this article says that not having children just means that I'm either genetically defective or my brain has been "infected" with unhelpful memes.
There is a subtle but important distinction. Doing the things that met with evolutionary success may or may not lead to success in our current, resource constrained generation. Getting monetary assets to move up on the mating/resource ladder gives us the neurotransmitter mix that makes us 'feel good'. We have to recognize that we seek this 'feeling good', but that the cultural metric is flawed. In this sense, our brains (hardware) have been infected with the wrong program (software) on a planet full of desirous people.
But youre right - it ultimately gets down to the meaning of life, and how one spends his/her time. Writing this article is a prime example - I will not have children - I consciously know this. I also have a girlfriend, enough money, etc. I spend my time on this because it 'feels' like the right thing to do. Is this maladaptive? Im not certain, but I do know that the more people that are aware of our evolutionary derived tendencies, the more likely we can access the rational aspects of behaviour that we will need to defer consumption.
Really good article Nate!
It's a profound dilemma...
Those people with less steep discount rates, and who are more capable of modifying their behaviour as a result of rational realisations are also those who tend to sacrifice themselves for the 'greater good' (by for example, not having children).
If there is a strong genetic component to discounting, this leaves the remaining population with progressively steeper discount rates, and thus less able to deal with the problems they face.
Beware with this evolutionary reasoning. Selection also happens on the level of the group, otherwise every trace of altruism would long have been eradicated from the gene pool.
Its still up for debate whether multilevel selection occured, though biologists now are developing (for monetary gain) cooperative shrimp, cooperative chickens, etc. that when raised in tight quarters do better (in total weight) than the 'selfish chickens'. Mike Wade and David Sloan Wilson are writing on this topic.
But altruism (in the truest sociobiologic sense termed reciprocal altruism), fits very well within a selfish gene framework of a social species. People 'do' altruistic acts, especially small ones, because their mind does not immediately do the payoff calculus, but in ancient times, living in small communities where everyone knew one another, helping, sharing and playing tit-for-tat had evolutionary advantages -so that altruism was a form of cooperation that had mutual benefits.
The modern world where people can pick up and move half a continent away and start over, sometimes short-circuits these altruistic tendencies, as oil at 18 cents a cup allows alot more people to 'cheat' this neural system designed for social give and take.
Though I dont want to derail this thread with a long debate with Ron Patterson ...;), I actually agree with you - that we did have historical bottlenecks where group selection was active - but still with individual selection at the core of long term evolution. But the majority of modern biologists, after George Williams blasted VC Lynne Edwards group selection hypotheses out of the water 30 years ago- conclusively do not believe in group selection (though it is making a comeback.)
I also think that genetic fitness is not only determined by the effects the genes have on their bearer, but also the possible offspring that they generate. In other words, the quality of the offspring is also a relevant factor in the selective pressures. A "perfect" genome is a lot less useful if a few slight mutations/interbreedings reduce the genebearers to crippled wrecks a generation or two hence. So there is more to the picture than meets the eye: a lot of influences are influencing natural selection, and we most likely don't know them all.
Applied to altruism, that could mean that completely selfish bastards are evolutionary maladapted: if they outcompete the others, a population will turn into selfish bastards in a few generations. Obviously, these will do badly since they used to be dependent on others for most of their resources. So moderate bastards might do better in the longer term since the next generation would have a better balance of selfish/altruistic individuals.
To think that one obeys one's selfish genes is to misunderstand what a selfish gene is. They don't give orders to phenomenes in real time, and no one suggests that they are even aware of the phenomene that carries them. Secondly, you could think of your brain as "infected" by unhelpful memes but this too is a distortion of the concept of a meme. Memes are neither helpful nor harmful to genes in a direct fashion. Assuming one accepts the concept of a meme, then their operational impact is through the phenomene, and so their operational impacts are concluded in total unawareness of a gene. There is also nothing contradictory about the operation of a meme, even if it generated your feelings of not wanting children, and the functioning of your genes. What it perhaps does illustrate is your awakening political awareness that all is not right in the world in a broad sense including both the ecological and political spectrums.
And yet, who cares?
To paraphrase Steven Pinker, your genes can go jump in a lake, if they don't like your plans.
Actually, the situation only gets me to be all the more glad I never had kids. After all, who would want to have kids in an environment where they will be worse off than any of us are in now? Why have kids when our government policy is to overpopulate the place by unbridled immigration? We have essentially outsourced child birth! Were it not for the 1965 immigration law change, our population would have stabilised around 230,000,000. But no, it's topping 300,000,000 and climbing like a jet plane on steroids. Any wonder housing is unaffordable?
Had that law not been made, we would have just for starters a lot less of an oil pinch like we have now. We would still be around the oil peak but not yet having gasoline at $4/gallon - with a hurricane threat of WAY higher prices at that pump.
Second, housing costs would not be orbital. Forget mere stratospheric! I mean 6-digit prices for studio condos just to start.
Petrol prices high enough yet? Just wait!
Nate, great piece!
The great mass of humanity isn't smart enough to either understand this information or to devote enough time to actually change. Its the flaw of our republic, and most of the rest of the world that the leaders respond to what their constituency wants to hear, not what is best for them. And, since I believe we are definitely in population overshoot, the conclusions and proper actions will be unpaletable to say the least.
I'd like to think I'm a rational person, but a cold, hard look at my own behaviour shows me I'm a master at ex post facto reasoning and justification. And, I'm a recovering addict and alcoholic to boot, male, and a smoker addicted to the worst form of compulsive gambling-oil and gas exploration. My discount rate is off a cliff!
I don't have a good answer for adjusting to peak oil. I'm preparing my home, trying to get more oil and gas income based on production, and trying to get totally out of debt. I think WT's ELP program makes the most sense. But, if I get totally off the grid and my neighbors have nothing, will I get killed? If I predict peak oil and educate my neighbors, will I suffer the fate of Cassandra? Sometimes its worse being right than stupid.
Re oilmanbob:
I dont believe that 'the great mass of humanity' is getting this information so their intelligence is irrelevant.
I dont believe that our current administration is 'responding to what their constituenccy wants to hear.' If they were then why did my congressman stop answering my letters and why are both parties ignoring the results of the 06 elections?
I dont believe that 'most of the rest of world leaders are responding to what their constituencies want to hear.' Many of them are tyrannical dictatorships that loose the cops and/or the army on any sort of demonstration by their 'constituents' who are attempting to register their opinions, usually about the basest necessities of life.
I do believe that the world is in a state of population overshoot and the outcome has been predicted by many that are much more qualified than myself. Gaia will work it out.
I would like to think that I am a rational person but if I were I would not have bothered to write letters to a congressman. So far my only solution to peak oil has been to keep about sixty gallons stashed in the shed behind my house...thats not rational either for I live in the lightning capital of the US and might get blown to smithereens at any time. My only other preparation has been to stash ten large jars of Jif peanut butter and a bunch of crackers which are still edible even when stale.
By the time my gas and Jif run out I feel sure that FEMA will have come riding into town to my rescue.
River, I think intelligence and education have a lot to do with perception. It may sound elitest, but the people who write on theoildrum and read the blog are definitely members of the elite of the western world. I live in a very mixed urban neighborhood on Galveston Island. Believe me, most of my neighbors don't care-they don't vote. They're concerned with where to get money for the rent, what to eat and whats on the tube. They've allowed the glowing phosphors to lull them and dull them. They don't read, don't participate in community activities.
And its probably worse for the great mass of humanity. The illegal aliens that come to Galveston are the best people of Central and South America. They're ambitious, and willing to do any kind of work and send money home to their families saved from the pittance they've made. Same way with the illegal Africans and Asians in Houston-but they are totally disenfranchised. And its worse in their own countries.
In my opinion the US electoral system is totally screwed. The elections in 2000 and 2004 were stolen, and all the incumbents in 2006 thought they had the system wired so that they wouldn't loose, both republicrats and demicans. But the thing to remember is most of my neighbors did not vote. And they lacked the cojones to get in the streets when the elections were stolen. But, the most important thing to remember is nearly half of the people that voted in the last two elections supported the megalomaniacs in in office! They actually passed an amendment to the state constitution to prohibit gay marriage, which is purely irrelevant. I mean really, I'm a lot more concerned about my sex life than anyone elses.
I quoted Confucious in a comment down the thread because I think its important. We stand at the apex of a pyramid of altruism. The sum total of good in this world is the result of millions of our ancestors trying to be good. The sum total of knowledge, of improvement, of kindness and love exist because of other people trying their best to be better, to do better. And the world has definitely improved-we've officially abolished slavery in the last 200 years, and except in totally collapsed societies most people live longer and eat better than ever before. And, its all a sum total of most of the people in the world trying to be good for thousands of years. And its what gives me hope for the future.
Sure, there are monsters, and many of them gravitate to positions of power. But there are also many saints, and not just religeous ones. Look at the example of Che', or Einstein, or Richard Dawkins, or even the editors here trying to get out the truth in a free debate without pay, or the millions of teachers trying to help children at low wages. I know the saints far outnumber the monsters.
Oilmanbob, I certainly agree with you about the posters on TOD being elitist but I have a difficult time understanding why the word 'elitist' has become a tag that has often been hung on those that want an education and want to continue learning throughout their life by those that would rather spend their time watching the tube or frittering away their life in some other wasteful manner. Of course most of us spend some time frittering but I am refering to those that spend the large majority of their time wastefully. I live in an older upper middle class neighborhood in Ormond Beach Florida. The majority of my neighbors have owned their homes over ten years and some like my wife and I over twenty years. In my neighborhood we are a fairly close knit group and I would say that most are aware of peak oil, global warming and the real condition of our economy. The local newspaper, Daytona News Journal, is a little left leaning but by reading the letters to the editor it is evident that few if any of the letter writers are aware of any of these issues. The letters are primarily about skyrocketing home taxes, skyrocketing insurance costs, and the occasional yay or nay comment about Iraq. Recently as gas prices have gone up their has been some complaints about that as well but the letter writers fail to do their homework prior to sounding off and it shows. I think it is fair to say that most of them are sleepwalking their way through life but if Simmons is right they might get a wake up call if gas lines suddenly appear. Most of them need a wake up call.
We have a lot of 'illegal aliens' in this area and they started out cutting fern and picking citrus and vegetables but have moved into the construction trades in the past few years. You are right, they are hard working and family oriented and I dont have any problem with them staying in America. My take on the matter is a bit different...I believe that President Polk stole their lands in what is now the Southwestern US but was originally part of Mexico...they are simply taking back what was stolen from them.
As a great newspaper man for the Baltimore Sun once said 'eventually Americans are going to get exactly the government they deserve.' I believe that he has been proven right. When the common term for Americans changed from 'citizen' to 'consumer' I knew we were in trouble. Politicians use hot button issues like gay marriage and abortion to get out the vote. I dont see any need for legislation that reaches into the citizens bedrooms if they are consenting adults. I dont see a need for government to tell a woman what she can do with her body or fetus. These issues are for the reactionary one issue voters. They go to the polls vote the way that their pastors advised them and then go directly back to the tube without considering the looming issues that are really going to effect their lives.
I dont have much hope for the future. We have a lot of bad eggs in politics and I see no chance for a real leader to get elected. If we enter another era like the great depression then perhaps a real leader might get elected. Our current administration has turned the good will of most of the world against us at a time when we face peak oil, global warming and economic meltdown. I believe that the best possible outcome that we can hope for is to avoid a nuclear holocaust and become something resembling a banana republic. Strong governments stand on three pillars: economic strength (being a lender nation instead of a debtor really helps), strong alliances won through fairness, honesty and diplomacy, and last...military strength. We are teetering on the pillar of military strength because our government was taken over by idealogues that set out to use American military power against any and all nations that opposed our American ideals. These American idealogues believe that they have the right of military intervention to topple any regime that does not go along with American economic dominance of their economies. This approach has convinced all world governments that do not have nuclear weapons that they better damn sure get some if they want to avoid an American invasion. Our American idealogues have a wrong headed approach and they have landed our country in the situation that we find ourselves.
I agree with you that their have been many shining lites throughout world history. I read a lot and enjoy everything from history to microbiology. I admire many men of the past in all fields and there are currently some very brilliant people at work in the world but unfortunately none are working in our government and we are being overtaken by events that seem larger than any or all of us. I certainly hope I am wrong for I have six grandchildren that I would like to see get a good education and enjoy a rewarding life.
River,
I've pondered a lot of the same questions. I don't see most of the folks as elitest, but as definitely part of the elite. Spiro T. Agnew's "pointy-headed intellectuals". The disparaging reference is quite intentional, because of the way that the great mass of people react to people who are intellegent-we threaten them.
Intelligence is distributed on a bell curve, and what is described by standard IQ tests seems to be pattern recognition and the speed of learning and thought. If you are fairly bright you think and learn at a greater speed, and that threatens the vast majority. But, since its described as a bell curve, its important for anyone who is smart to recognise that he or she is just as big a freak as a retarded person. The subjective result of being intellegent is the bright person thinks or emotes more quickly than others, and it may even be a type of mental aberation that is most commonly associated with other mental aberations like alcoholism or addiction, depression, bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia or creativity. It behooves all of us to have this humility.
At any rate, when a person has a peak oil epiphany they've made connections not available to the common mass-that oil depletes, that its totally necessary to our society, that we might not find a substitute as good-and this threatens the powers that be as well as the herd. Nobody wants radical change in their whole lifesyle, so they blame the bearers of the news. Global warming becomes the fault of the environmentalists, depletion is the fault of the peak oil cultists because we are pulling back the curtains that show the Wizard at the Machinery. This will really kick into action when the US reaches the anger stage of its greif over the demise of fossil fuels. Even the arch fiend George W. Bush said we are addicted to fossil fuels, and the recovery process will have a lot of similarities. Maybe we need a 12 step program for automobiles! We admitted we were powerless over gasoline and that our lives had become unmanageable...
Let's look at what happened to the Grecco-Roman civilisation and compare it to modern history. It was built on the backs of slaves captured in conquest, just as we use the 25,000 hours of work equivalent stored in a barrel of crude as our slaves. Their democracies were destroyed by the need for conquest to keep slaves coming, just as ours is by the need for oil and the militarism connected with it. And, when the conquest stagnated, the empire collapsed, just as ours is threatening to do. It was overwhelmed by oriental religeons and the nature of the elite changed. Christianity might very well do the same for us. Our founders were diests and atheists, and our new tyrants are christian right, just as Constantine converted to Catholicism.
I don't have an answer. Nearly half of the voters alligned themselves with the Neocons-and maybe 30% still do. The coup by the Supreme Court and crooks may be the last of free elections in America. We might be facing a population collapse and descent into barbarism. Or, universal education and communicatios advances may raise the great unwashed masses to a new Utopia.
Oilmanbob, I have thought about the problem that is created by the disparity of intelligence of people but this is one of those subjects that is almost never discussed. I believe that many intelligent people purposely 'dumb down' as a means of camoflage because they dont want to be seen as 'different' than whatever group they find themselves in. After all, to be different is usually a cause for one to be ostricized. These smart people have chosen to remain in the tribe over seeking knowledge that they dont have and sharing it with those in the tribe that really need it so that all can make informed decisions. I suppose that acting dumb to remain a member is a survival instinct but it also puts the entire tribe at risk. I think it is a better action to give the tribe the information that they need than to remain silent and humble. That is probably an altruistic view. I read 'The Bell Curve' a some years ago and found nothing in it particularly disturbing and then I was astounded at what an uproar that book caused in the population. I dont know if the information contained in that book was all accurate but I supposed that it was since it was written by people knowledgeable in their fields. In any case, there are very smart people of all ethnicities and some not so smart. I remember as a child hearing the preamble to our constitution for the first time and even at that early age there was something about it that did not ring true. Later in life I realized that it was the line 'that all men are created equal.' I didnt buy that as a child and I dont buy it now. A person with intelligence and armed with knowledge in a modern society is not equal to one without those assets. One of my favorite scientists and writers is Sir Fred Hoyle (unfortunately he is no longer with us). Mr Hoyle was sort of a maverick but well educated in Physics, Astronomy, Genetics and Microbiology ..
an all around curious type of person, he was. Mr Hoyle was one of the formulators of the 'steady state' theory of the universe when the 'big bang' theory was being embraced by most scientists in the field. Mr Hoyle wrote many books but one of the most interesting was 'The Intelligent Universe', in which he took on Darwinisim. Its difficult to summarize such a book but basically Mr. Hoyle thought that evolution was caused by the earths constant bombardment by microrganisms that can do everything from give us a common cold to causing great leaps in evolution. Not only that, Mr. Hoyle after a lifetime of study, stated that their was no way that life originated on earth and that the enzymes in our cells are far too complicated to have arisen by chance (he likened the odds at a nine followed by forty pages of zeros to one)...he claimed that an intelligence must have been behind the complicated objects that are cells and the very complex structures within them. Mr. Hoyle also advised back in 1955 that the earth had finite resources and that once they are used up that no other society following us would have the resources to accomplish what we have. I would say that was pretty good reckoning for 1955. Mr hoyle also believed that in some cases disease was beneficial for it had occasionally turned ordinary students into extrodinary scientists. I am glad that Mr Hoyle chose not to be humble because he has given me much to ponder even if I dont agree with him on all that he said. I feel sure that is what he intended to do, make us think.
My wife and I recently watched an interesting documentary on Link TV. It was titled 'Who Killed The Electic Car.' It was a murder mystery that was solved during the course of the documentary. My first guess prior to seeing the show was 'big oil', turns out I was wrong. The electic cars were on the road for about ten years and they never needed anything. It turned out that the auto manufactures were the culprits for the electric car would have destroyed their business model...dealerships and the repair trade. Worth the watch if you have the opportunity. BTW, they were loved by the folks that had the opportunity to lease one and they had the equivalent impact of reducing gas costs to sixty cents per gallon. The electric car served the needs of 90% of the population when they were introduced in 1996 and acheived 60 miles at highway speed prior to needing a recharge. By 2006 their range of new experimental versions had been increased to 300 miles. Another great feature is that they can be recharged at night when our electrical grids are sitting idle. I would think that the developing world would see the advantage of electric cars and manufacture them on a large scale and if they do maybe we will get a shot at buying one from China? Are you listening, China? I know Detroit isnt!
I think you are right about what we are in store for when the realization dawns on people that their station is out of gas and they dont know when or if more will arrive. If just the 30% that are in a coma and still support Bush go ballistic then we are in for quite a time! Of course we have to discount that percentage because some of those people are so overweight that they will be incapable of causing much havoc. I walk a lot and have been riding motorcycles since a child so I dont use a lot of gas. I also have a good bicycle that has seen use for over 30 years and a couple of overhauls. I think the first few weeks of the chaos will be the worst and reccommend holing up during this period if possible.
As you well know and observed democracy and empire cannot coexist for long. The Rubicon has already been crossed by the numerous misdeads of this admistration. Suspension of habeus corpus is the most vile of all to me, just ahead of torture. Bush is definitely expecting trouble from the population, otherwise I dont believe that he would have placed all states national guard under his command instead of the state governors. I wish it were not so but I think as you do, tsigthtf soon. I dont see the 'unwashed masses' suddenly giving up their humvees and sitting down to computers for a bit of enlightment. Just typing that line gave me a good laugh!
"2. Two of the planets largest problems, climate change and peak oil, are in the future. As such, our evolutionary derived penchant to focus on the present lacks the discipline to think and act ahead. Either accelerating the expected 'bad news' or making the expected bad news 'worse' are both ways to increase the weight we place on these events."
Is peak oil "in the future?"
If one accepts your premise about discounting, it might explain why climate change is way down my list on things to worry about. I believe that we are engaging in a great carbon experiment and that I would sooner not participate in that experiment ... but that results aren't in & won't be for perhaps a few thousand years; the models may not be worth a hoot; and everything observed to date may be the result of other factors.
Peak oil on the other hand is here by 2010 in my opinion, but if not [based on any plausible fact sets I have seen] will occur no later than 2030. Given lead times even a 2030 date means that as a practical matter peak oil is upon us.
Given the hyperbolic discount rates of 20-25% over 1 month that Professor Laibson at Harvard suggests - even events 3 years in the future carry ZERO weight.
QUESTION: Seriously - how many people reading this website, (excluding those who have been long time homesteaders, self-sufficient types), have dramatically or even moderately changed their daily routines based on the things theyve learned from this website about peak oil? And if they haven't changed - what would it take to change?
I have made a few changes, but mostly of the silver bb sort.
1.) I considered getting a pickup truck for general use, and nixed that idea.
2.) I have installed CFLs.
3.) I walk more / drive less by consciously evaluating the alternatives rather than complusively hopping in my car.
4.) I made my choice in residences based on proximity to work and play opportunities.
5.) My motorcycle will be on the roads again shortly after a lengthy hiatus. 50 or so MPG and more fun.
6.) My propensity for repairing versus replacing has become more pronounced.
7.) I turned the heat on only two nights last winter [not that big a deal as I live in Southern California.]
8.) I live well below my means.
Bigger changes?
1.) Much higher fuel prices [although I am also a net producer -- higher costs of energy greatly impact my marginal operations a lot of which basically trade electricity for oil.]
2.) Extensive civil strife / chronic shortages.
3.) A little more evidence that peak won't be in the 2015 to 2030 timeframe but NOW.
"3" is probably more evidence for discounting. I should be preparing now.
Well good for you. But of course, you are a reactionary so I would have expected it....;)
And of course, the DEFINITION of peak oil is also relevant - if the GROSS liquids peaks in 2020, the NET liquids available to non-energy producing society might peak a decade earlier, or quite possibly already. The IEA admitted in their last book that conventional oil requires 5-6% of the energy to produce and that heavy oil requires 20% of the total energy. So why they arent concerned about where that extra energy is coming from is a (scary) mystery to me.
Thanks for making those changes. Im sure you realize, that consistent with our wiring, you wouldnt have taken those meaningful steps if someone had told you to - you did it because you think it will improve your life..
What would it take to change?
Draconian measures, starting with announcing that for next year, all rations of gasoline will be cut in half. I think prices signals, especially when we depend solely on the gyrations of the market are not adequate for most people, except those truly on the economic edge. I already use way less than half of what most people use, but I think if I had to I could cut my usage in half again.
Raising gasoline prices with taxes to at least $10 per gallon would probably cause significant change as well, but I think that is a very inefficient way to effect change. Besides, those with higher incomes would not change their behavior one wit.
When James Hansen announces that we may, I repeat may, have ten more years before we go beyond the tipping point, isn't that enough to get the government to take radical action? Well, if by radical action, we mean massive subsidies by Obama and the like for CTL, then I guess so. But somehow, that's not what I had in mind.
An interesting question, though, is why do some people have extremely low discount rates for the future while most people have very high rates. And, does "living in the 'now' mean you have a very high discount rate?
I have always been concerned about the future, including my death, as far back as when I was 10 years old. Can't explai why, though.
Further, isn't it irrational to worry that much about the future, when you are not going to be around.
Some of us are changing alot...
My wife and I:
1) moved into the city (Atlanta)
2) paid off our credit cards
3) bought bikes and stopped driving
4) added insulation to the house
5) bought a wood stove
6) moved some assets to precious metals
7) changed our political affiliation
8) got a tankless water heater
9) started urban gardening
The biggest thing we have done is try to spread the word to everyone we know. I have the oil poster (oilposter.com) prominently displayed on the wall in a public area.
We don't know anyone who has made quite as many changes as we have but have seen alot of our aquaintances make small changes and more importantly start thinking about the issues.
I am trying to make some big changes. In order of Priorities
1. Bought Guns and Bullets
2. Bought Gold and Silver
3. Paid off all major debts
4. Trying to buy a piece of land out in the country. Have to get my house sold first. Would like at least 40+ acres to start a sustainable farm. Will have much longer commute until TSHTF but not too worried about commuting after that.
EJ
"DD"
When I learned of "Peak Oil" in Jan. '05 I did the following.
1. Converted my IRA to gold bullion coins (my broker thought I was nuts).
2. Installed a 5000 watt solar power system (with rebates and tax brakes the
cost was around $14,000).
3. Installed a solar hot water heating system.
4. Bought a 90 days supply of "dry pack" food (I will be getting a 1 years
supply for 2 people-25 year shelf life- shortly).
5. Bought guns, ammo, and body armor.
6. Paid off my credit cards.
7. Paying down my mortgage as fast as I can.
8. Built a solar powered "water" still (generates about 3 gallons of distilled
water a day).
9. Joined CERT (Community Emergency Response Team).
10. Bought an electric tricycle for commuting to work.
11. Bought a water purifier (gravity run) that "cleans" 1 gallon an hour.
I am 60 years old and now have no retirement due to this situation.
I live in Phoenix Az and I am trying real hard to survive 10 more years.
I really hope the guns and armor are not needed but there is a real possibility
that a lot of angry and hungry people will be running around here in the next ten years.
DD
ANSWER:
1) Started commuting by bike.
2) Started using 1/2 of take-home income to invest, pay down mortgage, and/or pay for expenditures related to reducing energy needs.
3) Increased income and cashed in on a booming housing market by taking a job in a field related to oil & gas production rather than staying in a comfortable field.
4) Moved to a small town with agricultural roots where all services are within walking distance and work is a short bicycle trip away.
5) Bought a large piece of agricultural land within commute-by-bike distance of town in 4.
6) Put in a small garden on land in 5. Doubled its size this spring. Will double it again next spring.
7) Started a flock of ducks on property in 5. Learned some skills (ie. electric fencing) to make this possible.
Sheep and an off-grid home are in the works for the next couple of years. Should be debt-free with a nice nest-egg by the time we move in.
A caveat: Although, living a fairly typical urban life before learning about peak oil, I was already leaning in the direction of sustainable living. Learning about the probability of resource and energy crises just gave me a reason to get started. The run-away rise in housing prices (and widening differential between where we were and where we wanted to go) gave us the funds to make the move.