94 comments on Living for the Moment while Devaluing the Future
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
94 comments on Living for the Moment while Devaluing the Future
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- What "Lower Consumption" Means
- Tricking and Treating the Future
- Meeting Energy Decline Part-Way - Potatoes?
TOD:Europe
- The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction - Part IV: Energy from Breeder Reactors and from Fusion?
- The US stimulus and "green jobs"
- EROWI - energy return of water invested
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Saturday 7th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 30th October 2009
- Details of Solar Flagships Released
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“It takes as much energy to wish as it does to plan.”
—Eleanor Roosevelt
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
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!