Credit: iStockphoto
Almost on a daily basis we hear dire warnings about the future consequences of climate change, whether it be rising sea levels, increasing droughts and extreme weather events, or decreasing availability of food and water.
Such changes are a serious threat to humanity and place our civilisation at risk. So why aren't we taking action? I'm going to explore the nexus between our failure to tackle climate change and our genetic and cultural heritage.
Our behaviour is a product of the interplay between instinct or 'gut feeling', cultural, religious and political beliefs, and rational thought. We may understand the issues surrounding climate change in a rational sense, but I believe our instincts and culture are pulling us in the opposite direction, contributing to a sense of paralysis.
Our instincts were shaped by natural selection in our distant past, which favoured attributes that now put civilisation at risk. Most of our evolutionary history occurred before the advent of man, and 99% of mankind's evolution occurred while we were still hunters and gatherers.
Sustainability was rarely an issue; if resources became depleted in one area, tribes could often move to new areas or expand their home range. In situations where this was impossible, the genes that favoured aggression and acquisitiveness would have been beneficial.
Competitiveness and materialism may also have been selected as male attributes since they would have contributed to reproductive success in a society that valued males with influence and wealth.
As a consequence of this heritage, our instincts are to populate, to be competitive, acquisitive and to use resources with little thought for the future.
With the advent of farming and civilisation, these traits led to overuse of resources and environmental degradation. The results led to the demise of many civilisations, as detailed by Jared Diamond in his book Collapse. Since the industrial revolution the problems have been compounded by rising carbon emissions and now threaten modern civilisation.
Of course, human evolution also resulted in the ability to use language and to imitate and to develop cultural traditions. However there is a flipside to our tendency to respond to cultural beliefs and ideas. Firstly, many of these beliefs arose when sustainability was not an issue, and secondly, we are susceptible to negative cultural influences, including some aspects of politics, religion, consumerism and advertising.
Many of these maladaptive cultural beliefs reinforce genetic traits that are inappropriate with respect to long-term sustainability. Examples include the desire of many people to have large families and to achieve an excessively high standard of living, and the practice of living in the present without due consideration for the future.
So both our genetic instincts and cultural beliefs may work against our long-term interests and the values we need in a world of finite resources and finite capacity to absorb pollution.
Genetic and cultural evolution, progressing hand-in-hand, resulted in the evolution of modern man with an increased capacity for reasoning. However, the ability of individuals to reason will depend not only upon their intelligence, but also upon opportunity, education and the degree to which they are influenced by their heritage.
We haven't evolved to deal with insidious, long-term issues like climate change and sustainability. So does this mean that we are destined to fail, like so many civilisations before us? Not necessarily. It's my hope that we can find ways to harness our collective intellect and moderate our instinctive behaviour.
Firstly, we must become educated about what is known, not only about climate change, but also about our genetic make-up and why we might feel powerless to act. There is a role here for social scientists and evolutionary psychologists, gifted speechwriters, journalists and teachers, as well as for climate scientists and politicians.
Secondly, we must convince politicians to help the public and business to change their behaviour, by using more incentives and disincentives and by introducing an effective carbon reduction scheme.
Perhaps we should pay for the cost of emissions when we buy goods and services, with compensation for poorer members of the community. Even in late 2006, most Australians believed that global warming was serious and in polls most said they were prepared to pay more to reduce emissions.
I believe our governments should establish multidisciplinary think-tanks or top-level committees of our best minds to tackle all the issues relating to climate change and sustainability.
Such a forum would encourage rational debate and long term planning; it would be insulated to some extent from genetic and cultural biases and from political expediency. This body should have a mandate to set targets, design emission reduction schemes and fund infrastructure and research in green energy.
The major challenge at the international level is the perception of fairness.
In respect to dealing with climate change, many countries have fallen victim to the 'prisoner's dilemma': whilst it is in humanity's best interests that every country take strong remedial action, it is not in an individual country's best interests to take stronger action than others.
To establish the necessary conditions for fairness, either major countries must lead by example and hope that others will follow, or we must have a more powerful U.N. with greater powers of coercion. Once again, the solution may lie in establishing a committee of experts that is not unduly influenced by non-rational or parochial concerns. Perhaps they could deal with the thorny issue of how much emission reduction is reasonable in the large developing countries like China and India.
We can't afford to delay our response to climate change. We must set aside instinctive and cultural attitudes and learn about climate change as an intellectual exercise; we must ask ourselves honestly how our current civilisation with its growing population, its increasing standard of living and its dependence on fossil fuels could possibly be sustainable.
Evolution has allowed us to become the dominant animal on earth at this point in time, but it gives us no guarantee that we will be survivors. It is now up to us to ensure that there is a sustainable future for our children and grandchildren.
Follow Cosmos on Twitter!
twitter.com/cosmosmagazine
Helen Camakaris is an Honorary Fellow in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at the University of Melbourne.
