[Ibon]

Here is a link to a Radio Lab interview entitled Killing babies, saving the planet. It discusses the moral dilemma that arises when different parts of our brain look at moral issues. There is a hunter gatherer intuitive emotional part of the brain in conflict with a more rational part of the brain.

The moral issues we have often discussed here on po.com around overshoot and how to cope are addressed here. Mos, Ludi, Energy Unlimited,Montequest and many others here will find this discussion interesting and familiar. I sure did

Josha green is a Harvard researcher interviewed who studies moral judgement and decision making and argues in the interview that cultural evolution can lead us to exercise better the rational part of our brain and not rely solely on the intuitive emotional hunter gatherer moral reflex that alone does not solve the complex moral issues around overshoot, global warming etc.

http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab- ... the-world/

Enjoy the podcast!

[Ludi]

not rely solely on the intuitive emotional hunter gatherer moral reflex that alone does not solve the more complex issues around overshoot, global warming etc.

Hunter-gatherers were able to make decisions about complex issues around resource constraints.

I don't see much if any evidence the civilized brain is more "rational" than the hunter-gatherer brain.

[Ibon]

not rely solely on the intuitive emotional hunter gatherer moral reflex that alone does not solve the more complex issues around overshoot, global warming etc.

Hunter-gatherers were able to make decisions about complex issues around resource constraints.

I don't see much if any evidence the civilized brain is more "rational" than the hunter-gatherer brain.

The example of the two groups memorizing either a simple two digit or 7 digit number and then choosing between chocolate cake and fruit salad gives one pause about trusting in the anaytical or rational brain as objectivity can be compromised based on how much complexity is present as this experiment suggests.

Isn't the Tea Party (as only one example of many) for example grasping for the chocolate cake instead of the fruit salad because the complexity is so overwhelming?

Like learning to play a guitar the rational brain does have the potential to learn and then moderate when our evolved hunter gatherer moral responses do not serve our best interests.

[Narz]

That was a great podcast. I always find experiments like that fascinating. Kind of scary though, if people make bad choices just from having to memorize a few extra digits, imagine how more lower functioning pretty much everyone is than they have to be. Memorizing 7-digits is pretty damn mild compared to most of the stressors most people face in everyday life.

[Ludi]

Like learning to play a guitar the rational brain does have the potential to learn and then moderate when our evolved hunter gatherer moral responses do not serve our best interests.

I'm sorry I can't make sense of that sentence (my lack of rational brain, no doubt), can you rephrase it?

My point is there is nothing less "rational" about how hunter-gatherers think or live than how civilized people think or live.

Conversely there is nothing more "rational" about how civilized people think and live than how hunter-gatherers think and live.

[Ibon]

Like learning to play a guitar the rational brain does have the potential to learn and then moderate when our evolved hunter gatherer moral responses do not serve our best interests.

I'm sorry I can't make sense of that sentence (my lack of rational brain, no doubt), can you rephrase it?

My point is there is nothing less "rational" about how hunter-gatherers think or live than how civilized people think or live.

Conversely there is nothing more "rational" about how civilized people think and live than how hunter-gatherers think and live.

In the podcast Joshua Green commented on the above study of the chocolate cake and fruit salad. That study seemed to indicate that the rational brain is not objective under stress. Green then countered that if you would tell the participants up front that this irrationality exists in our behavior then you would see less choosing the chocolate cake. He therefore sees optimism in our culture being able to spot the weaknesses of both segments of the brain that lead to moral incongruities. Both the flaws of our hunter gatherer heritage where moral intuition does not always serve us best in dealing with complex issues along with the "rational brain" which is not truly objective. Green brought up the learning of a musical instrument as an analogy that with practice our modern culture can surf these moral incongruities.

Of course one can always just honor the wisdom of hunter gatherers and conclude that modern humans can only really function morally and sustainably when we lower complexity and our numbers back to the tribal equation of our heritage. in other words our evolution holds us hostage to any other model except that of one we evolved from as hunter gatherers. As I have mentioned in the past modern humans cant put humpty dumpty back together again so modern humans going forward will have to learn to play the musical instrument of both parts of our brains that today come in conflict around these moral questions. Or we will fail and then recede back to our evolutionary heritage of living in small groups as hunter gatherers once again. I would agree with Green that our modern human culture, having just recently come up against these complex issues, is currently like a beginner playing guitar. We haven't yet gone very down the road where consequences will determine our ability to surf through pressures of overshoot and other complex system problems. This alone defines the number one task of modern humans in the 21st century.

I hope that helps clarify. I listened to the podcast twice. It was helpful to understand better the discussion points. I recommend that.

[Ibon]

My point is there is nothing less "rational" about how hunter-gatherers think or live than how civilized people think or live.

Conversely there is nothing more "rational" about how civilized people think and live than how hunter-gatherers think and live.

I don't quite agree. I think that hunter-gatherers were more "rational" in the sense that this represents 98% of our species evolutionary past. Their cultures were stable for such a very long time that they evolved behaviors and conceptualizations that kept them sustainable and in equilibrium far longer than modern humans have. So they had very rational morals, ethics and cultural practices when framed within their tribal structure.

Modern humans carry that evolutionary heritage today in how we deal with complex issues that our modern culture has created that is basically novel for our species. So we are no where near as rational as hunter gatherers. We are babes in the woods in this modern human culture we have created.

If modern human culture survives hundreds of generations than it is not unreasonable to assume this will also start acting on our evolution. That our cultural memes will eventually create a feedback loop to genetic advantages that would integrate living within complex societies.

It seems doubtful but I do share Green's optimism in the sense that consequences coming up will "teach" us recognize the flaws in our judgement.

[davep]

If modern human culture survives hundreds of generations than it is not unreasonable to assume this will also start acting on our evolution. That our cultural memes will eventually create a feedback loop to genetic advantages that would integrate living within complex societies.

If there is no natural selection pressure in modern human culture, how can we evolve to better integrate living within complex societies? OK, maybe the complete nutters will be socially outcast, but I don't see a higher rate of offspring from those who seem to integrate well. It's a route to Idiocracy.

[Ibon]

If there is no natural selection pressure in modern human culture, how can we evolve to better integrate living within complex societies?

It seems like there is no natural selection pressure in modern human cultures but how do we know for sure? Our modern ethics and morals have an evolutionary component that stemmed from altruism that evolved from our ancestors societal structure. So we see here that natural selection functioned on the social structure of our species.

Why shouldn't that continue? Natural selection acts on populations not on individuals. The consequences of overshoot are going to act on populations of modern humans and will force cultural modifications. Those societies that adapt rational cultural memes will perhaps survive enough generations that these cultural memes start selecting for individuals who are most adaptive to these cultural adaptations. That would be natural selection at work. Of course it means that our biological evolution would go forward co-existing and co depending with living in complex societies. If termites can do this why can't humans?

[Ludi]

Thanks for clarifying, Ibon, I think I was really misunderstanding what you were saying - thought you were saying civilized people are more rational than hunter-gatherers. Personally I think hunter-gatherers are better at observing their environment than civilized people, as they are able to adjust their behavior to observed changes whereas civilized people seem to stick to what they're used to doing even if it's counter-productive, in many cases. But we do know that human societies are capable of change, and that individual humans are capable of change. It might be civilizations aren't capable of change - or rather, the only way to change a civilization might be to change it into something else. There are other choices besides just "civilization" or "hunter-gatherer" so, it seems to me, if we find civilization unable to change it is possible there's something it might change into, or there may be several options for various groups of people leaving civilization. I'm not personally of the opinion "we all have to be hunter-gatherers," never have been. It may be hunting and gathering is the most stable and hence the most adaptive of the options, but we don't really know and we certainly can't know ahead of time. We can only know which have been the successful and stable strategies in the past and which haven't been.

[davep]

It seems like there is no natural selection pressure in modern human cultures but how do we know for sure? Our modern ethics and morals have an evolutionary component that stemmed from altruism that evolved from our ancestors societal structure. So we see here that natural selection functioned on the social structure of our species.

OK, so who has the most babies? The highly altruistic professional or the unemployed couple living in a trailer? As far as child-rearing is concerned, it is always the poor who produce more children.

We see that richer countries' populations have far lower birth rates than poorer countries, and the same is reflected within a country. So it seems that for the global population (or even within the US or Europe), we're not heading towards some kind of evolutionary utopia.

As for your comments re overshoot, of course that will cause huge problems and a survival of the fittest scenario (if we are indeed in overshoot). But that has nothing to do with us evolving as a species to better integrate into a complex society.

[Ibon]

As for your comments re overshoot, of course that will cause huge problems and a survival of the fittest scenario (if we are indeed in overshoot). But that has nothing to do with us evolving as a species to better integrate into a complex society.

I don't agree and see it as just the opposite. I see the novel situation of modern humans in overshoot and the coming consequences as the greatest catalysts for cultural evolution for the remainder of this century and beyond until some equilibrium is reached that has a time span of enough generations to start that feedback of memes to genes in populations. What we don't know is what is between here and that eventual equilibrium and that depends largely on the theme of the podcast; our ability to integrate moral incongruities and irrational tendencies that are housed in different part of our brains.

You mentioned the rich don't breed and the poor do. Let's look at this not from a choice of individuals but from a group population instead. We'll take Haiti as an extreme of the poor and say Japan as an extreme of the rich. Which culture has a greater chance of reaching an eventual equilibrium as a result of the consequences of overshoot and which culture will then incorporate the lessons into memes? Memes that could be resilient enough to last long enough for natural selection to act on them.

Natural selection of our species going forward is actually painfully slow and has little consequence for the next couple of thousand years. What is more important I think is the elasticity of our modern culture. Ludi mentioned her opinion that hunter gatherers are more adaptive to changes in their natural environments than modern humans. This is true only when you put a modern human next to a hunter gatherer in a natural environment. What about putting a hunter gatherer in a modern city?

if you recall the podcast the researcher mentioned the Flin Affect where as a society we have gained 30 IQ points during the 20th century because people learned how to think abstractly (remember the practicing guitar analogy). We learned basically to exercise and practice our abstract abilities as a result of the occupations we had. There is every reason to believe that consequences of overshoot will require humans to exercise this ability even more going forward. There was no real environmental reason for hunter gatherers for example to exercise abstract abilities.

So it is not hard to imagine a few thousand years of living in highly abstract modern human societies that natural selection will work on populations integrating and selecting for these traits amongst many others.

We assume because we left nature behind that from that moment natural selection stopped acting on our species. I don't agree with that.

[Ludi]

You can't second-guess evolution. We don't know what characteristics will be the most adaptive for future conditions.

We can make very good evaluations of our behavior as a culture, however, and see that many or even most of our behaviors are not beneficial in the short or the long term. Behavior can be changed.

We haven't "left nature behind" - if we had, we would not be worrying about such effects of nature as Global Warming.

[Narz]

Personally I think hunter-gatherers are better at observing their environment than civilized people, as they are able to adjust their behavior to observed changes

This is from observing numerous hunter-gatherers over the years?

Is hunter-gatherers were so good at anticipating & adapting to changes there'd be more of them now. If they were keen observers of their landscape they wouldn't have gotten annihilated & assimilated so quickly.

Of course certain cultures, like those of Native America really didn't have time to adapt & it's no wonder they crumbled so quickly & put their faith in inane hopes like the Ghost Dance.

[Vogelzang]

Stop sending money to Africa. Over a trillion dollars was spent on subSaharan Africa and its poorer now then when it was in the 1950's. I've heard this a couple of times on TV recently. This obviously implies the northern African Arab races are superior.

[Pretorian]

We see that richer countries' populations have far lower birth rates than poorer countries, and the same is reflected within a country.

there are poor countries that have far lower birth rates than richer countries. It has more to do with culture , median age and urbanization levels than with anything else.

[efarmer]

Thanks for another quality opine Vogelzang. Some folks jump to conclusions, others pole vault out of windows and swan dive down at them from the stimulus of a television set. I will stay tuned for further insight with regard to this topic.

[Newfie]

Personally I think hunter-gatherers are better at observing their environment than civilized people, as they are able to adjust their behavior to observed changes

This is from observing numerous hunter-gatherers over the years?

Is hunter-gatherers were so good at anticipating & adapting to changes there'd be more of them now. If they were keen observers of their landscape they wouldn't have gotten annihilated & assimilated so quickly.

Of course certain cultures, like those of Native America really didn't have time to adapt & it's no wonder they crumbled so quickly & put their faith in inane hopes like the Ghost Dance.

Maybe Ludi has not but Jared Diamond has. This is the principal theory behind his Pulitzer award winner "Guns, Germs and Steel." The book is written to answer your second paragraph.

The point is that Western culture is predominant not because it so much better but because of happenstance including weather patterns, migration routes and the like.

My extrapolation is that once Western Culture got a certain critical mass it more or less took over because it was so much better at exploiting the natural resources. Which, ironically, may well be, likely will be, the cause of it's ultimate collapse.

It is a wonderful book, very well written and enlightening. I recommend it to everyone.

[Plantagenet]

Jared Diamond ... This is the principal theory behind his Pulitzer award winner "Guns, Germs and Steel." ...The point is that Western culture is predominant not because it so much better but because of happenstance including weather patterns, migration routes and the like.

My extrapolation is that once Western Culture got a certain critical mass it more or less took over because it was so much better at exploiting the natural resources. Which, ironically, may well be, likely will be, the cause of it's ultimate collapse.

It is a wonderful book, very well written and enlightening. I recommend it to everyone.

I met Jared Diamond when he came to the University of Alaska to lecture on his book. His book is basically a "politically correct" world history that ascribes western dominance to the geographic location of Europe rather than to anything in particular about western culture.

The problem with Diamond's hypothesis is that in same the Eurasian land mass there are numerous other countries and cultures that had all the same advantages as the countries of western Europe but failed to rise to global ascendacy.

Why did western Europe rise to ascendency?....not because it was located in Eurasia but because the countries in western Europe developed superior political ideas (individualism), superior economic ideas (Capitalism), superior scientific and technological ideas (the industrial revolution), and superior military technology.

[vtsnowedin]

Stop sending money to Africa. Over a trillion dollars was spent on subSaharan Africa and its poorer now then when it was in the 1950's. I've heard this a couple of times on TV recently. This obviously implies the northern African Arab races are superior.

Obviously?