“We are survival machines… blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes”

The picture of human nature painted by Princeton Professor and science journalist Robert Wright in his book “The Moral Animal: Why we are the Way We Are – the New Science of Evolutionary Psychology” is not a very flattering one.

According to Wright, the human animal spends its life desperately seeking status because we crave social esteem and the feel-good biological chemicals that flood our bodies when we impress people.

Though we claim to be independent thinkers who hold fast to our moral values no matter what the consequences, the reality is that we become self-promoters and social climbers when it serves our interest.

What generosity and affection we bestow on others has a narrow underlying purpose, aimed at the people who either share our genes or who can help us package our genes for shipment to the next generation.

We forge relationships and do good deeds for people who are likely to return our favors. We overlook the flaws of our friends and magnify the flaws of our friend’s enemies. We especially value the affection of high status people and judge them more leniently than strangers. Fondness for our friends tends to wane when their status slips, or if it fails to rise as much of our own and we justify this by thinking “He and I don’t have as much in common as we used to“.

Wright says that we do all these things, mostly unconsciously, because of the evolutionary roots of human behavior that have been passed down throughout the 2 million year evolution of the human species – these behaviors are programmed into our genetic molecules.

The book explores many aspects of everyday life while looking through the lens of evolutionary biology. It borrows extensively from Charles Darwin’s better-known publications (including On the Origin of Species) to provide evolutionary explanations for the behaviors that drive human social dynamics.

Below are just a sample of the provocative questions Wright tackles in his book:

Why are humans more monogamous than other animals?

The birth cycle of the human species, unlike most animals, takes a long time. Human mothers carry their babies for 9 months and their children require years of caring and development before they are capable of living independently.

Due to the long birth cycle, women only have a limited number of chances to pass on their genes to the next generation (about a dozen or so during their lifetime). Men, on the other hand, have unlimited chances to pass on their genes given enough supply of women.

From a male evolutionary point of view it makes sense that their genetic drive would be to have sex with as many females as possible. However, this is not in the best interest of the female. To increase the chances of survival, and the well being of her children, it was in the female’s best interest to select male partners who were high in a genetic trait that Wright calls “Male Parental Investment“. Men with high parental investment traits have loyalty characteristics that make them more likely to invest in a monogamous relationship with a single woman and their children.

Men who women perceived were more likely to stick around after their baby was born became more appealing to women and therefore more likely to successfully mate with them. As a result of this preference by females, the trait for high male parental investment evolved over time to become more genetically prominent in men across thousands of generations.

Why is a wife’s infidelity more likely to break up a marriage than a husband’s?

Jealousy is a natural emotion for human beings, but a 1982 experiment which asked participants to picture their partner either having sex with another person or forming a close emotional bond surprisingly showed that men and women experience jealousy very differently.

For the men, picturing their mate having sex with another person led to feelings of intense rage and anger while the idea of their mate being close friends with another male didn’t bother them as much. Women, on the other hand, showed the opposite reaction. They were much more distressed with the idea of their partner forming an emotional attachment with another woman than they were with the idea of one-time sexual infidelity. 

Wright attributes both of these responses to a natural built-in evolutionary reflex of the human species. It is the male’s unconscious desire to propagate their genes that drives their sexual jealousy. Picturing their partner in a sexual act with another man was enraging to them because of the possibility that another man could impregnate their partner, potentially resulting in them rearing a child that had another man’s DNA.

For females, it is not so much the thought of their mate having sex with another female that is upsetting to them; it is the danger that her mate will form an emotional bond with another woman and it will lead to him withholding some of the resources that her man provides to her and her children (so that he can share them with the new woman).

What makes a family prefer some children over others?

Wright claims that evolution has a role in influencing which child and specifically, which gender children the family prefers. Evolutionary psychologists explain that parents will tend to favor the child/gender that has the greater potential to carry on their family’s genes.

This ability to pass on genes historically differed based on what social class the family came from. In a poor family of low status, it was usually the girl who had a greater chance to marry “up” into a family that was wealthier. In wealthier families, it was the boys who were favorites to spread their family’s genes because of their power to find any woman or even multiple partners.

In a study of medieval Europe and nineteenth-century Asia, anthropologist Mildred Dickeman reported that killing females before their first birthday, was much more common among rich, aristocratic families than it was among poor and low-class families. And rich families much more frequently gave inheritances to their eldest son rather than their eldest daughter.

This evolutionary influence still carries on today. A 1986 research study of the island families in Micronesia found that low-status families spent more time with their daughters while higher status families spent much more time with their sons.

Why do humans have morals?

Why is it that humans seem to exhibit a higher sense of morals than other species? Is it because we are conditioned to do what’s right from a very young age, or is it something we are born with? If you ask an evolutionary psychologist, they’ll say that humans behave in a moral way simply because it helps us to fulfill unconscious Darwinian urges for the survival and propagation of our species. 

Our moral behavior is an evolutionary instinct from our past that helps us to survive while enhancing our image. In essence, doing good things for other people is to our advantage because it establishes a debt in our favor that we can cash in at a later date when we need help. For example, if you give food to someone who is desperately hungry, they are much more likely to assist you in the future when you need help to survive.

Wright refers to this concept as “reciprocal altruism“. Our altruism is not selfless. We will readily do good things for other people when it will improve our image and standing in the community or raise our overall social status.

On the other hand, we are not so quick to help others when doing good for others carries no benefit to us. It is clear that human moral sentiments are used with brutal flexibility, switched on and off in keeping with our self-interest.

Evolutionary Psychologists conclude that there is scientific evidence that what we do can be explained by the evolution of our species and the unconscious urges we have to pass on our genes. Altruism, compassion, empathy, love, conscience, the sense of justice — all of these things, the things that hold society together, the things that allow our species to think so highly of itself, can be shown to have a firm genetic basis.

That’s the good news. “Given that self-interest was the overriding criterion of our design, we are a reasonably considerate group of organisms”, says Wright. The bad news is that, although these things are in some ways blessings for humanity as a whole, we need to keep in mind that they didn’t evolve for the “good of the species” and aren’t reliably employed to that end.

Although I found this book thought provoking and many of its insights fascinating, I still like to believe that we are more than just animals doing things instinctually or robots running a program that was downloaded into us. I believe we are all endowed with a spirit that makes it possible for us to rise above our nature and resist the urges of what Biologist Richard Dawkins calls our “selfish genes”.

In the movie “The African Queen“, there is a scene where Humphrey Bogart claims that he can’t change his bad behaviors because “it is only nature”; but Katherine Hepburn responds smartly to the captain’s statement by saying: “Nature, Mr Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above.”

May you experience all the benefits and wonder of our miraculous genetic past, but also have the strength of spirit you need to overcome our built-in selfish instincts and motives. If you can do this you will become more than human!

Doughnut Economics

I recently read an article in TIME magazine about an interesting new economic theory called Dougnut Economics. The concept was first introduced by the British economist Kate Raworth in a 2012 Oxfam report and then developed more fully in her 2017 book ‘Doughnut Economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st century economist‘.

Raworth proposed the new economic model as a way to address one of humanity’s most challenging problems: how to reduce global poverty without depleting or damaging the planet’s limited natural resources.

The economic theory comes by its name because it is visually represented by two doughnut-shaped discs as shown below. The disc in the center represents a social foundation consisting of the basic fundamental rights all humans ought to have, like access to food & water, housing, education, work, etc. The outer disc represents earth’s ecological ceiling consisting of the environmental thresholds which cannot be exceeded if we want to guarantee the future prosperity of the human species.

The middle green area represents the doughnut, the space where humanity can thrive and progress if the planet’s boundaries are respected. Society’s goal should be to bring all of human life into the “goldilocks zone”; that sweet spot area where everyone has what they need to live a good life, but without overshooting the ecological ceiling limits which would cause further degradation of the environment and jeopardize the health of the Planet.

Capitalism has been the world’s dominant economic system since the 16th century and its adoption by the world’s fastest growing countries has transformed life on earth by helping to lift billions of people from poverty. It is an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

Proponents of the Doughnut economic theory argue that capitalism is an imperfect system because it emerged during a time when humanity saw itself as separated from the web of life, one where ecological issues were ignored or labeled externalities.

The broad measure used as an economic scorecard in capitalist economic systems is the Gross Domestic Product or GDP. It is a measure of the total monetary or market value of all the finished goods and services produced within a country’s borders during a specific time period.

The Doughnut economic theory recognizes that economic prosperity depends not only on growth as measured by GDP but on human and natural well-being as well; and it encourages societies to shift to an economic model that is more regenerative and distributive than today’s capitalistic system.

They argue that continued application of 20th century economic thinking is not sustainable or responsible now that the world is aware that the planet is teetering on the edge of a climate breakdown and we know we will witness the death of the living world unless we transform the way we live.

In a doughnut world, local economies would sometimes be growing and sometimes shrinking. It recognizes that growth is a healthy phase of life but endless uncontrolled growth, like cancer, can be harmful to our overall health. Significant GDP growth may be very much needed in low and middle income countries to ensure that their communities can overcome the shortfalls that create deprivations for their citizens, while richer countries would focus not so much on growth but on maintaining their thriving social foundations but at a reduced ecological cost.

Adopting such an economic theory would help balance the inequities that are present in the world today – one where the high living standards of the people in rich countries have them overshooting the planet’s ecological ceiling, while people in poorer countries fall short of the fundamental human rights that comprise the doughnut’s social foundation.

Many economists are skeptical of the doughnut economic theory because in order for it to work it asks humans to magically become indifferent to wealth and income or how well they are doing compared to others. That is a difficult ask when the world includes 7.3 billion people.

Different class and national interests are always fighting one another and it is naïve to believe that globalized capitalism will suddenly transform itself to become more cooperative and gentle; especially when all indicators point towards citizens today becoming more commercially motivated, self-centered and focused on money and success.

I too am skeptical that something as revolutionary as a Doughnut economics system could be universally adopted given today’s political divisiveness, uncompromising culture wars, and money-fueled corporate lobbying interests. Too many rich and powerful people benefit from the economic status quo – and would use their influence within the halls of power to protect their self-interests.

However, the encouraging thing about doughnut economic programs is that they can be run at a grassroots level. Since its introduction many homes, towns, cities, and states have bypassed their national governments and done what they could to apply the concepts behind doughnut economics from the bottom up – to try and help their local societies become more resilient.

Cities have become the laboratories of doughnut economic programs. The simple way that the doughnut economic model captures both the needs of the people and the needs of the planet makes it a convenient tool for leaders to have big conversations about reimagining and remaking the future. Ideas based on doughnut economics are now being discussed, debated and put into practice in academia, business, and in town, city and national governments worldwide.

Amsterdam, Brussels, Copenhagen, Dunedin, Melbourne, Berlin, Portland and even Austin TX are examples of cities applying the new economic concepts as a way to help their cities attain social and environmental sustainability. Since the theory doesn’t lay out specific policies or goals, stakeholders are free to have constructive conversations to decide what benchmarks would help bring their communities inside the doughnut.

Amsterdam’s lofty ambition is to bring all 872,000 of their residents inside the doughnut, ensuring that everyone has access to a good quality of life, without putting more pressure on the planet than is sustainable. They have implemented a true price initiative which takes into account the carbon footprint of the goods and services they produce as well as the living wage requirements of the workers. To satisfy the dual need for more affordable housing and reduced CO2 emissions, Amsterdam has implemented laws making the use of recycled and natural materials mandatory in the construction sector and they have started transforming neighborhood parking lots into community gardens.

Without a series of universal solutions, which do not exist and will probably never exist, it will be up to the politicians and economists to determine which elements of the donut system can be implemented successfully and to what extent. Amsterdam has made a start by applying this litmus test question to all their municipal project decisions: “Will doing this project actually make our community healthy and happy?”

To all my readers, wherever you may be: I hope you are healthy and happy and living comfortably in the sweet spot of the donut – and I hope that you are thinking about what life decisions you can make today to ensure that future generations will have that same chance to have a bite out of the donut as you.