Humankind has much to celebrate. Our intellect has taken us
to the moon, deciphered the code that defines us and created sublime works of
art and music. But our intellect has also delivered us the means of our own
destruction.

In the last few hundred years we have not only invented the
means of exploiting fossil fuels, but we have also developed the economic and
political systems that drive such technologies. We have failed to recognize the
existential risks. So, why might that be?

I believe the answer is simple – evolution, by its very nature,
has an Achilles’ heel; it is unable to foretell the future. Our attributes were selected long ago, during the 99% of
mankind’s existence when we were hunters and gatherers. Evolution is simply a
numbers game, and the imperatives that drove evolution were simply greater survival
in the natural environment and leaving more descendants.

Most decision-making was intuitive; our ancestors feared the
rustle in the grass, they gathered food, sought shelter close to water, and
moved on when necessary. They were rarely constrained by sustainability and had
no need to plan for the distant future.

Reproductive selection favored leaving a large number of
descendants, and encouraged competition between males for status, a proxy for the capacity to be a good provider but the
forerunner of modern-day conspicuous consumption.

Our social behaviors were directed toward parenting, forging
alliances and navigating social hierarchies. Parental
care and kin-based altruism were elicited in response to proximity and
familiarity, but as groups grew larger, altruism extended to reciprocal cooperation,
provided we could satisfy our strong desire for fairness.

Even now, altruism is constrained by familiarity, by division
into “them” and “us” along national and ethnic boundaries. Within communities
we are obsessed with fairness, one of the major challenges for policy.

Intelligence was a refinement of the innate drive toward
“striving” that promoted exploitation of the ancestral environment, together with
selection for improved navigation of the increasingly complicated social and
cultural environment. However it is also skewed by our prehistory.

We still see the world through the
prism of affective reasoning: we tend to ignore reason where it doesn’t support
our preconceived biases and our socially constructed reality. Intuition and
peer pressure generally guides the choice of whom we admire, what policies we
support, and what we buy. Our capacity for rational analysis is often restricted
to justifying our decisions after the event, or for difficult analytic
problems.

Even our capacity for innovation is a two-edged sword. Around
10,000 years ago we discovered agriculture, and just 250 years ago we learned
how to exploit fossil fuels. With the invention of capitalism and credit,
economic and industrial growth skyrocketed, populations grew exponentially, consumption
soared and the climate became increasingly threatened by rising emissions of
greenhouse gases.

So we are saddled with a mentality that
encourages high consumption, a desire to procreate and self-interest at the
expense of ‘outsiders’.

Acknowledging these
shortcomings must be central in
our search for solutions. We will need great wisdom, a deep understanding of
our evolved strengths and weaknesses, and a strong moral compass.

Climate change requires
global solutions, many of which conflict with short-term self-interest.
Effective action depends upon the beliefs and resolve of leaders, but creating
responsible policy is difficult, particularly in democracies. In elections, opposing
parties tend to appeal to the instinctive self-interest of the electorate, and
the adversarial structure of Government exaggerates differences and
discourages consensus. 

A solution
that might encourage rational decision-making and the generation of consensus
for long-term issues would be election of a party that promises to establish a
multiparty committee, either inside or outside government. It should be
advised by non-government experts, including scientists, economists, political
scientists and social psychologists, and have responsibility for recommending
long-term policy. Government would need sound reasons for rejecting such
advice.

A multiparty
committee could consider different ways to impose a carbon price, together with
compensation or tax breaks to provide incentives and
disincentives to guide behavior. Free home
audits with subsidies to correct identified deficits would also cut emissions
and allow people to benefit from savings.

The
committee could consider reduced working hours as an optional alternative to increased salaries as
a way to moderate consumption, ease unemployment, reduce inequity and increase
leisure time.

Public
education would be critical, with an important role for the media. Advertising
should be used to encourage activities that add meaning to people’s lives
through responsible travel, education, hobbies and the purchase of quality
goods, rather than promotion of consumption and inbuilt obsolescence.

Education
in schools should include critical thinking, climate science, ecology and
psychology, and should nurture a view of self that encourages compassion, so
that future citizens will recognize our responsibility toward those beyond our borders, and citizens
of future generations. Meanwhile it is up to us.