[GreyZone]

The father of the original peak oil website speaks out on why we are headed back to the Olduvai Gorge.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]IT’S HUMAN NATURE
by Jay Hanson –10/08/05
(permission to reprint expressly granted)

Our behavior is a product of genes and environment (lifetime environment, but mostly present environment). Our present genes are the product of earlier genes and earlier environments. We are born with different genetic programming for self, family, and social group (“tribe”). Although few of us are consciously aware of it, we swim in politics like a fish swims in water.

COMPETITION

Men evolved to compete with other men for resources – especially breeding partners. The most-desirable women selected mates who were perceived (genetically and socially) to offer the best opportunities for their children’s survival (“sexual selection”). Those men who were able to accumulate the most social power tended to produce the most children.

Men evolved to form tribes and cooperate with other men (“reciprocal altruism”) in order to obtain more resources than they could as individuals or families. Tribal society provides the rules for competition, but an individual’s goal is always based on a genetic drive for “inclusive fitness”.

DO THE MATH

Why do so few people know or care about “peak oil”? It’s because evolution doesn't conserve “individuals”, it conserves “genes”. What type of behavior will evolve? Do the math!

Assume that two fundamental “genetic sets” (strains of people) exist in a tribe of primitive people. Each group is represented by ten pairs. Further assume that this tribe loses 30% of its population every twenty years due to war, disease, and famine.

Members of gene set #1 are intelligent, honest, and forward looking. The mating pairs in this set only have two children and limit personal consumption because they know the tribe is over carrying capacity (many die of starvation every twenty years). After 20 years, this set has 20 adults + 20 children = 40 members.

Members of gene set #2 are stupid, corrupt, chronic liars, and only care about the present. The mating pairs in this set consume ten times as many resources as the first group and have an average of ten children before the females die. After 20 years, this set has 10 adults (females dead) + 100 children = 110 members.

A famine kills 30% of the tribe. Now, set # 1 has only 28 members, while set # 2 has 77 members. The tribe now has total of 105 members. The fraction of gene set #1 will continue to shrink till it dies out.

What kind of people will be selected? Obviously, it’s people who are stupid, corrupt, chronic liars and only care about the present. The ancestors of everyone alive today was selected by a process something like the one described above.

DOPAMINEIACS

We are all addicted to “dopamine”. Dopamine is a drug produced by our body which makes us “feel good”. We buy things because the “buying” (more than the “owning”) gives us a dopamine rush. That's why we never get enough stuff. It's like an orgasm. No matter how many orgasms we have, we want to have at least one more.

MR. HYDE AND DR. JEKYLL

Deception is common in nature: animals evolved to look like plants, birds pretend injury to lure predators away from nests, and lizards inflate themselves pretending to be more dangerous than they really are, but humans are by far the most accomplished liars in the animal kingdom. Two separate personalities live inside each of us: a Mr. Hyde who makes all the decisions and a Dr. Jekyll who makes all the excuses. Mr. Hyde is only interested in sex, money and power, while Dr. Jekyll is only interested in how Hyde’s decisions look to the neighbors.

Mr. Hyde’s decisions are not based on calculation; they are based on subconscious image comparison, and he will select the choice that “feels best”. About ½ second after Mr. Hyde makes a decision, he invents a socially acceptable excuse for Dr. Jekyll, and then Jekyll tells the neighbors. Unfortunately, Dr. Jekyll has no way of knowing whether Hyde is telling the truth or lying. This makes it literally impossible for anyone to know for certain what Mr. Hyde is up to.

Human minds serve “fitness” – not “truth”. Since every individual is programmed to pursue personal fitness and lie about intentions, no civilization has ever been able to convince its members to cooperate enough to survive the depletion of the energy resources which gave it birth. When confronted with ever-declining resources, the preservation of civilization requires more-and-more cooperation, but individuals are genetically programmed to reduce cooperation. This genetic program sets up a positive feedback loop: declining common resources cause individuals to reduce cooperation even more, which reduces common resources even faster.

LIE, CHEAT, STEAL, RAPE, AND KILL

Tribal society only directs our behavior when we perceive that it is able to reward or punish us. A “collapsed” society has no influence over our behavior. That's why cultures disappear and people revert to more primitive ways of life. Our society has been in the process of collapsing for several years because of falling “net energy”.

Our tribe expands for mutual defense when our genetic drives are satisfied, but it will shrink when our genetic drives are frustrated. We invent excuses to kick minorities out of our tribe when resources are insufficient to support growth for all. Allies can become enemies almost overnight. The collapse of Yugoslavia was a good example of neighbor slaughtering neighbor.

When our subconscious feels our fitness is best served by lying, cheating, stealing, raping, or killing, then we will do so. It’s human nature.

[EnergySpin]

I normally do not comment on the rants of a neo-Malthusian (who probably suffers from neural network re-wiring due to depression), but his exposition about culture and civilization make me wonder about the following:

1) Carrying out the thought experiment about gene set groups to the extreme: after X generations of rape, killing, looting there are no more members of gene set #1 and only members of gene set #2. What prevents them from turning against each other to continue these noble activities leading to the eventual demise of the tribe? Or maybe after they have killed everyone else .... and having ensured the survival of their genes they discover cooperation. But wait! This means that either cooperation is not genetically determined (since a gene cannot turn against its own function) OR that the original premise is wrong (i.e. that there are two set of genes etc) meaning that killing-looting-raping and non-cooperation are not genetically determined.
Not to mention that no one has discovered cooperation/selfishness genes (with the exception of Dawkins who thinks that all genes are selfish).
But then again the construct of "reciprocal altruism" is in dire contradiction with everything else he writes about.
2) There are pretty good reasons for humans to have evolved rational decision making processes. This is a necessary (but this is only by personal opinion) requirement to capitalize on the symbolic processing activities of the human brain.
3) If the rape-looting-killing "genes" are limited to males (as he seems to imply), where are they? The Y chromosome is a pretty small one to accomodate so many genes (or actually a gene set)
4) The dopamine point is not even worth commenting on. Lack of neuro-anatomy and modern neurophysiology knowledge .... plus selective citation of the biological psychologists eager to create a market for "happiness drugs". Maybe big Pharma has the solution to consumerism ... swallow L-DOPA or Sinemet instead of driving to the mall?

[Ludi]

That's hilarious, Mr Hanson. So why were people successfully cooperative for 100,000 years if we're selecting for greedy lack of cooperation?

Because cooperation is the more successful adaptation, ya goofball!

[bart]

Hanson did a great service by collating the material for the dieoff.com site.

As a thinker about social issues, however, he is bankrupt. Like the social Darwinists and many other semi-intellectuals, he extrapolates from biological models directly to human society. The result is a bizarre mixture of Road Warrior, gloom and fascism.

The nice thing about Hanson's approach is that you don't have to know anything about history or human culture. You don't have to get involved with real people. You don't have to feel anything. It's the approach of a smart but unsocial 13-year-old.

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'T')hat's hilarious, Mr Hanson. So why were people successfully cooperative for 100,000 years if we're selecting for greedy lack of cooperation?

Because cooperation is the more successful adaptation, ya goofball!

[Jack]

I would not dismiss Mr. Hanson's conclusions so lightly. I think his views are closer to the truth than most care to admit.

[bobbyald]

Jay Hanson is one of the very few people who really understands the consequences of Peak Oil and that because he understands it in relation to human evolution. The biggest gap in most people’s knowledge comes from an ignorance of basic evolutionary facts. Do you sometimes wonder why PO is not a major issue? How mankind reached such a predicament and no one seems to care? What our future is likely to be like? If you want to know the answer to these questions then study human nature and properly understand evolution. Richard Dawkins book “The Selfish Gene” is highly recommended for those in any doubt.

It is clear from some of the posts already on this thread that many people are extremely ignorant of scientific fact (which evolution now is). Even Richard Hienburg in his book “Powerdown” makes a fundamental error here but a least he knew he was on shaky ground when he "amended" established evolutoionary fact and then spent 2 pages trying to justify it. If you’re going to try to come up with a solution the least you must do is keep within established science. One of the main reasons that mankind wont make it, in my opinion, is because too many people really think man is a special case and different from all other animals – wrong!

For those of you who are struggling with what Jay is saying, and there are a lot of you, evolution selects that which is successful in aiding survival. So if cheating or killing aid survival then that trait is passed on. Why do some people believe in God, magic or ghosts? Because it often aids survival (it doesn’t even need to be correct). Why do people sometimes cooperate? Because it aids survival.


Also if you really don’t understand why Malthusian theory is fundamentally correct and why man has simply created a temporary blip in food production using hydrocarbons then I strongly recommend that you go to Jay’s old but excellent DieOff.com site and have a look around. If you still don’t understand why in the long term populations must expand faster than food production then hang around a few decades and you may see it first hand.

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tinosorb', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', 'I') normally do not comment on the rants of a neo-Malthusian (who probably suffers from neural network re-wiring due to depression)

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bobbyald', 'J')ay Hanson is one of the very few people who really understands the consequences of Peak Oil and that because he understands it in relation to human evolution. The biggest gap in most people’s knowledge comes from an ignorance of basic evolutionary facts. Do you sometimes wonder why PO is not a major issue? How mankind reached such a predicament and no one seems to care? What our future is likely to be like? If you want to know the answer to these questions then study human nature and properly understand evolution. Richard Dawkins book “The Selfish Gene” is highly recommended for those in any doubt.

It is clear from some of the posts already on this thread that many people are extremely ignorant of scientific fact (which evolution now is). Even Richard Hienburg in his book “Powerdown” makes a fundamental error here but a least he knew he was on shaky ground when he "amended" established evolutoionary fact and then spent 2 pages trying to justify it. If you’re going to try to come up with a solution the least you must do is keep within established science. One of the main reasons that mankind wont make it, in my opinion, is because too many people really think man is a special case and different from all other animals – wrong!

For those of you who are struggling with what Jay is saying, and there are a lot of you, evolution selects that which is successful in aiding survival. So if cheating or killing aid survival then that trait is passed on. Why do some people believe in God, magic or ghosts? Because it often aids survival (it doesn’t even need to be correct). Why do people sometimes cooperate? Because it aids survival.


Also if you really don’t understand why Malthusian theory is fundamentally correct and why man has simply created a temporary blip in food production using hydrocarbons then I strongly recommend that you go to Jay’s old but excellent DieOff.com site and have a look around. If you still don’t understand why in the long term populations must expand faster than food production then hang around a few decades and you may see it first hand.

[bobbyald]

EnergySpin and Ludi.

I hope the general explanation that I gave was enough to convince you why your points are nonsense but as I expect that you’re going to persist with your erroneous thinking I’m willing to explain why each of your points are wrong if you want me to.

I do get bored having to repeat the basics though.

[bobcousins]

Hanson is right to think that our behaviour is determined by our genes, but that article is mostly rubbish. He states that selection occurs at the genetic level, then apparently talks about selection of individuals, an error also made by posters here. The nature of genetic selection is really quite subtle and complicated, and it is quite difficult not to think about individuals. There is a complicated relationship between the organism and the genes. Hanson's article throws out some emotional arguments but sheds little light on what is really going on.

While thinking about collapse of society, I initially thought that maybe the reason is that in large groups cooperation is strained too far. If people then start to act selfishly, this causes the system to break down into smaller, more stable groups.

This hypothesis is I think quite wrong. You need to think of it in the opposite way. It is actually because humans are supremely cooperative that we grow into large civilisations in the first place. Because we cooperate so well, we are able to effectively exploit resources. While successful in the short term, this leads to overshoot. Civilisations break down because the underlying resource base is insufficient.

Hanson is following his own agenda to conclude that we destroy ourselves because we are dumb animals. True, we are dumb animals, but we are highly cooperative dumb animals. It is really that we become victims of our own success, we cooperate too effectively, completely the opposite to not cooperating enough.

[bart]

Hi bobbyald,

Yes, I understand evolution, die-off, ecology, etc. I don't have a problem with them.

The problem is that Hanson and his followers are operating with only a cartoon version of these concepts. They then extrapolate into totally inappropriate conclusions.

The archetypal example is of bacteria consuming all the food in Petri dishes, then dying in their own excrement. This "proves" that human beings will inevitably do the same thing.

The logical fallacy is claiming that the behavior of bacteria in a laboratory setting is comparable to human behavior. This error is called "reasoning by analogy" and is not much different than magical thinking.

If one wants to make convincing arguments about human behavior, then one must deal with history, culture, social theories, etc. Biological concepts can provide a general framework and suggest some possibilities, but they are NOT proof.

For example, it is true that humans are facing immense ecological problems, including energy shortages, global warming, etc. However, humans are also capable of creative adaptation and organized social response. History and archaeology give many examples of this, as well as many examples of humans not adapting.

Will we act in time?

That depends on us. There are no magic answers, pro or con.

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bobbyald', 'E')nergySpin and Ludi.

I hope the general explanation that I gave was enough to convince you why your points are nonsense but as I expect that you’re going to persist with your erroneous thinking I’m willing to explain why each of your points are wrong if you want me to.

I do get bored having to repeat the basics though.

[bobbyald]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') challenge (and a simple one) was put forward and you run away ...

[Ludi]

Cooperation has been the most successful strategy for humans during their entire existence on Earth, I don't see why that would change, or has changed, any time lately. This doesn't mean every human will cooperate with every other human, but the majority of humans in a group will cooperate with the others in their group, against outsiders. This works for social primates and has always worked for social primates. Humans have not stopped being social primates.

[bobbyald]

Bart.

I understand what you are saying and you make good points.

I don't entirely agree with what you say but I'll need sleep on it (It's getting late here in London).

[bobbyald]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')ooperation has been the most successful strategy for humans during their entire existence on Earth