Climate change is the quintessential Tragedy of the Commons1 problem of our time. We are collectively exploiting the world’s resources and producing pollution and greenhouse gases beyond critical limits while ignoring the likely consequences. Climate disasters are already happening year on year, and we may already have crossed critical tipping points2 that will send the climate into a state beyond which there can be only limited remediation. The refusal of the rich and powerful to live within planetary boundaries3 is bringing about the greatest denial of justice in the history of humanity. The likely results include starvation, mass migration and even wars.

This continues despite the fact that the majority of the public now sees climate change as a major threat, as revealed in a 2021 UN Global poll of 1.2 million people in 50 countries.4 Two-thirds considered climate change to be a global emergency, with the USA at 65%, Australia at 72%, and the UK at 81%.

This essay explores the reasons for this disconnect between attitudes and action and attempts to identify cultural strategies that may offer solutions.

First, let’s consider our evolutionary history. Evolution cannot foresee the future, but every change is based upon relative survival, at a particular time and place. When our early ancestors climbed down from the trees and began to exploit the savannah, natural selection favored retaining the ability to make rapid decisions when faced with danger or opportunity. It also encouraged procreation, competition, and consumption of resources, alongside other instinctive and social behaviors.

During the Pleistocene, our brains were upgraded by changes that enabled our ancestors to leave more descendants, largely as a result of expansion in the cerebral neo-cortex. Evolution is glacially slow and our rise is recent, so our psychology suffers from evolutionary ‘mismatch,’5 whereby the shadows of the past still influence our behavior.6

Our ancestors prospered because they developed new skills, capitalizing upon new opportunities. Modern Homo sapiens emerged some 50,000 to 100,000 years ago with enhanced skills in copying, giving rise to language, social intelligence, teaching, and learning.7

Like biological evolution, cultural evolution builds upon whatever has preceded it and is also subject to a form of ‘natural selection,’8 whereby some ‘memes’ or ideas persist and spread.9 Cultural evolution and natural selection acted together as a ratchet, culminating in vastly increased intelligence and creativity.

Altruism too, was a product of natural selection involving language and social intelligence, its selection enhanced by multilevel selection, with competition at the level of groups or tribes.10 Altruism, however, is generally circumscribed by an obsession with ‘fairness’ and discrimination between ‘them’ and ‘us’, presenting problems when we must plan for the distant future, or cooperate beyond the local tribe.

So although we may now be extraordinarily intelligent, we are not always rational, simply as a result of our evolutionary journey.11 Our decision-making often involves emotional reasoning, using ‘gut instinct’, which we then justify by rational thought.12 Our cognition is also subject to a myriad of biases affecting our judgment.13 For example, we tend to discount the future, follow our in-group, and collect evidence to justify our pre-existing opinions. We are further limited by our poor comprehension of large numbers and exponential growth, as became obvious during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Perhaps counter-intuitively, even intelligence has been a double-edged sword, promoting the transition from hunter-gatherer to improviser, and the ‘progress’ that followed. Technological advances like agriculture around 10,000 years ago made surpluses possible; people began to live in towns and cities, to specialize, trade with other groups, and have larger families. Whilst this satisfied the evolutionary imperative of increasing population, it heralded poorer diets, more disease, and greater social stratification.

Cities became centers of civilization, and trade eventually led to global mercantilism. After the Dark Ages, the Enlightenment in Europe revived logic and reason, resulting in the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century. With industry super-powered by capitalism, the exploitation of resources, and the use of fossil fuels, it grew exponentially. However, in the 1850s, two scientists, Eunice Foote and John Tyndall recognized that CO2 produced by combustion could potentially cause a greenhouse effect.14 Even when James Hansen delivered his warning to the US Senate in 198815 the world continued to suffer from collective myopia.

In the 19th century, political systems loosely modeled on Athenian democracy or the Roman Republic emerged as favored political ideologies, giving voters the opportunity to participate in the life of their society. Democracy and capitalism, working together, successfully improved living standards in the Western world, and corporations and plutocrats grew richer. Then in the 1980s in the UK and the USA, conservative politics packaged privatization, deregulation, and free-market policies as neoliberalism, which became widespread. The existential risks we now face are largely a consequence of neoliberalism, capitalism and partisan politics, super-charging growth, greed, and short-term self-interest.

It is time to re-think the fundamentals of democracy and economics to address existential threats and to quieten the partisan rage that is currently tearing the US apart. True political representation disappeared with the advent of political parties, particularly in systems lacking preferential voting, a view supported by A.C. Grayling.16 We currently ignore the fact that the majority of voters sit in the political center,17 and are poorly served by our current system. Similarly, the rights of future citizens and people beyond our borders are rarely considered. Perhaps solutions require movement away from the adversarial jousting between left- and right-wing ideologies, and to seek consensus, and meaningful representation for all.

Extreme political partisanship has stymied climate change over the past decades; politicians are strongly committed to their particular world-view and, in the absence of strong moral leadership, the result is a cynical appeal to the voter’s hip-pocket nerve, and a field of vision extending only as far as the next election.

Furthermore, politicians and the public alike largely lack the specialist knowledge necessary to comprehensively understand climate change. Many are also unwilling to use critical thinking, and instead are swayed by emotive reasoning, favoring short-term interests, profit, and, in the case of politicians, re-election.

Think Tanks and popular movements have suggested democratic models that might better solve problems like climate change, including National Unity Government,18 Eco-socialism,19, Citizens’ Assemblies or Juries,20 or Direct Democracy.21 However few have addressed how a new model could be introduced.

Similarly, our economic system, encouraging growth as measured by GDP, is compounding the problem, by treating ecosystems and social wellbeing as externalities. Alternative models for an economy based on indicators other than GDP,22 for a non-growth economy,23 for decoupling growth from emissions,24 for a Green New Deal,25, and for Doughnut Economics26 are all worthy of consideration.

If these political and economic models are all a bridge too far, decisions on global, long-term issues like climate change and indeed, the nature of democracy itself, could be made by a Government-sponsored independent Council for the Future27 that includes experts in science, economics, political theory, foreign policy, international law, psychology, and ethics. They could design policy on solving climate change, which could then be put before the government or a Citizens’ Assembly for a conscience vote.

Climate policy would be at arm’s length from politics, much as happens with the Federal Reserve in the USA and the Reserve Bank of Australia with respect to monetary policy. Consensus would encourage long horizons and continuity of policy, provide certainty for business, save billions of dollars, and facilitate international negotiations.

It is apparent that our focus should not only be on solving climate change, but should also address other planetary boundaries, and perhaps even democratic renewal, but in every case, we need the means of transitioning from an unsatisfactory system to a better one that focuses on our strengths, and mitigates against our psychological shortcomings.

Making such a controlled transition, without conflict, is the greatest challenge for all these policies. A possible strategy involves proposing a Council for the Future as part of an election platform. The public is keen to see progress on ‘wicked problems’, and could well support a party that proposes such a policy. We may be altruistic, but our genetic and cultural heritage dictates that none of us want to bear an unfair share of the burden. This strategy may still allow us to secure a safe future for our children.


[1] Hardin, G. (1968) The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162, 1243

[2] Carrington, D. “Climate Emergency: World May have Crossed Tipping Points,” The Guardian, Nov. 27, 2019. URL:

[3] The Nine Planetary Boundaries, Stockholm Resilience Centre, URL:

[4] UN Global Climate Poll: ‘The People’s Voice is Clear – They Want Action,’ URL:

[5]  Li, N. P., van Vugt, M., & Colarelli, S. M. (2017). The Evolutionary Mismatch Hypothesis: Implications for Psychological Science. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2018;27(1):38-44.

[6] Wilson, D. S., A. J. Basile and J. B. Smith (2019), Evolutionary Mismatch and What to Do About It, This View of Life, Feb. 22, 2019. URL:

[7] Laland, K. N. (2017) Darwin’s Unfinished Symphony: How Culture Made the Human Mind, Princeton University Press.

[8] Masoudi, A. (2011) Cultural Evolution: How Darwinian Theory Can Explain Human Culture and Synthesize the Social Sciences. The University of Chicago Press. See also Cultural Evolution and Cultural Psychology, In The Handbook of Cultural Psychology (2019), Kitayama, S. and D. Cohen (Eds).

[9] Dawkins, Richard (1989) The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press

[10] Sober, E., and D. S. Wilson (1999) Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior, Harvard University Press.

[11] Camakaris, H. (2012) “Don’t Trust Your Stone Age Brain; It’s Unsustainable,” The Conversation, Aug. 29, 2012. URL:

[12] Kahneman, D. (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow, Penguin UK.

[13] List of Cognitive Biases, Wikipedia

[14] Darby, M. “Meet the Woman who First Identified the Greenhouse Effect,” Climate Home News, Feb. 9, 2016. URL:

[15] Fox, J. “A 1988 Climate Warning Was Mostly Right,” Bloomberg, Jan. 30, 2020. URL:

[16] Trinca, H. “Flawed Democracy Needs Fixing,” The Australian, Feb. 22, 2020. URL:

[17] Deke Copenhaver, “Leading For the Bell Curve and Not the Extremes,” Forbes, Sept. 9, 2019. URL:

[18] National Unity Government, via Wikipedia

[19] What is Ecosocialism?” System Change, Not Climate Change, URL:

[20] “Deliberative Democracy: Citizens’ Juries,” International Institute for Environment and Development, URL:

[21] Schiller, T. (2020) “Direct Democracy,” Encyclopedia Britannica, URL: Accessed 5 February 2021.

[22] Wallis, S. (2016) Five Measures of Growth that are Better than GDP, World Economic Forum, April 19, 2016. URL:

[23] Jackson, T. (2016) Prosperity Without Growth: Foundations for the Economy of Tomorrow. Published by Routledge.

[24] Vavrek, R. and J. Chovancova (2016) Decoupling of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Economic Growth in V4 Countries. Procedia Economics and Finance 39, 526. URL:

[25] Friedman, L. (2019), “What Is the Green New Deal? A Climate Proposal, Explained,” New York Times, Feb. 21, 2019. URL:

[26] Raworth, K. (2018), Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st Century Economist. Random House UK Also available at

[27] Camakaris, H. (2019) A Council for the Future Could Break Australia’s Climate Paralysis, The Conversation, May 15, 2019. URL:


This article was originally published on This View of Life Magazine on March 9, 2021. To read the original article, you can visit their website

Published On: May 13, 2021

Helen Camakaris

Helen Camakaris

Helen gained her Ph.D. in 1975 and worked as a Senior Research Scientist in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at the University of Melbourne, Australia. She studied the regulation of gene expression in bacteria and archaebacteria, which aligned with her interest in evolution. She retired in 2008 to pursue her interest in the nexus between evolutionary psychology, sustainability, and climate change, and has been studying and publishing articles in this area for the past ten years. Her articles have appeared in Meanjin QuarterlyThe ConversationCosmos MagazineNew Internationalist, and Kosmos Magazine, and can be found online under Notes on her Facebook Page.


Twitter: @helenmcama

Facebook Page: ‘The Climate Conundrum, with Helen Camakaris’ at


  • Hi Helen,

    You make many good points. Unfortunately, your description of our political history repeats many false claims made by most political scientists.

    First, the Athenians never had democracy. Athens had a slave-based economy. The slaveowners ruled. That is why Madison and the other slave owners looked back to the Athenians for their model of government. Plato and Aristotle argued that democracy was bad, and that “aristocracy” was needed. Plato argued that philosopher-kings should rule. What that meant in practice was the slave owners should rule.

    There are false claims that republican government is representative democracy. That is not true. Primarily wealthy, white men could vote, and they wrote a constitution to ensure their rule. They were the only ones represented. It was a representative oligarchy. Not a representative democracy.

    I would like to have a democracy, but we still don’t have one. People are still struggling to merely vote.


  • Hi again,

    Capitalists claim they are responsible for better living conditions. Capitalism is a system of ownership, not production. In capitalism, only a minority own capital, and the rest of us must work for them. That doesn’t enhance productivity; it limits it. Most us don’t work as hard as we could because we don’t own our work. If we all were worker-owners, we would all have more motivation to work and an opportunity to develop better working conditions.

    Our lives have improved because of science, education, and workers. Not because of capitalism. The productivity of capitalism is one of the myths used to sustain our capitalist system.


Leave a Reply

<textarea name="ak_hp_textarea" cols="45" rows="8" maxlength="100" style="display: none !important;">

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.