Behavioral determinism is physically and biologically unavoidable.

[GliderGuider]

One point of disagreement between me and most environmentalists (OK, between me and most progressives of any stripe) is around the question of free will vs. determinism. I think our cherished belief in free will is largely a self-congratulatory crock.

In my opinion, the concept of free will succumbs to a three-pronged assault.

The first is my own hypothesis - that human behavior (and indeed that of all living creatures) is constrained at the physical level by the operation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in open systems, as expressed by the Maximum Entropy Production Principle and H.T. Odum's Maximum Power Principle. No matter how deep into overshoot and climate change our species drives itself, we cannot collectively take the path of de-growth. that's not because we fail to make the choice to do so, but because MEPP etc. simply don't permit it. Even though that path looks available and some individuals have chosen to follow it, as a species it is simply not open to us. Down the path of de-growth lies the threat of individual and collective death through energy starvation of all kinds, and I don't think the laws of physics are set up to make species suicide an easy option. In order to live we must keep dissipating energy gradients, for as long as possible.

The second prong is probably a consequence of the first, but even if it just sits out there without any underpinning from physics it would be enough to queer the game: we are biological organisms. All living organisms have two fundamental fitness criteria: fertility (reproductive success) and viability (rate of energy capture). The first causes humans to over-reproduce, the second causes us to over-consume. All consumption is essentially the consumption of energy in one form or another. Our overgrowth is the result of a genetically coded life-seeking imperative, ably assisted by our reflexive problem-solving brains.

The reason we are the dominant species on the planet today is that we are inordinately good at both fitness criteria, and exceptional at removing competition, threats and limitations. The reason we are screwed is because both of those fitness criteria are inviolable genetic/thermodynamic mandates. In my opinion, all else (religion, politics, economics etc.) is embroidery.

The third prong is that humans are not conscious, rational decision-makers. Ever since the work of Benjamin Libet 30 years ago, it has become clear that many (or even most?) of our decisions are made unconsciously, driven by emotions and prior experiences and then rationalized post-hoc after they are presented to our "conscious self". Our analytical conclusions ("1+1=?&quot may be generally correct, but our choices of what to analyze and what to do with the results are anything but rational.

So: the underlying physics drives us in the direction of gradient dissipation, and frames our genetics (along with that of all living creatures) to accomplish that goal; our brains evolved to facilitate the process by removing obstacles, threats and limitations; and our cultures abets the process still further by enshrining growth imperatives in normative social constructs - and in the process supporting the development of social systems like politics, corporations, economies and legal systems that all drive us faster down the thermodynamic dissipative path. Marvin Harris' principle of "Infrastructural Determinism" that lies at the core of his anthropological framework called "Cultural Materialism" reveals this mechanism in action.

Because of these three objections, I have to conclude that humans do not, in fact, possess free will to nearly the degree we assume we do. To believe otherwise, IMO requires one to ignore the facts in front of us, and take refuge in a form of magical thinking.

If the overgrowth behavior that is wreaking such havoc on the planet (including ourselves) is really rooted in our genetics and even deeper in the laws of thermodynamics, we are well and truly hooped, and as far as I can tell there's not a damned thing we can do about it. Given observed human behaviour over the past few hundred and especially over the last seventy years, my money is on determinism.

[ZombieHorde]

1. A fun argument, in my opinion. nt

[unblock]

2. humans are both individual and social, and therein lies the balance.

individual motivations are nearly always at the expense of the environment. evolution has programmed us, as individuals, for the most part, to think, or at least to act, in terms of survival, and breeding. I agree with you on that point.

however, social forces throughout history have often acted as a way to conform, inhibit, or entirely suppress individualistic tendencies. this comes through various institutions such as the law and the police, nations and armies, religion and the church, down to neighborhood peer pressure. in many ways instinctive greed is kept in check.

but these social forces evolve as well, to suit the environment at hand. america's westward expansion lent itself to a culture of nearly unchecked greed as there were resources aplenty with "no one" (read: no one of european decent) to keep you from just taking it. conversely, china's famous/infamous one-child policy reflects the limitations of resources in a country representing one-fifth of the planet's population. although this is government policy and not everyone buys into it, you can see that social norms can shift with the circumstances.


when faced with a severe lack of resources, something will have to give. technology will continue to push the limits of what out planet can support, but eventually we will reach or exceed that, and then bad things will happen. most likely, war, disease and/or Malthus's ghost will ruin the party, but after a few iterations of this, social norms will evolve to limit greed and over-breeding.


the real problem with human nature is that we've evolved and learned enough to recognize imminent species-wide problems on a global scale, but we haven't evolved enough for our social institutions and norms to bend sufficiently to these long-term needs. we still need to see dead bodies all around us before we react.

eventually we will get to something stable but not before some really big messes.

[GliderGuider]

3. Yes - we respond after changes happen in the environment, not in advance of them.

Last edited Wed Aug 14, 2013, 02:18 PM - Edit history (1)

Until we hit an external environmental limit, our social structures all encourage as rapid growth as possible, even if we can see that the road ends at a cliff.

Animals stay in balance with their environment by being part of the predator/prey cycle and by living close to the limits of their food supply.

Hunter-gatherers seemed to be in balance with their environments for so long because they were close to the regional carrying capacity and they knew what happened when they went over it. The repeated exposure to starvation gave them the incentive they needed to keep their numbers and consumption in check, and develop social systems to support restraint.

Of course they only "seemed" to be in balance - even H-G cultures caused local extinctions. However, the fact that they lived at the limits of their food supply due to low technology kept that from becoming a serious problem.

We now have no immediate limits and no predators. The outcome of such a situation is obvious.