I'm as suspicious of ideologues as you are – they make me feel queasy. But science is important and applying our scientific know how (our greatest achievement as a species as far as I'm concerned) to how we organise ourselves as societies is, I feel, something we should aim towards. We can't ever hope to eradicate the irrationality of human beings because it's the product of millions of years of evolution. We need to work with it.
But as you rightly point out we must always be wary of those idealogues who, like the Nazis, invoke the guise of science to lend an air of respectability what are, in reality, nothing more than their arbitrary predjudices.

Evolution has left us with a lot of genes that can come into conflict with our modern world. I'm not sure we can ever hope to suppress their effect on our behaviour through rational thought alone. Neither do I think it would be desirable – these genes, after all, are the product of millions of years of selecting for traits which have, ultimately, made us the adaptable, co-operative, vibrant and successful species we are. Without our desire for novelty where would our art be? Without our co-operative tendencies would there even be civilization?

I think rather we should be using knowledge of our evolution to plan a society which makes good use of our natural traits and which provides the framework to encourage the beneficial sides of these traits, in order to achieve and maintain sustainability.

As for how we go about this, I'm at a loss.

I haven't got on to The Century of the Self yet, but it's on the list.

It's interesting that you mention God in your comment on the Nate Hagens article.

It started me thinking that the God impulse – also a base, lower brain function that evolved when we were struggling to survive in a hostile pre-historic world – is almost the opposite trait to our 'innate need for status and novelty'. Perhaps it is even a counterbalance.

(My theory here is based on a recent reading of Desmond Morris's 1967 book The Naked Ape which may well be out dated so please take it with a pinch of salt.)

When early humans came down out of the trees and on to the plains in search of other food sources they became hunters. Lacking the speed, strength and endurance of the other predators with which they were competing, the most efficient way for humans to hunt was in groups, using tools. Their primate ancestry meant they were already a social animal but the primate form of heirarchical organisation was incompatible with co-operative hunting. A single, all powerful male at the head of the group would prevent the kind of adult male co-operation necessary for successful pack hunting. Not only that, but in order to develop the big brains neccessary for advanced communication and tool weilding skills, humans needed to increase the time needed for child development and therefore child rearing. This required a strong male-female mating bond which couldn't happen in an environment where one male had sexual domination over the group. So the alpha male had to go.

The problem with jettisoning the alpha-male though, is that you lose the shared alleigance to a single leader that helps cement the group and make co-operative hunting a possibility in the first place. So, to avoid throwing the baby out with the bath water, so to speak, the alpha-male alleigance became emodied in an entity outside the group – the God figure. This allowed the group to retain their shared goals (appeasement of the figurehead) while ridding themselves of tyrannical rule which would have dampened co-operative activity and stifled brain development. The God 'meme' clearly flourished and groups which had it were selected for leading to its later development into fully fledged religion.

Why were groups that had the God meme so successful? Could it be because it encourages self-sacrifice to the group and the pursuit of longer term goals rather than short-term individualist goals (novelty and status)?

Certainly in modern form religion has these characteristics. Most major religions incorporate the notions of all men being equal before God, tolerance for your fellows, making sacrifices now in order to obtain a reward in the afterlife… All of which seem to have sprung from a need to increase co-operative activity within the group and aid its long-term viability.
(cont…)

478lb wheat consumption per person per year – 1.5lbs/day? Must surely include animal feed, nobody can eat that amount.

1.3lbs/day = c2,020 calories

UK Department of Health Estimated Average Requirements (EAR) are a daily calorie intake of 1940 calories per day for women and 2550 for men.

Depends what else, if anything, they can get to supplement their diet.

Adam Curtis' 'Century of the Self' (4 parts) about originator of the term 'PR', Edward Bernays ("…because the word 'propaganda' has 'connotations'…") should be compulsory viewing. It follows the development of his work, used extensively by Corporations & Politics both right up to recent times.

Century of the Self was available, probably still is at archive.org as a free MP4 download. (Use their search function to find it – 4 episodes.)

There's a tie-in with Nate Hagens work too imo. Pretty much the entire methodology of not just commercial advertising, marketing & politics but also much of mainstream news media is targetting a base, lower brain function response. Also effectvely blocking off higher brain function 'thinking'.

The Nate Hagens link again for those that missed it:

"The psychology of resource over consumption"

http://feasta.org/documents/fleeing_vesuvius/?p=84

Thanks again to David for this blog site & his marvelous posts & those of the commenters – a great resource!

I've been on a Curtis binge recently – prompted by many recommendations on this blog. The Mayfair Set is particularly good.

Herman Daly is the prophet of Ecological Economics and I thoroughly recommend his work to everyone interested in a serious and scientific study of genuine economic principles. This article gives a great introduction:

http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/81/the_crisis.html

I’m in complete agreement with your point about the ideological nature of modern economics. I’m part way through writing a blog piece that covers economic ideology (working title of “The State of Economics”), so will get my backside in gear and finish it!

Hawkeye (the Forensic Statistician)

Interestingly Paul Mason (of the BBC?) HERE talking of the prospects for Europe is now sounding rather more like yourself a few months back… wouldnt you say? Been some catching up I think in the mainstream media