I can't thank you enough for tackling this issue. I wish there were many more discussions like this!! I've learned a great deal from this article. I question just a few minor details. I am earning a master's degree in wildlife conservation. However, my mechanic (who I trust with my life) told me that what I would save in gas, I would suffer in repairs instead. Most car guys do not know to repair these things. Although I would be buying it for the environment, I simply cannot afford the repairs, much less the car itself.

A friend of mine had an article which claimed that the human mind could not "handle" the idea of global warming. I wish I had read that article, but I think that someone not trained in biology may have difficulty comprehending it.

I certainly like your hypothesis better than my own. I have blogged about my idea, that we simply have no respect for wildlife. After the Exxon spill in Prince William Sound, when thousands of birds and mammals were killed, I was surprised at the blase response from the public. Had we right then and there demanded alternative energy and fuels, and had progressed from 1989 until 2008, we would not be in this mess we're in now. Talk about karma.

I would prefer to think that the human mind cannot process this concept. Even the smallest daily changes have been difficult for my boyfriend and I, however we have forced ourselves to make them and in the end our lives have been ovewhelmingly more enjoyable because of it.

Short term rewards or not, I am surprised that we as citizens have not been more active, not only with our lifestyles but also with demanding change from our leaders. How anyone can watch thousands of oiled birds die and live with the status quo is beyond me.

Thank you again for this eye opening post.

Where's the surprise? It's in the human nature to be selfish, so we all do something if we sense it may bring us palpable advantages. Nobody really cares about global warming, because it doesn't affect us right now. On the other hand, sex is something that affects us right now...

I think this article is on the right track but misses the target, as do the comments. It is neither short term goals nor selfishness that dictate behaviour. People (and animals) are quite often very altruistic. Anybody that's read The Selfish Gene should be aware that an antelope loudly announcing an oncoming lion attack to the herd might well be sacrificing itself, violating both short-term and selfish goals (at the individual level).

What dictates behaviour is how the issue affects reproductive success. Resources, including money, do affect that success, both in terms of survivability of offspring and attractiveness (status) to the opposite sex because they've demonstrated they can acquire resources. Natural and sexual selection would dictate that these things should be inherent pressures in the human psyche.

The problem with the environment as a pressure is the 'tragedy of the commons'. It is a catastrophic problem that does not directly affect individuals differently. Therefore there can be no selection pressure for "volunteering" to sacrifice oneself. Nature can neither select for common problems with no differentiation, nor for catastrophes. What pressure could exist for dinosaurs to evolve survivability of a meteor strike prior to it happening? All it can do is select best those who can survive in the environment of the aftermath. Global warming isn't as catastrophic as a meteor, but the selection pressure will be for surviving the changes in environment, not preventing them.

It is only when environmental issues are tied to things that are existing selection pressures, such as attractiveness to the opposite sex or the ability to acquire resources like money, that we'd see action. That's why we see more people change habits when it hits their pocketbooks. That's the way the pressure works.

One other hope is memetics. If we can get a meme to spread that builds off of helping the environment, it might help. For example, if it is considered unsexy to have a gas-guzzler or it becomes a fashion competition. It would have to compete with the "gather resources" selection, but that is achievable. Just look at Prada bags. If we can make electric cars sexy (Tesla Roadster) and not too expensive, then we might see a lot of change even without the gas prices helping.

I think those are really good points, Chad. I'm wondering about a few things that you said. For example, about selection pressure. I wonder if the question then becomes: how much have humans evolved from dinosoars? Is selection pressure really exactly the same for humans as it is for nonhuman animals, or are there other factors like morality involved?

What about people who alreadly live off the grid, who are completely vegan or otherwise give up supposed necessities, for reasons of morality? Also I'm wondering about people who have visited places like Ethiopia and Africa who have recently suffered severe losses from climate change; would that make an impact on people?

I suppose the magic question really is, what would make an eco friendly lifestyle popular. But this fad is different. Doesn't morality play at least some role?

You should realize that you're thinking too far. To determine the characteristics of an entire species, you have to find out it's predominant category and pull out one representative individual. Let's put it this way. How many of the Earth's population do you think have an IQ over 110? And how many under 100? Just look at the typical American, by age categories: Children learn in high school notions that are thought to 5 graders from other smaller countries; teenagers - dude, I went to this party last night, it was awesome!; 25-55 - boring job, wasting time ('I gotta feed my kids'), and that's a good case scenario... Now think of a percentage of how many of the above care about global warming...?