“Evolutionary psychology is the application of evolutionary biology to human beings,” says Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa, in his recent book, Why Do Beautiful People Have More Daughters? (Globe & Mail, Sept. 1/07).

The ideas of the professor from the London School of Economics — in a book co-written with the late Alan S. Miller — are causing a stir because evolutionary psychology tries to examine our behaviour with the same scientific objectivity which we give to hummingbirds, turtles and grizzlies. For example, notes Professor Kanazawa, our human brains have evolved very little in 10,000 years, yet we now live in circumstances vastly different from those of our ancestors hundreds of generations ago. Operating with mostly the same brain functions as cavemen, we have exchanged clubs and stone tools for nuclear bombs and high technology. With many of the same residual impulses of superstition, survival mechanisms, reproductive urges and tribal loyalties, we now aspire toward being scientific, egalitarian, humane and democratic. Understandably, our conduct sometimes falls short of our expectations.

How do we live peacefully and co-operatively in a global world when the hallmark of so much we do is competitive? How do we live together harmoniously when our cultural, religious and political values often seem so intensely different?

Evolutionary psychology finds much common ground — and some interesting examples beyond the basic structural similarities of culture and language. In the caucasian world, men seem to prefer blonde women. (Presumably because they look younger and are therefore “healthier and more fecund”.) Male children in families seem to reduce the likelihood of marital failure. (Apparently because the “male value” of status and power provides fathers with a greater investment to stay close.) And beautiful people do have more daughters. (Humans seem to universally agree on standards of beauty, and “being ‘very attractive’ increases the odds of having a daughter by 36 percent.”) From a purely evolutionary perspective, claims Kanazawa, “humans are naturally not disposed to be monogamous, democratic, or predisposed to love their children equally.”

The result of this collision between primitive and modern values is a tendency for us to “maladapt”. For example, “many women still want to marry rich and powerful men” even when such status and influence is no longer advantageous for advancing their genetic lineage. Many men still behave as if wealth is an important female attractant. Such powerfully subliminal forces, rooted in our ancient past, continue to shape fashions, structure society, and may even be a primary energy driving modern economies. They also determine the way we treat the planet’s environment.

If we don’t understand human nature at this fundamental level, contends Kanazawa, we won’t be able to adapt our behaviour to live sustainably on the planet. The old urges will keep overriding more pragmatic strategies. Furthermore, they are responsible for two common errors in our thinking.

“One error,” explains Kanazawa, “is what’s called the ‘naturalistic fallacy’ — the tendency to go from ‘is’ or ‘should’ to ‘ought’. It’s a tendency to believe that what is ought to be. ...The second error, called the ‘moralistic fallacy’, is the reverse of that. It’s the tendency to think that because we believe certain things to be right, that’s what the reality is.”

“Both,” argues Kanazawa, “are logical fallacies and errors in thinking” causing us to believe we are the world’s most sophisticated species, that our superiority is obvious and our behaviour matches our elevated opinion of ourselves.

Kanazawa is arguing for a totally honest and frank scientific understanding of ourselves so we can find a relationship with nature that is free of destructive illusions. Without knowing who we are and the dynamics that motivate us, we will not be able to develop a functional and sustainable relationship with our natural surroundings.

Presently, we block insights into ourselves by refusing to apply the rigors of scientific examination to our motives and behaviours. When we use our own subjective frame of reference to determine that we are qualitatively superior to deer, mice or frogs — that we are are of a higher order because of our philosophy, theology, psychology and technology — then we blindly justify ourselves, sanction our own behaviour and denigrate the value of everything else.

Evolutionary psychology would argue for distinctions along a continuum of similarities. If we are truly honest, a human adolescent revving his powerful car on a downtown street is not much different from a testosterone-driven buck strutting its antlers through an autumn forest. And a tuxedo-attired man flaunting his status at a cocktail party is uncomfortably similar to a male hummingbird flashing its plumage in breeding season. Cologne and cash are our equivalents of musk and muscle.

But the subject gets more serious when we are consider that these primitive forces within us express themselves as abuse of the planet, a process that is now undermining the stability of critical ecosystems and threatening the viability of human civilization.

If we are not conscious of the inner urges and impulses that move us, then we cannot control them. So we function in a state of delusion. Our political organizations, social institutions, economic objectives, corporate structures, mating rituals, religious beliefs — to name a few — are all at play in a nether-world where we are directed to ends which too frequently serve us very badly. Our power, status, greed, reproductive strategies and territorial imperatives all express themselves in a tangle of behavioral forces that the natural world can
no longer absorb.

Until we bring these forces into clearer focus, we will continue to be the hapless victims of ourselves. Maybe some evolutionary psychology would help.