Climate change adaptation and the back of the invisible hand

Abstract

A good deal of contemporary work in cultural evolutionary theory focuses on the adaptive significance of culture. In this paper, we make the case that scientifically accurate and politically feasible responses to the climate crisis require a complex understanding of human cultural practices of niche construction that moves beyond the adaptive significance of culture. We develop this thesis in two related ways. First, we argue that cumulative cultural practices of niche construction can generate stable equilibria and runaway selection processes that result in long-term existential risks within and across cultural groups. We dub this the back of the invisible hand . Second, we argue that the ability of cultural groups to innovate technological solutions to environmental problems is highly constrained in ways that are exacerbated by sustained intergroup conflict, inequality and by inherently unpredictable cascades in climate change and human migration patterns. After developing these theoretical points about human cultural practices of niche construction in detail, we conclude our discussion with some tentative practical suggestions about the way that cultural evolutionary history can more fruitfully be used in efforts to remit the climate crisis and contribute to sustainable practices of human climate change adaptation. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Climate change adaptation needs a science of culture’.

Climate change adaptation needs a science of culture

“…For example, investment in urban green spaces has exploded, but meta-analyses reveal that urban green spaces can have neutral or even negative impacts on heat, energy consumption and equity, depending on the dynamics of the communities where they are introduced [ 19 , 20 ]. Urban green spaces are candidate adaptations; their adaptiveness depends on specific local social and ecological dynamics [ 5 , 21 ].…”

“…Caution: Archaeological and historical data remind us that grassroots climate change adaptation does not always produce effective solutions. Because innovations often build on one another, path dependence can constrain adaptation—for example, given existing norms and practices in use [ 21 , 30 , 53 ]. Due to adaptive lag, variants that used to reduce risk may no longer be adaptive when the environment changes, but may still be retained and transmitted at higher rates because they are more memorable or more consistent with what is already in the mind [ 8 , 22 , 24 ].…”

“…Due to adaptive lag, variants that used to reduce risk may no longer be adaptive when the environment changes, but may still be retained and transmitted at higher rates because they are more memorable or more consistent with what is already in the mind [ 8 , 22 , 24 ]. That said, while local cultural variants are not always effective at reducing risk, they can be [ 21 ]—so rather than swamping communities with non-local candidate adaptations or, at the other extreme, leaving communities to adapt on their own, organizations and policymakers can support opportunities for local innovation [ 5 , 53 ]. Cultural analyses can help by offering insights on how climate change adaptation emerges and spreads [ 47 ] and, through active collaboration with communities, by identifying which local solutions are locally effective and persistent [ 54 ].…”