Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T13:36:51.837Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conservation combats exploitation: Choices within an evolutionary framework

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2014

X. T. Wang ,
Shu Li  and
Li-Lin Rao
X. T. Wang
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD 57069xtwang@usd.eduhttp://www.usd.edu/~xtwang
Shu Li
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101 China. lishu@psych.ac.cnraoll@psych.ac.cn
Li-Lin Rao
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101 China. lishu@psych.ac.cnraoll@psych.ac.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Intentional change when viewed as making a risky or intertemporal choice with evolutionary relevance helps us understand its successes and its failures. To promote future-oriented ecological rationality requires establishing a linkage between nongenetic, cultural, and symbolic selections and genetic adaptations. Coupled with biophilic instinct, intentional conservation is more likely to prevail against evolved desires of environmental exploitation.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , August 2014 , pp. 437 - 438
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Dunbar, R. I. M. (1988) Primate social systems. Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. M. (1993) Coevolution of neocortical size, group size, and language in humans. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16:681–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinen, J. T. (1995) Thoughts and theory on incentive-based endangered species conservation in the United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23:338–45.Google Scholar
Heinen, J. T. (1996) Human behavior, incentives, and protected area management. Conservation Biology 10:681–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirst, E., Berry, L. & Soderstrom, J. (1981) Review of utility home energy audit programs. Energy 6:621–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hongmao, L., Zaifu, X., Youkai, X. & Jinxiu, W. (2002) Practice of conserving plant diversity through traditional beliefs: A case study in Xishuangbanna, southwest China. Biodiversity and Conservation 11(4):705–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, Y., Liu, J. & Zhang, D. (2009) Role of traditional beliefs of Baima Tibetans in biodiversity conservation in China. Forest Ecology and Management 257:1995–2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, R. L., Brickman, P. & Bolen, D. (1975) Attribution versus persuasion as a means for modifying behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31:430–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Penn, D. P. (2003) The evolutionary roots of our environmental problems: Toward a Darwinian ecology. The Quarterly Review of Biology 78:275–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, L.-L., Han, R., Ren, X.-P., Bai, X.-W., Zheng, R., Liu, H., Wang, Z.-J., Li, J.-Z., Zhang, K. & Li, S. (2011) Disadvantage and prosocial behavior: The effects of the Wenchuan earthquake. Evolution and Human Behavior 32:63–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridley, M. & Low, B. S. (1993) Can selfishness save the environment? Human Ecology Review 1:1–13.Google Scholar
Shimizu, K. & Udagawa, D. (2011a) A re-examination of the effect of contextual group size on people's attitude to risk. Judgment and Decision Making 6:156–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimizu, K. & Udagawa, D. (2011b) How can group experience influence the cue priority? A re-examination of the ambiguity-ambivalence hypothesis. Frontiers in Evolutionary Psychology 2:1–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211:453–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, X. T. (1996a) Domain-specific rationality in human choices: Violations of utility axioms and social contexts. Cognition 60:31–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, X. T. (1996b) Framing effects: Dynamics and task domains. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 68:145–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, X. T. (2002) Risk as reproductive variance. Evolution and Human Behavior 23:35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, X. T. (2008) Risk communication and risky choice in context: Ambiguity and ambivalence hypothesis. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1128:78–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, E. O. (1984) Biophilia: The human bond with other species. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, E. O. (1993) Biophilia and the conservation ethic. In: The Biophilia Hypothesis, ed. Kellert, S. R. & Wilson, E. O., pp. 31–41. Island Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, E. O. (2002) The future of life. Knopf.Google Scholar
Wilson, M., Daly, M. & Gordon, S. (1998) The evolved psychological apparatus of human decision-making is one source of environmental problems. In: Behavioral Ecology and Conservation Biology, ed. Caro, T., pp. 501–28. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, J. C. & Wilkes, A. (2004) Biodiversity impact analysis in northwest Yunnan, China. Biodiversity and Conservation 13:959–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar