Politics

超越理性经济人

Sep 12, 2013 Tania Singer

莱比锡—目前，全球人道灾难重重，包括气候变化、资源耗竭、金融危机、教育缺乏、贫困蔓延和食品不安全。但是，尽管无法纠正这些问题会带来灾难性后果，但我们尚有能力应对局面。

不管是受危机打击的经济体还是欣欣向荣的经济体，都无法消除贫困、改善教育等公共品的供给以及公平有效地保持和配置渔业储量和热带雨林等集体财产。与此同时，社会越来越分裂，孤独感和压力相关疾病在上升。现有治理结构无法改善状况。

显然，我们需要新方法。但开发解决大规模共同挑战的有效机制必须从对人类动机和认知的理解的根本性转变开始。

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 22 Comments on this article

Sasha Patino Jan 26, 2014

"Orthodox economics continually claims that it is a science. Yet it continually ignores the dictates of science. A system of economics that ignored the reality of physics, chemistry, biology would be properly dismissed as quackery. Which is precisely what the orthodox model does. It ignores the culmination of physics, chemistry and biology into the holistic system which is ecology and environmental science.

We are not 'homo economicus' - rational agents pursuing financial self-interest focused on consumption. We are 'homo ecologicus' - sentient participants pursuing beneficial interests focused on sustainability.

The goal of an economic system cannot be unsustainable growth based on false financial and materialist assumptions. It must be subservient to the dictates of ecology and the other sciences. The proper goal must (partly) be to demonstrate how to achieve a sustainable equilibrium with our ecosystem to ensure sufficient resources for human development. Any system that does not have this component should be dismissed as quackery. And its practitioners and advocates should be removed from the halls of power. " Posted previously on Facebook.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Flint O'Neil Jan 23, 2014

Simple assumptions will take the profession a lot further than realistic assumptions. Homo Economicus is fine. Does Tania Singer really think her insights are more developed than Friedman's? Imagine trying to assess the impacts of every tiny policy that is obvious with Homo Economicus with some realistic model? It would be infinitely more complicated and minutely more accurate
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
george mansfield Jan 22, 2014

Neuroscience has been discovering how our mind Works, but it also gives us the understanding that it is difficult to change how our brains behave. A new man is imposible, that utopia died in 1989, the desire to make a new man created avenues for tyranical goverments. I believe that neuroscience is showing us that civilization can only survive under strong democratic institutions manage under strict meritocratic credentials, something that is very difficult in primate societies where biological and group relationships have a tendecy to flourish if unabated. It is the recognition of this reality of the human condition, and the humility to follow paths that will somehow save us from the usual corruption and banal practices of men encharged of taking care of public affairs all over the world.
A strong impartial judicial system and relative clean democratic selection of political power is not something that humans in general follow. Only the knowledge that reality will make us change for the better and neuroscience is giving us enough understanding to be able to change people attitudes and give the world a chance.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jose araujo Sep 26, 2013

"The whole is greater then the sum off all parts", Homo economicus aknowledges that possibility and in some cases incorporates it in the models (game theory is an example, synergy, extrenalities, etc)

We don't need to look beyond Homo Economicus, we just need to understand him, what's his interest and what political parties are saying his interests are.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mark Pitts Sep 25, 2013

Ms. Singer misses a fundamental point:
Yes, most people are willing to help total strangers.
But when forced by the gov't to do so (usually for the purpose of buying votes for the incumbent party), most people rightly reject such "charity."
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John McDonald Sep 25, 2013

The author is poorly informed: "Economies ... are failing to eliminate poverty..."
According to the World Bank the proportion of households in developing countries living in extreme poverty decreased from 52% in 1980 to 21% in 2010.
In absolute or percentage terms, this has been the best 30 years for the poor in the history of the world.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Yoshimichi Moriyama Sep 19, 2013

A very interesting article. I agree neuroscience can shed much light, but come to think of this, what a crazy world we live in that we have to ask Ms. Singer if it is genetically and neurologically all rigth to be altruistic! Neo-liberalism is a social philosophy or an ideology and can be better dealt with by history, sociology and anthropology, etc. than natural science.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Stamatis Kavvadias Sep 18, 2013

Some interesting points. I do not agree that "mental training" should reach schools before we apply it to an active social context, and find that we broadly love the result. But, such training --“mental gymnasiums” the author calls it-- sounds much like brainwashing.

If what the author says is true (which I believe), lectures on the subject of solidarity, cooperation, etc. Nevertheless, I really doubt that the mechanisms, to activate "pro-social preferences" in humans, have been studied enough and have substantial results to demonstrate, yet.

It is most likely that global challenges require us to rise beyond the (undelivered) promise of capitalism's economic determinism that "free markets result in all of us being better off". This notion has not taken into account any degree of inequality, or resources and the environment, and it is clear we need to do much better than aiming for "better off". We need to bring specific achieve global targets above just "better off".

More importantly, if we do not frame the general notion of growth as ill-suited for the environment and sustainability, ideas in the context the author targets cannot find fertile ground and become main-stream, or even influential.

When the largest volume of growth is expected from trade and a large volume of that trade is about exchanging the same kind of products among producing countries, without any seasonal shortage but to gain competitive advantage, global and local resources are wasted. Such growth needs to be restricted, and growth should be guided towards increasing (cost-relative) product and service quality and durability.

Forced by the current monetary system of an interest-bearing money supply, the overarching "necessity" of growth without limitations prevails. This renders all egalitarian and environmental concerns infeasible, and limits the scope of public dialogue about them. The false "necessities" of unconstrained growth and a private-risk based monetary system need to be moderated, if we are to address *or even discuss* sustainability, environmental, and inequality concerns seriously.
- Stamatis Kavvadias Sep 18, 2013
  
  The rise of public debt globally, in the present economic crisis, has clearly demonstrated that unconstrained private financial risk is not a secure way of managing the economy. It has public sector and global spillover effects. If regulating such risk is hard, we need to also consider seriously the case of moving such risk, or part of it, to accountable democratic institutions, by re-nationalizing creation and allocation of the money supply.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Asim Rai Sep 18, 2013

Neo Liberal laws on paper are not erroneous propositions, however the idea of the 'rational man' is. This misunderstanding of what 'man' is can severely lead to a crisis that we just saw in 2008 (and ongoing in different forms). I think Tania Singer is correct in merely voicing that we ought to begin questioning the current economic/political status quo by challenging "the way human motivation and cognition are understood".

I doubt this questioning will undermine neo-liberal DNA but strengthen it.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Emel Sep 18, 2013

Brilliant young lady. Good luck selling that to the malignant narcissists.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jerry Miller Sep 16, 2013

We just published a special edition of the Journal of Economic and Behavior Organization (temporarily free access) in which the authors provide their own take on some of the same issues.
http://evolution-institute.org/node/144/
Both the theoretical and empirical data seem to call for a new conceptualization that addresses the human equation as the current model is stretched quite thin on many levels, including the issues you address.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Kir Komrik Sep 16, 2013

A refreshing take on economics, thank you,

"Clearly, a new approach is needed."

There is one and it enables exactly what you've described. Those interested in a long-winded explanation can find it here:

http://kirkomrik.wordpress.com/rule-of-law/global-constitutionalism/

- kk
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Driss Ezzine de Blas Sep 16, 2013

Thanks a lot for the evidence presented in the artcile. Nevertheless, it is somehow a proof of the boundary analysis effect we are confronted to, the fact that the author does not mention the work of philosophers such as J.J. Rousseau. In his manuscript called, Speech on the origin of inequity among human beings, in 1755, J.J. Rousseau traces back, using a logical analysis framework -typical in philosophy, the origins of inequity in the "civilsied" world and the main principles driving the primitive humans. These principles where the selfish principle to assure the self-conservation, and the altruistic concern over other humans in situations of danger or suffering. These two principles are in dynamic trade-off, and the prevalence of one over the other is traced back by Rousseau. His conclusion is that the "current" prevalence of competition, individual property, private rights and selfish behaviour is just one of the possible "Homos terraqueus". And the fact that we got to the current situation, the outcome of a series of aleatory facts, among which the creation of property.

I agree with the author about the importance of neuroscience research, but we shall not forget that a lot of the "hypothesis" we are so enthusiastic to prove, have already been demonstrated theoretically centuries back. We are the victim of a specialized education, that makes the boundary of our opinions too close to recent findings.

Finding alternatives to current socio-economic and ecological development trends needs an more critical education in schools and in science, tracing back to old findings, in order to better interpret current ones.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
P Jacob Sep 14, 2013

An excellent and very timely, essential article. Thank you Tania. You are right on the button. You may be interested in this compilation of articles that absolutely validates your refreshing and powerful approach to the new paradigm we are in the midst of and will shift the collective consciousness for planetary survival. A Culture Separated From Nature Cannot Survive http://sco.lt/81MvkP
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Sth Chn Sep 14, 2013

This article is hopelessly problematic. First, the fact is neuroscience is a new science. At best, neuroscience is in the Newtonian/classical physics stage of its development. Quite simply, when we acknowledge the enormous complxity of the brian, science currently knows very, very little about it. For someone to suggest that neuroscience provides hard evidence for a specific socio-economic model for the entire human species is absurd. Indeed, the very idea that neuroscience validates or invalidates a social model, political order or any human values at all is nonsensical. To say that we are hard-wired for one way rather another is nonsensical. All human behavior, ideas and values are the results of a brain or brains. Social structures or norms don't somehow lead us astray from some authentic or true hard-wiring because they are the products of a brain as well. I don't write in this in defense of neo-liberalism. I don't know what the answer is to the problems the author lays out. But the answer certainly does not involve neurobollocks. Frank O'Callaghan gets this article just right. It is something, anything, to oppose neo-liberalism, and therefore doesn't need to make sense.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Frank O'Callaghan Sep 13, 2013

Breath of fresh air. Anything that opposes the neo-liberal nonsense should be given serious attention.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Zsolt Hermann Sep 12, 2013

Thank you for this beautiful overview article.
I fully agree.
The situation is quite simple, evolution is still going on and we as a species have to adapt to the changing circumstances.
While the self-centered, subjective, self-profit oriented behavior was beneficial, driving human development before, now as we evolved into a globally interconnected and interdependent system the previous behavior has turned self-destructive.
I also agree that it is very important that the necessary changes are done in a gradual manner, willingly, without any coercion and trickery.
People need a positive motivation especially as the changes required, to move from a selfish, egoistic inherent behavior towards a mutually altruistic behavior for the sake of the global whole, before self-interest, are vast, almost "supra-natural".
Such fundamental changes can only be achieved by a clear, transparent, scientific education program with parallel practical implementation, for all ages, gander, nationalities and social layers, so each and every one of us understands what it means to live in a global, integral system and how we can adapt to it in the best, most effective and most pleasant manner.
We already possess all the information necessary to show that the benefits are unprecedented, beyond a safe and sustainable future and human survival we have the opportunity to enter a completely new dimension and quality of existence, through mutual responsibility and a mutually complementing global cooperation.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Marc Laventurier Sep 12, 2013

I'm sure someone, probably some headache-y French intellectual, has come up with some formulation equivalent to the one I happen to have thought up earlier this morning to characterize American capitalism: 'Darwinian by Design'©.
- Marc Laventurier Sep 16, 2013
  
  Was Rousseau advocating Dzogchen to realize his own and society's 'natural' mind? See http://contemplativeneurosciences.com/.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Driss Ezzine de Blas Sep 16, 2013
  
  Read my comment.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ayse Tezcan Sep 12, 2013

"....fairness and concern for others’ welfare or rights." I remember reading about these concepts in Adam Smith's The Theory of Moral Sentiments! He did believe in these human characteristics; however, the industrial revolution and following modern economics hijacked his invisible hand concept in Welfare of the Nation without considering moral standing that he based this notion. So basically, the greedy people without moral compass made the rest of the society believe that human nature only cared for maximizing the corporate profit...
Anyways, I am mumbling, but great points. Thank you for writing.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/77ye3Sazh

超越理性经济人

Subscribe to PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

超越理性经济人

Subscribe to PS Digital

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification