Not Evolved to Save the Planet, Yet Capable to Promote Pro-Environmental Action Leveraging Human Nature

Marco Antonio Correa Varella^1*Felipe Novaes²Ramon Felipe Bicudo Silva³Renato de Mei Romero⁴Paulo Henrique Santos Gonçalves⁵Joelson Moreno Brito Moura⁶Risoneide Henriques Silva⁵Matheus Adriano Ferreira Coelho⁷João Vitor Rodrigues Costa⁸Mauro Silva Júnior⁹Markus J Rantala¹⁰Katariina Elsa Maria Vuorinen¹¹

• ¹Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil
• ²Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
• ³Center for Environmental Studies, State University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
• ⁴Postgraduate Program in Environmental Technologies (PPGTEC), Federal Institute of Alagoas, Maceio, Brazil
• ⁵Department of Botany, Center of Bioscience, Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil
• ⁶Instituto de Estudos do Xingu (IEX), Av. Norte Sul, Universidade Federal do Sul e Sudeste do Pará, São Félix do Xingu, Brazil
• ⁷Evolution, Morality, and Politics Research Group, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
• ⁸Department of Experimental Psychology, Institute of Psychology, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
• ⁹Department of Basic Psychological Processes, Institute of Psychology, University of Brasilia, Brasília, Brazil
• ¹⁰Department of Biology, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
• ¹¹Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Trondheim, Sør-Trøndelag, Norway

Anthropogenic environmental issues, from global warming to pollution, biodiversity loss, and natural resources depletion, require immediate action. Yet, inaction remains pervasive, and pro-environmental psychological interventions have, at best, yielded modest, short-lived effects. In this article, we argue that the development of more effective interventions could be aided by more nuanced discussion around two pervasive misguided assumptions: That human nature is ultimately environmentally friendly, and as such, ideal for effective environmental action when not exposed to destructive modern socioeconomic environments; and, on the other hand, that human nature is ultimately environmentally destructive and as such, presents a barrier to effective environmental action. We critically examine these presuppositions, their backgrounds, as well as their pro- and counterarguments, and argue that both are oversimplifications which overlook the current understanding on biological, evolutionary and behavioral sciences, disregarding its contextual nature. Many native populations have overexploited their resources, yet modern evolutionary psychology does not support the notion that human nature would be inherently unfit for environmental action. Evolved behavioral tendencies interact with socioeconomic environments which can lead to the relational properties of environmental destruction as well as to protection, and the high behavioral variability, interactivity, calibration, flexibility, plasticity, and co-optability allows the development of a wide diversity of sustainable actions. Rather than seeing biological and evolutionary aspects as inherently pessimistic or optimistic per se, we call for more research which appropriately integrates behavioral biology and evolutionary psychology so that we can avoid the above-described erroneous presuppositions as well as related Moralistic and Naturalistic Fallacies. We also argue towards a more nuanced understanding of human nature, and thus design more effective interventions which fit our biological predispositions. Furthermore, promoting education, ethical control and responsible journalism may help to avoid fostering these misguided assumptions about human nature. We conclude that evolved, universal psychological tendencies neither justify inaction nor make sustainability unattainable. Instead, correctly understanding human nature serves as a crucial foundation for guiding us toward designing effective and lasting sustainable practices.