Humans

On the Relativity of Ethics, Evolution, and Behavior

by Albert Prins

How do we convince people and governments to act responsibly toward the Earth?

Key idea:
Sustainable action requires not only rational arguments, but also emotional engagement and collective persuasive power.

Start:

The state of our planet is a cause for concern. There is structural climate change, in which human activities play a demonstrable and significant role. The question is no longer whether we must act, but how we can do so in an effective and broadly supported way.

Individual versus collective action

Addressing climate problems at the individual level proves in practice to be insufficient. Although every behavioral change contributes, the scale and complexity of the ecological crisis are such that effective solutions can only be realized at the level of governments, and preferably even on a global scale.

Nevertheless, change ultimately begins with individuals themselves. Therefore, it is useful to first look at our own national situation.

In the Netherlands, policy is established through a democratic process. Political parties rarely obtain an absolute majority, which means governments consist of coalitions. New legislation also requires approval from both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This means that political change depends on sufficient public support.

In other words: without convincing the voter, there is no structural policy.

The power of persuasion

The voter, and ultimately the government, must therefore be convinced of the necessity to act. Here we can draw on a classical insight from Aristotle, as described in his Rhetoric.

According to Aristotle, persuasive power rests on three pillars:

Facts and figures alone are not sufficient. Information about CO₂ emissions, temperature increases, or sea level rise may be rationally convincing, but without trust in the messenger and without emotional engagement, it will often have insufficient effect.

The message must therefore not only be correct, but also:

Only then does real movement occur.

Survival as an evolutionary motive

When we connect this with earlier insights, it becomes clear that humans are evolutionarily oriented toward survival. If we want to encourage people to adopt sustainable behavior, we must link this to their own future, and that of their children and grandchildren.

As long as climate change is experienced as something abstract or distant, urgency will remain limited.

But when it becomes clear that:

it directly touches fundamental human drives.

The narrative must therefore not only be about “saving the Earth,” but about securing our own future.

Earth’s balance and vulnerability

The Earth is a complex and dynamic system that usually maintains its own balance. Local disturbances, such as storms, droughts, or volcanic eruptions, are in many cases absorbed by the system itself.

But when disturbances become structural and large-scale, for example due to human overexploitation of ecosystems, that resilience may decrease or even disappear.

This is where the risk of the current situation lies: not a single disturbance, but an accumulation of influences that put pressure on the system as a whole.

The pressure of population growth

An important factor in this development is the growth of the world population. More people means:

To meet this demand, we rely on intensive agricultural methods, including the use of pesticides. This affects ecosystems, such as the decline of insects, including bees, which are essential for pollination.

In addition, nature contains an enormous amount of knowledge and potential:

By damaging biodiversity, we lose not only species, but also opportunities.

The example of the Aboriginals

Traditional cultures, such as those of the Australian Aboriginals, show that things can be done differently. They lived in close connection with their environment and took only what was necessary to survive.

For example, when they used an edible plant, they took only a portion, allowing the plant to continue to exist.

In our modern consumer society, that balance has often been lost. Instead of using nature, there is often exploitation.

Limiting population growth?

The idea of limiting the world population is sensitive, but not without reason a topic of discussion.

As long as humans were just one of many species, the system remained in balance. Now that humans have become dominant, we influence the system on an unprecedented scale.

This creates a complex ethical dilemma.

Countries that have historically been less developed rightly want access to the same prosperity and opportunities as the countries that preceded them. Asking them for restraint without perspective is not realistic.

A convincing narrative must therefore not only emphasize limitations, but also opportunities:

Population control can also be achieved in a humane way, for example through: Given the relatively short human lifespan, this can have an effect within one or two generations.

Possible consequences, such as aging populations or labor shortages, can be addressed through technological innovation and redistribution of labor.

Conclusion

When we bring all these elements together, it becomes clear that the solution does not lie in a single measure, but in a combination of insight, persuasion, and cooperation.

The challenge we face is great, but not insurmountable.

If we want people and governments to truly take action, we must go beyond merely presenting facts and figures. We must tell a compelling story, a story that:

Only when these elements come together does sufficient support for real change emerge.

Our future depends on our ability to collectively understand, accept, and act upon this narrative.