Picking winners
Authors: None The Lancet Planetary Health
Journal: The Lancet Planetary Health (2020)

Natural selection tends to inspire in people imagery of nature “red in tooth and claw” with intense competition favouring genes carried by the individuals that compete the hardest and fastest. There is some truth in these images, but they are incomplete; natural selection works in many varied and subtle ways depending on the particular context, for example favouring nurturing behaviour in certain situations and an individual's strength can be demonstrated by shows of generosity (pro-social behaviour) as well as domination. Furthermore, deliberate selective breeding can favour all kinds of traits, as we see in domestic dogs for example. This is not just of intellectual interest to biologists, ideas about natural selection and notions of highly individualistic behaviours have influenced microeconomic ideas implying for many that markets follow natural principals that largely constrain what can work in practice. For proponents of this view it follows that climate, biodiversity, and social equity must be addressed within quite specific constraints and any other view is generally suggested to be naive and idealistic. In striving to solve societies problems, it can be argued that we are endeavouring to understand the balance between what is desirable and what is possible. In this attempt some people tend to err on the side of the desirable— imagining how the world could be better— and others tend to err on the side of the possible—focussing on the more immediately practical and feasible. Clearly this is a simplification, but nevertheless the prevalence of these viewpoints and the emphasis put upon them in the halls of power and influence and related structures provides an important part of the selective environment in which new ideas, practices and technologies must survive and prosper. COVID-19 has precipitated an acute crisis. Climate heating, biodiversity collapse, and social injustice are all chronic intersecting conditions that have deep roots. In combination they require fundamental and transformative changes within society, however, finding consensus on the solutions is challenging and there is an abundance of different ideas about how to mitigate climate change, reverse biodiversity loss, and reduce social inequality. The point here is that while there are of course constraints on what is possible, there is not just one type of selective outcome. The attributes that prosper are a product of their selective environment and, much like dog breeding, we can select traits that we wish to see more of. Currently we tend to throw new ideas, technologies and practices into essentially the same old socioeconomic and political environment. The very environment which selected for the traits which are responsible for environmental degradation and social inequality. No matter how many good ideas and technologies are thrown into that pool, selection will continue to favour many of the same old traits. For example, many environmentally sustainable businesses are relatively small scale, often by design, with relatively small turnover. Such businesses tend not to be able to invest in costly advertising. So, you won't see many large-scale advertising campaigns for green but relatively low profit products and brands, even if they have substantial environmental benefits over existing ones; think menstrual cups versus disposable pads. This might sound like a modest issue. However, advertising is a pervasive form of messaging in our lives and for many people, their notions of success are tied to purchasing power for certain types of brands, products, and services. Because of the need for high sales volume, many of the most profitable product lines intrinsically involve a great deal of energy and material to produce. This context makes it very hard for sustainable ideas and products to get mainstream marketing except through the modified (often greenwashed) campaigns of multinationals. It is not that multinationals are intrinsically bad, but that there are currently many incentives that push them towards poor environmental records. This kind of selection makes it hard for multinationals to make really significant improvements in environmental standards and for newcomers to outcompete the establishment. This is just one example of a kind of selective inertia that makes change difficult. Unless the incentive structures constituting the selective environment for what society chooses can be adapted to select greener traits, it seems that a great deal of effort and creativity will be simply outcompeted by more damaging norms. This is perhaps the essence of what systematic change requires. Moon-shot initiatives for the environment are welcome and have a place but without the right environment in which to prosper, their impact will likely be small and short lived.