Human evolution actually escaped the trap of this short term thinking twice: first some 100k years ago, when altruism bloomed (see E O Wilson), and some 2500 years ago with the universal moralistic religions.

The group that maximizes their long-term reproduction is the one that inherits the earth.

▲

BartjeD 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's the malthusian fallacy. The winners are the ones that maximize survival. Reproduction is what all the shills did anyway

▲

mytailorisrich 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It is not short-term thinking. It is how we all think on a daily basis, even unconsciously, because it maximizes survival and reproduction, at least on evolutionary scales.

> The group that maximizes their long-term reproduction is the one that inherits the earth.

Yes, that's an interesting paradox in a world where the poorer tend to have more (surviving) children that the richer. But it emerged only very recently on evolutionary scales.

▲

mihaic 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Before it meant the group that even sometimes risked their life for the children of everyone in the tribe. I think you're discounting natural human altruism, which is well studied.

▲

mytailorisrich 7 hours ago | parent [-]

The tribe was bound by blood and reciprocal ties. This works at small scales, which is the context we evolved in.

This is why in a village where everyone knows each other people help each other but in a holiday resort locals screw tourists.

	▲	mihaic 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Religions like Christianity are the natural development at global scale for that. We're losing that scaling in altruism now, but it doesn't have to be this way.

▲

amanaplanacanal 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

On a longer time scale, the poor having more children than the rich is a minor temporary aberration. Their fertility is going the same direction, just with a bit of a lag.