Thinking About 'Future Others' Can Motivate Us to Take Collective Climate Action
Stimulating Generative Motivation for Collective Climate Action ‘Buy-in’ and Achieving the Next Big Social Project
Author: Michael A. Ricciardi
Note to the Reader: the following is a slightly abridged version (an introductory section on the concept and application of ‘Flow’(1) has been omitted) of the winning open innovation proposal submitted to the ‘Alternative to Fear’ Challenge, posted on the HeroX.com open innovation platform in April of 2019 (and awarded in July, 2019). The Seeker/Sponsor for this challenge was/is Tom Riley -- former NASA engineer, now Climate Action writer, educator and media producer. The primary focus of the challenge (addressed by this essay) was/is:
“…identify human mental states that support action for the common good and describe how they may be ethically used to get enormous numbers of people into effective action on addressing global warming. Specifically we mean to develop an alternative tool to the use of fear.”
Introduction:
This proposal will introduce and describe research (by Wade-Benzoni et al) on a common and nearly universal, socio-psychological phenomenon termed ‘intergenerational discounting’ and how this discounting can be halted and transformed through ‘mortality priming’ which can result in generative motivation. This motivating factor may be the crucial mind state needed for collective climate action ‘buy-in’. Following this, the proposal will discuss in greater detail how the research results can be applied in the context of combating climate ‘denialism’ and formalizing collective action towards mitigating human-caused climate disruption. This proposal will then re-frame this effort in terms of the next ‘Big Social Project’ (BSP; a ‘grand unifying concept’, termed here ‘Gaia 2.0’ by researchers Lenton and Latour). This will be follow by a brief overview section on ‘Mechanisms of Altruism and Other Strategies’ and how these may be applied in supporting our BSP. A reference section with links and selected abstracts concludes the proposal.
I. GENERATIVE MOTIVATION Achieved Through Reminders of Mortality
Whether expressly stated or not, whether conscious or unconscious, climate change denialism or pseudo skepticism* (that result in or support climate policy inaction) is a form of ignoring, neglecting, trivializing, and/or discounting future generations and their Life/survival needs. This intergenerational discounting is quite common and even universal among human populations. Indeed, there is currently [as of July, 2019] a youth class action climate lawsuit (Juliana v. U.S.) which is pending in the U.S. District Court system (3) after having been allowed to go forward by the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the current administration is trying to appeal this decision (4) to block (apparently) any national policy on Climate Change.
Academic Research
In 2012, a multi-university team of researchers (Wade-Benzoni et al) undertook a series of experiments to explore this phenomenon and what is termed the ‘intergenerational dilemma.’ In a paper titled ‘It’s Only a Matter of Time: Death, Legacies, and Intergenerational Decisions’ (7), the team reported on their efforts to determine if this discounting behavior was ‘hard-wired’, or, if it could be reversed somehow. In summary, the team carried out two ‘mortality priming’ experiments in which the subjects were given a simple task for each: divide up hypothetical Lottery winnings, and, allocate a new-found energy source. They found that those participants who were exposed to ‘death primes’ (via reading short articles/stories that subtly reminded them of their mortality) consistently gave more of their lottery winnings, and allocated more of the putative new energy source, to “future others”.*
The experimental group was drawn from a pool of 90 people (two thirds of whom were women); a control group did not receive any death primes. Prior to presenting the subtle death primes and conducting the allocation experiments, subjects were asked to complete the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), perform a word completion task, and, finally, importantly, complete a survey which measured their ‘generative motivations’ and which included questions focusing on concern for their lasting impact. Specifically, subjects were asked to rate how strongly they agreed/disagreed with three statements: 1] It is important to me to leave a positive legacy for future generations, 2] I have made and created things that have had an impact on other people, and 3] I feel that I have done something that will survive after I die.
Instinctively, most humans engage in reward-seeking in the present; where we occasionally make charitable contributions (in some form) to others, we tend to do so either for those we are personally connected to, and/or, to those whose "benefitting" we can observe (in our lifetimes). In conducting these mortality salience experiments, Wade-Benzoni et al sought to determine if the primes might make people act contrary to these basic (selfish, or self-interested) instincts, that is, if their generative motivation could be increased.
It may be that we can never fully escape our selfish natures. However, these experiments by Wade-Benzoni et al would seem to indicate that we can “translocate” our self-interest – given the right prompts and primes – into the future such that those intangible future others may benefit.
According to Dr. Wade-Benzoni (writing in the paper’s summary): “Acting on the behalf of future generations can paradoxically represent a dramatic form of self-interest – immortality striving. Believing that we have made a difference by leaving a group, an organization, a professional field, or the world a better place helps us to gain a sense of purpose in our lives and buffer the threat of meaninglessness posed by death.”
So, with these experiments we now have empirical proof that our intergenerational discounting -- decision making on the basis of present benefits — can be reversed. When we are primed with thoughts of our own eventual mortality, our ‘legacy motivation’ is triggered and our selfish ecological decisions can be transformed into ‘intergenerational beneficence’ (even while this may be a form of self-interest).
One final note of interest here: the researchers described their results as ‘counter-intuitive’; after mortality priming, participants were more generous to future others than to present others. However, I do not think that charitable giving to those presently in need will diminish significantly – even if we were to scale-up this generative motivation to the level of a nation state, or even (ideally) a global level. Further, helping others become ‘climate change resilient’ in the course of taking collective climate action is a way of benefiting people in the present.
* ‘Intergenerational discounting’ is related to but distinct from intertemporal discounting – wherein we seek present benefits/rewards at the cost of future risks. ‘Intergenerational discounting’ is viewed as a form of social discounting even as it indicates periods of time between generations.
II. APPLICABILITY of Generative Motivation to Enable Climate Action Buy-in
I am here interpreting climate change denialism (wither en toto as a “hoax”, or, simply denying human causation as the main driver) and pseudo skepticism* as forms of intergenerational and intertemporal discounting. Now, as observed and noted by Wade-Benzoni, there exists a “dramatic form of self-interest” underlying this increased generative motivation: immortality striving. This is a universal form of existential striving (and anxiety) as evidenced by the universality of religious beliefs (more on this later) that offer promises or visions of “life after death”. Perhaps unconsciously, most of us suspect these promises and visions to be at best symbolic and at worst illusory – thus do we strive (in some fashion) for some material immortality (e.g., flock to see “superhero” movies whose heroes are either immortal by birth or impervious to the “slings and arrows” of ordinarily lethal calamities). To restate matters, we unconsciously realize, practically speaking, our best chance for immortality is through remembrance of our lives having been lived by those “unknown others” who come after us. In the HBO series West World, the character of Delores sums up this truth, saying “We live as long as the last person who remembers us.” No truer words have been written or spoken in that medium. How better to ensure this than by leaving a legacy to those future others? And there is one crucial legacy that we can all help in leaving to future others: a sustainable ecology and a stable climate. So, this generative motivation, I assert, is a form of “buy-in” in which the “incentive” (comparable to a financial incentive**) is the ego’s desire to live, and to have lived, a meaningful life AND be remembered positively – as having done something or been part of something important and lasting (e.g., having created a valuable and meaningful legacy for those future others we normally discount).
It might be argued that ‘mortality priming’ is a form of ‘fear-inducement’, however, insofar as we will all die eventually (and perhaps sooner if we don’t save the planet), which is part of the Natural Order of things, mortality priming herein serves as a potent reminder of the reality of Life (which is that it ends in our deaths). Our time here is limited, so we must choose how best to use it (including how we use Nature’s resources and how we leave the planet). Thus we will be remembered; this is our legacy.
So then, how to initiate and harness this mortality salience to prompt generative motivation and thus trigger the climate-action-buy-in we seek?
One simple way is to actually copy and adapt the experiments conducted by Wade-Benzoni et al (and described in the foregoing section) to an “open group” setting (e.g., a “public forum” [see also: ‘deliberative democracy’ (5), and https://participedia.net/]). Such groups could be “open invitational” public meetings for “reimagining” one’s views about climate change -- inviting everyone; a random population sample that would statistically include some percentage of denialists and skeptics. However, it may be wise to keep the stated goals of the public forum environmentally broad, topically speaking, at least at the start. Essentially there needs to be a forum or venue in which versions of these experiments are “performed” or conducted publicly and which enlist participants voluntarily (those who choose not to participate can stay and observe).
Of course, there needs be an effective method and medium of mortality priming. However, asking people to read articles in a public forum like this may be too much to ask and dissuasive to participation. So, another medium/mode of communicating the primes is needed. For example, attendees may be shown a short video presentation in which subtle mortality primes are included, then given the PANAS test (or variation), then invited to participate in an “open experiment about the Future”. Those who wish to participate (in a version of the first experiment) are randomly given a certain amount of money which they can donate to those alive or those yet to be born (say, in the form of a ‘trust’). A second public experiment can be conducted in which a hypothetical new energy source is discovered and which one may use, or leave to future others, as much or as little as one wishes All choices and decision are recorded and tabulated in real time (via a data sorting and analysis program).
It is important that those who organize and steward these open meetings are thoroughly familiar with the experiments and their respective protocols (adapted to these public forums), as well as offering full disclosure (at the appropriate moment) of the purpose of the experiments, that is, getting people to think about, make decisions about, and take actions to benefit future generations (in regards to saving them from the worst impacts of global warming and climate disruption). Converting any new-found generative motivation into climate action buy-in here could mean something as simple as signing up to receive email notifications about climate change policy implementations and tips for developing “climate resilience” (which is a popular topic these days). Alternatively, some participants may wish to do more and take part in a community wide ‘climate mitigation project’ such as identifying greenhouse gas emissions “trouble spots” (and reducing their outputs) or painting their roof tops white, etc. Still others may wish to join politically active groups or non-profit orgs.
Further, each of these open experiments (adapted from Wade-Benzoni et al) can be redesigned as games whose purpose is to encourage generative thinking and discourage intergenerational discounting. For example, certain eco-enviro actions taken that are less discounting can be shown to benefit future others more than other more discounting actions, with the former being awarded more points. Participants could actually be given physical tokens, which they may collect and “cash in” later for prizes, or, which they can “donate” to some environmental organization that promises their donations will be used to benefit specific future others (e.g., providing assistance to indigenous tribes forced from their Amazon rain forest habitats). Attendees who opt for the latter have their donation(s) displayed as a ranked “credit” on a computer-controlled tote board set up for the meeting. Those who do not donate are not publicly called out – their names simply do not appear on the public tote board.
This ‘mortality priming’ could also take the form of a short-length, sci-fi narrative (video or film, live action or animation) depicting two “future Earths”; the first showing imperiled future humans who must deal with severe climate change impacts due to past intergenerational discounting by earlier generations; the second (more positive) future showing a stable climate and biosphere – a world which is conducive to a healthy and happy human populations (and animals too) thanks to the generative beneficence of earlier generations (now long dead). This latter scenario could “end” with those ‘future others’ sending a “thank you note” back in time to this present generation (and artfully “delivered” and displayed).
One key here to enabling generative motivation is to identify realistic ‘legacy scenarios’ that people can easily grasp the importance of and readily undertake in their personal lives (long after the open meeting has ended). People like having options, so, it is important to provide people with different ways they can act now to mitigate the worst climate impacts later…all framed as personal legacies (the immortality striving aspect being ever-implicit) to those who will come after us and whom we will never meet.
*’Pseudo skeptics’ refers to those who remain skeptical (as a ‘mind set’) or in denial no matter what amount of data or facts they are exposed to; not true skeptics which seek better data.
**A financial incentive (representing a literal “buy-in” or “investment” with monetary gain) can, in some scenarios, work well – typically in the case of small group buy-in, as is the case with Zambia’s wildlife refuge/park (8). In the case of a much larger group’s financial incentive for buy-in, this could take the form of a “fee and dividend” policy proposed by NASA’s James Hansen (9) which pays people dividends from fees on continued use of carbon-based fuels – though this will lead to a permanent state of diminishing return as the idea is to make carbon-heavy consumerism expensive and thereby greatly diminish (or eliminate) its use overall. But so be it.
III. The Next Big Social Project for the Anthropocene -- GAIA 2.0?
The Seeker has referred to the need for a new ‘Big Social Project’ (BSP) that will engage the masses in positive climate action – similar to the Apollo Moon mission championed by JFK in 1961 and actualized in 1969. Clearly, combating human-induced Climate Disruption – being a global issue that necessarily will take even more effort by vastly more people – qualifies as a Big Social Project. But what form should this great social project take? In their essay ‘Gaia 2.0 – Could humans add some level of self-awareness to Earth’s self-regulation?’ (10), researchers Timothy M. Lenton and Bruno Latour take on this idea of a grand social project (of necessity) – adopted from J. E. Lovelock’s original Gaia concept (11) and published in 1972 -- and which they term ‘Gaia 2.0’. The original concept viewed the Earth as a living organism that could, if necessary, “heal” itself, given sufficient time and urgency. In Gaia 2.0, the Earth-entity must necessarily become self-aware.
According to Lenton and Latour:
“Earth has now entered a new epoch called the Anthropocene, and humans are beginning to become aware of the global consequences of their actions. As a result, deliberate self-regulation – from personal action to global geoengineering schemes – is either happening or imminently possible. Making such conscious choices to operate within Gaia constitutes a fundamental new state of Gaia, which we call Gaia 2.0. By emphasizing the agency of life forms and their ability to set goals, Gaia 2.0 may be an effective framework for fostering global sustainability.” [emphases added]
The authors place their Gaia 2.0 concept into its proper historical-psychological-biological context:
“Before the Anthropocene, Western societies saw themselves as the only conscious agents in a passive material environment. Today, they must cope with the brutal reactions of living organisms that are continuously reshaping their surroundings, creating in part their own conditions for survival.”
Mindful of maintaining continuity between old and new, the authors nonetheless make a distinction and offer a hopeful possibility:
“Gaia thus establishes a new continuity between humans and nonhumans that was not visible before – a relation between free agents. This understanding offers the potential to learn from features of Gaia to create a Gaia 2.0.”
Despite the foregoing, Lenton and Latour are decidedly cautious about “politicizing” (or formulating political notions) based upon the central idea of Gaia 2.0, noting:
“…the first formulation of the Gaia hypothesis is almost exactly contemporary with what is now seen as the start of the Anthropocene. Furthermore, the examples of Social Darwinism, sociobiology, and dialectical materialisms suggest that drawing political lessons from nature is problematic.”
APPLICABILITY & CHALLENGES
It should be noted that the first expressions of the Gaia ‘hypothesis’ (Lovelock, 1972, and later, Lovelock and Margulis, 1974) were strongly associated with the environmental and counter-culture movements of the preceding decade (of which Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, 1962, became its ‘bible’). Thus was it politicized almost from the start. I will note that in the present time, the American conservative Right Wing* – perhaps for reasons of vested interest on the oligarchic level -- has politicized climate science and its findings and turned it into a "partisan debate". Thus great caution must be exercised to not allow the GSP (whether named ‘Gaia 2.0’ or other) to become “co-opted” too greatly by any one political party or ideology. This may take as much effort to achieve as collective buy-in to the project itself!
The grand concept that is Gaia 2.0 may indeed be a viable GSP which could be the unifying framework for all our eco-enviro buy-in activities. However, as it is a secular and mostly scientific concept (despite its Classical Greek mythology-derived name and its “personification” of the planet), buy-in to Gaia 2.0 could be problematic for fundamentalist Christians and other monotheistic religions* -- who have considerable political power (to obstruct policy and legislation) -- who likely will be told by their leaders that ‘Gaia’ is a pagan earth goddess and that they will be committing blasphemy (or even ‘treason’ against their country, as Christianity is the nationalist religion); this is a socio-religious possibility that Lovelock et al either over-looked or simply could not predict. Seeking to avoid this, ecologically concerned Christian believers -- have proposed that fundamentalist Christians be shown biblical validations/justifications, used as incentives, in order to buy-in to environmental causes. Thus we have the Christian ‘good stewardship’ movement [wherein Christians identify as stewards of the earth dedicated to protecting god’s creation]. Globally, the same must be achieved within Islam – through the use of Koranic or Hadithic validations/justifications -- by its Imams and respected, scriptural scholars (ulama). In Judaism, there exists the idea of bal tashit (“heal the Earth”) which could be embraced by all three major monotheistic religions as these are all Abrahamic religions (although this too may require cautious implementation, due to historical conflicts); perhaps achievable through the method of affiliation priming (12) [see: Section IV] which serves as a prosocial trigger/reminder to persons (even infants) of their mutual belonging to a larger, unifying group identity.
*Some research suggests that religion facilitates “costly altruistic behavior which benefits others” (Norenzayan and Shariff, 2008) within the religious community (but, presumably, by spreading that “cost” over the whole population of said community). Also, religion “binds us into moral communities” and encourages altruistic behavior among members of the religious community. (13) Designing the next BSP to avoid, or harness, positively, the ‘religion dilemma’ may prove to be the key to its mass buy-in among large and diverse religious populations.
Beyond Everyday Politics
In summing up Lenton and Latour’s vision of Gaia 2.0, these final quotes from their essay should suffice:
“The challenge is to support diverse, autocatalytic networks of human agents that can propel transformations towards goals such as sustainable energy, fueling the efficient cycling of resources.”
“A central goal for this century is surely to achieve a flourishing future for all life on this planet…human flourishing is not possible without a biodiverse, life-sustaining Earth system.” [see: United Nations 17 Sustainable Development Goals], “…but achieving those goals requires that human societies exercise self-aware self-regulation.” [emphases added]
IV. MECHANISMS of ALTRUISM & OTHER STRATEGIES to Enable & Support Buy-In for Individual & Collective Climate Action
What should be clear from the foregoing section (above) is that taking concerted climate action steps now – and making sacrifices along the way -- in order to preserve a hospitable world for future humans, is a form of altruism. Altruism towards others is an evolutionary outgrowth of our prosocial and cooperative primate natures (17). Thus I propose to you that any Big Social Project is an expression, on a large scale, of our prosocial/cooperative natures. It should therefore not be enormously difficult to achieve, given the right ‘primes’ and motivations.
Altruistic behavior is still puzzling to researchers from an evolutionary perspective, but on-going studies in neuroscience over the past several decades has revealed fundamental aspects about the nature of altruism – mostly in how altruism is motivated. Research has shown that altruism is rewarding – both neuro-chemically (14) and emotionally (15) – producing a “warm glow” effect in the individual when making donations [see: Section I.]. This happens even when evolutionary or genetic benefits are not at all clear. Such a notion – that there is a “brain chemical addiction” aspect to eco-altruism -- may seem a bit radical or purely “mechanical”. However, modern thought is coming to realize just how extensively our brains rely on such “reward pathways” and interconnected brain systems (such as the mesolimbic system and prefrontal cortex (18)) in order to properly and effectively function as cooperative individuals and prosocial creatures. Further, our brains are “hard-wired for addiction” (Andrew Weil, The Natural Mind). To what extent then, ethically, do we utilize neuroscience-derived knowledge to achieve our BSP buy-in?
We understand that sometimes what appears to be self-less action, may have a selfish motive as its basis – although this may be entirely unconscious – like our environmental legacy or generative motives (which are intended to positively memorialize our altruism towards future others). However, as de Waal and Suchak observe: “Even if a behavior is ultimately self-serving, the motivation behind it may be genuinely unselfish.” (16). Human altruism is a complex and heterarchic behavior.
Not all altruism is extended to all people; altruism is frequently confined to respective in-groups or out-groups (that are in conflict (14)). A more pessimistic outlook on the prospects for collective buy-in on climate action and any Big Social Project may assert that we are “doomed by biology”, that is, that our genes control our fate and that culture -- given divisive influences like religion or partisan politics -- has only a limited capability of changing this bio-genetic trajectory of inter-group conflict and failure to act. However, there is evidence (Bell et al, 2009) that – in terms of the natural selection of our (socially- reinforced) altruistic behaviors – culture and its multi-forms may have an advantage over genes. Given cultural and genetic variation among large groups (comprised of many, competing sub-groups) “natural selection on large groups is more plausible on cultural rather than genetic variation.” (17) In other words: if we do it right, evolution should favor this new cultural enterprise (i.e., the BSP).
Affiliation Priming
We have discussed “mortality priming’ and here describe another type – ‘affiliation priming’ (12) – in which specific prompts/primes (like group photos) trigger feelings of belonging to the same group as another which may have some applicability to our grand goal via encouraging altruism towards strangers (in the form of taking climate action to benefit future others), or, it could be a cautionary concept that could back-fire (=> “Us versus Them”). But let us say that with good management practices and better psychological (“persuasive”) design, that we can extend affiliation priming methods to larger and ever-more-inclusive groups. In doing so, it should not be too insurmountable a challenge to enlist cooperative behaviors in members of a community towards a BSP (especially between like groups – those sharing common values, beliefs, concerns and goals, even if not blood relations). Where there are no commonalities, it becomes necessary to explore and identify other possible affiliations (identities) in order to adapt these for priming purposes. One of the most effective ways to achieve this is through story-telling; whether in film, theatre, literature – even comic books or cartoons (19) – all human societies utilize the arts and artistic/expressive media to convey the behaviors and morals that are most desired, most valued, by that society. [see: Section II.] By such means (art, literature, music, theatre, etc.) viewers can come to recognize their membership in a larger group – their affiliation with each other – that they had not previously recognized.
Cognitive biologists Maturana and Varela, writing in The Tree of Knowledge, said: “The only possibility for co-existence is to opt for a broader existence.” If I may, I would here substitute the word ‘co-existence’ with social cooperation or altruism, and the word ‘existence’ with identity or affiliation.
V. EPILOGUE
Human society has faced other environmental challenges in the past – from stopping acid rain to shrinking the “ozone hole” – and been successful; tackling this climate change of our own making will take a greater and sustained effort. And, we can likewise be successful. The 20th Century cleric-philosopher Teilhard de Chardin observed in his classic interdisciplinary book The Phenomenon of Man that human survival comes down to a “choice between love or suicide”. In more pragmatic form: can we at least have collective climate action buy-in and social cooperation (on a large scale) if not actual “love”? Cautiously, I think the answer is “yes”. And, if this affirmative possibility is not yet clear – given the foregoing evidence -- we must make it clear. Consider the alternative.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
References / Source Links:
(2) https://www.livescience.com/32620-how-do-athletes-get-in-the-zone-of-peak- performance.html
(3) https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/juliana-v-us [note: case dismissed by 3 judge panel, January 17; case will be appealed to the full U.S. Federal District Court panel].
(5) ‘The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation’, John S. Dryzek et al (University of Canberra); Science, 15 March 2019; pp. 1144-1146.
(6) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Games_Book
(7) ‘It’s Only a Matter of Time: Death, Legacies, and Intergenerational Decisions’. Wade-Benzoni et al, Psychol Sci. 2012 Jul 1;23(7):704-9. doi: 10.1177/0956797612443967. Epub 2012 Jun 12. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22692338
(8) https://news.mongabay.com/2019/04/community-buy-in-stamps-out-elephant-poaching-in-zambian-park/
(9) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend [retrieved: June, 2019]
(10) GAIA 2.0 – Could humans add some level of Self-awareness to Earth’s self-regulation? Insights – Perspectives; article by Timothy M. Lenton and Bruno Latour. Science 14 September, 2018; pp. 1066-1068.
(11) J.E. Lovelock, Atmos. Environ. 6, 579 (1972)
(12) Eighteen-Month-Old Infants Show Increased Helping Following Priming with Affiliation [Harriet Over and Malinda Carpenter, Psychological Science 2009 20: 1189 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02419.x https://pss.sagepub.com/content/20/10/1189
(13) Beyond Beliefs: Religions Bind Individuals Into Moral Communities, J. Graham, J. Haidt, Pers Soc Psychol Rev 1 February 2010: 140-150.
(14) The Neuropeptide Oxytocin Regulates Parochial Altruism in Intergroup Conflict Among Humans, De Dreu et al, Science, 11 June, 2010, pp. 1408-11
(15) Neural Responses to Taxation and Voluntary Giving Reveal Motives for Charitable Donations, W. T. Harbaugh et al, Science 15 June 2007: 1622-1625. [DOI:10.1126/science.1140738]
(16) Prosocial primates: selfish and unselfish motivations, Frans B. M. de Waal and Malini Suchak, Phil Trans R Soc B, 12 September 2010: 2711-2722.
(17) Culture rather than genes provides greater scope for the evolution of large-scale human prosociality, A. V. Bell et al, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 20 October 2009: 17671-17674.
(18) Human fronto-mesolimbic networks guide decisions about charitable donation, J. Moll et al, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 17 October 2006: 15623-15628.
(19) CARTOON: Joel Pett (USA Today, 2014) https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FeX35-ui8AM/UWXsTcNKKOI/AAAAAAAADlU/sM2eYYIk2SA/s1600/Joel+Pett.jpg