This study aims to examine intergenerational equity (concern for future generations) from a human evolutionary ecology perspective. The extent to which males and females differ in their concern about the welfare of future generations can be interpreted as a product of natural selection. We hypothesized that reproductive advantage is conferred upon males by discounting future generations and focusing on their immediate well being. Given that males potentially have many children, and do not invest the same resources in raising children, it is to their reproductive advantage to focus on the present and their own wellbeing, so that they can continue to reproduce. It is hypothesized that reproductive advantage would be conferred upon females who are concerned about future generations. Females potentially have fewer children and invest more in raising children. It is therefore more to their reproductive advantage to ensure that children survive to adulthood. Using a between‐subjects design online survey, emailed to individuals in the Queen's Community (Students, Staff, Faculty, and Alumni), we asked participants to indicate what proportion of available money ($10, 000 they received by chance) they would allocate to mitigating a hypothetical food crisis (collectivist option) versus to three “individualist” options. Participants were randomly assigned to hypothetical scenarios where the food crisis affected: the participant's generation, their children's generation, their grandchildren's generation, or their great‐ grandchildren's generation. In all four scenarios, we found that males invested significantly less in mitigating the food crisis than females. Additionally, we found that neither males nor females differed significantly between scenarios in the amount they invested in mitigating the food crisis.
Landscape Structures and Human Evolutionary Ecology: space, scale and environmental patterning in Africa