Representative Ingroup Democracy: DISCUSSION DRAFT

Katariina E.M. Vuorinen, Jiska van Dijk, Tuva B. Munkeby and Terje Bongard
(This is a preliminary shortened version, a draft , not language corrected and more politically centered
than our scientific manuscript in prep.)

Introduction

By using natural goods and services at a rate that exceeds earth’s renewal and recycling capacity, current fossil
fuel driven capitalistic economy is functioning as the main driver behind environmental degradation [1].
Despite several suggestions, realistic political alternatives for bringing the ecocatastrophe under control are
hard to find [2-4]. The more conservative alternatives highlight the importance of market’s invisible hand and
free trade [4, 5], welfare capitalism emphasizes state interventions to correct environmental market failures,
whereas the more progressive parties and environmental movements usually praise for the moral ecological
responsibility of each individual. Revolutionary Marxist parties are few and small. Apart from a few minor
success stories, reforms and conferences have had little or no impact on overall degradation of ecosystems. In
this article, we explain this failure by using evolutionary human characters, and suggest a democratic
alternative for a political and economic structure to solve environmental problems. The Representative Ingroup
Democracy model (RID) is taking into account the biological restraints, possibilities and positive enablers of
human behaviour [6].

The knowledge base of the ongoing environmental destruction is vast: The IPBES and IPCC reports are stating
that humanity faces an uncertain and disturbingly dangerous near future [7-9]. Since the Millennium
Assessment, The Living planet Index and the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) initiatives,
the knowledge on ecocatastrophes and its effects on human wellbeing have increased [10-13]. Earth overshoot
day, i.e. the day where production and consumption exceeds earth’s renewal rate comes earlier every year. In
2020, Norway reaches this limit on April 18th 1. From this date on, our country consume our children’s
livelihood. Alas, the money value delusion masks the real world of real values. The Norwegian oil fund is one
of the largest investment funds in the world, and is looked upon as a secure future for Norway. Nevertheless,
it is not edible, as this statement suggests:

«Norway’s petroleum fund is now so big that we can subsist on it forever» (Torgeir Micaelsen, labour party,
at the time chairman of the finance committee of the Norwegian parliament, speaking on national TV).

In a world of increasing shortage, billions lose their value. Ecosystem Services (ES; also referred to as Nature's
Contributions to People, i.e. NCP [14]) are not only resources for food and natural commodity production, but
also uphold fundamental human living conditions in general, like vitally necessary resilience towards all forms
of pests and diseases, and recycling of human waste. In short, the complete global household of organic and
inorganic matter is dependent on functional ecosystems.

Within novel social and cultural arenas, humanity faces global problems never seen before.

Global capitalism is now investing in “green” energy. It has been suggested that “decoupling environmental
pressure from economic growth”, i.e. “green growth” and circular economy could alleviate the problem, but
the realism of these initiatives is not viable [1, 15-21]. Investments need profit, or they will find other arenas.
The documentary “Planet of the humans” (2020) provides disturbing examples of how profit motives have
made new forms of industrial over-exploitation out of solar, wind and biofuel. Burning of trees in hundreds of
fuel plants in the US is one example of why decoupling as a concept is not consistent with a continually profit-
driven economy 2 [1, 3, 15-20, 22, 23]. Within capitalism, no energy production is sustainable or green: All
forms of energy will be used to increase profit through production and consumption. Decoupling has been
mainly discussed in the context of national and local infrastructure demands in order to steer private ownership
towards sustainable technology, expected to lead to environmental friendly production [23, 24]. Mechanisms

1
https://www.overshootday.org/newsroom/country-overshoot-days/
2
https://planetofthehumans.com/

1
that could be able to steer global finance, stock exchange and investments are nevertheless difficult to see, and
if present, are surely losing the battle. The speed of stock trades are now so fast that there is not possible to see
how any democratic control could be functional. On the background of new algorithms and powerful computer
handling, Patterson (2013) writes: “At the end of WWII, the average holding period of at stock was four years.
By 2000, it was eight months. By 2008 it was two months. And by 2011 it was twenty-two seconds, at least
according to one professor’s estimates” [25]. Investor creativity is constantly coming up with new ideas to
make profit faster, and, consequently more difficult to track and control. Mazzucato (2019) writes: ”The ‘short-
termism’ which Keynes anticipated is encapsulated in index fund pioneer John Bogle’s concept that
institutional investors rent the shares of the companies they invest in rather than take ownership for the long
term. Consider the increased turnover of domestic shares: according to the World Federation of Exchanges,
which represents the world’s publicly regulated stock exchanges, turnover of domestic shares in the US was
around 20 per cent a year in the 1970s, rising steeply to consistently over 100 per cent a year in the 2000s.
Turnover measures how often a share changes hands and is calculated by dividing the number of shares traded
in a given period by the number of shares outstanding in the same period. Increasing turnover is a sign that
institutional investors’ sights were trained on the short-term movement of stock prices rather the intrinsic,
long-term value of the corporation. High turnover can be more profitable for institutional investors than
passive, long-term holding of shares. It should also be said that the short-termist behaviour of institutional
investors reflects mounting pressure over the last four decades from clients who, expecting quick results and
with a dislike of surprises, quickly withdraw their funds when disappointed.” [26]. On top of that, nations tend
to protect their own economies and investors from global competition by preventing national taxes and
environmental restrictions. Investors are therefore logically tempted to flag out to countries with less
restrictions and taxes, like Cayman Islands. In the US, the present Trump-administration is now lowering
environmental standards in order to make it cheaper to pollute and thereby increase American companies profit
3
.

Knowledge about ecocatastrophes and its detrimental effect on people has had very limited effects on
individual behaviour and the rate of environmental degradation [8]. The observation that neither individuals,
societies nor private businesses or authorities substantially change behaviour or economy towards real
sustainability, has been subject to extensive research and many speculations [27-31]. We now know that the
background of capitalistic behaviour, and subsequently the current ecological crises, are founded on basic
structures of evolved human behaviour. The phenomenon of continuing overexploitation in an uncontrolled
economy is not surprising when considering the evolved mind. Humans did not evolve emotions to respond to
large, global threats of such magnitudes as we see today. In our evolutionary past, refraining oneself from
consuming a resource, if others were free to consume the same resource, was not fitness beneficial behaviour.
Not necessarily because of hunger, but also in a wider perspective of competition. Alas, the saying that own
happiness is good, but others' misfortune is not to be despised is a human strategy that is common, but
reluctantly recognised. To act this way is not something to be proud of, but tendencies to overconsume, collect
more than necessary, and conspicuous consumption are seen in every culture through all times. Through sexual
selection, the human mind is shaped towards showing off abundance and lush lifestyles. We feel these urges
from the first day we can remember. Similarly, trying to win debates, fight over truth, generally manifests itself
in all human communication, and the success of post-truth media is thriving on opinions of all kinds.
Specifically, in debates over climate change and environmental degradation, we observe the human urge to
gain individual status by winning debates, focusing on status rather than open-mindedness to achieve
knowledge or results. Through the last decennia of behavioural research, it has become clear that the lack of
individual behavioural change towards sustainability fit into a pattern of human evolution that must be socially
controlled. Fighting over what is true and what isn’t true manifests itself in the success of post-truth media.
The science behind evolved human behaviour is consistent and sound, but still not known to most of the public
or social scientists [32-43]. Nevertheless, it is not necessary to know the science behind. We only need to
acknowledge human feelings and urges as real.

The principles that shaped humans to be short-sighted resource users are clearly seen in the phenomenon called
the Tragedy of Unmanaged Commons, for which resources free to be exploited tend to get overconsumed by
individuals, investors, groups, companies and nations [44, 45]. In short, evolved behaviour is the urges and
incitements that we feel are difficult to consciously shut down. Even though more consumption today often

3
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/03/how-trump-is-changing-science-environment/

2
reduce biological fitness, the underlying urges are still functioning at the core of our behaviour. Capitalism fits
like a glove to these incitements. The money value reward forms the basis for economical behaviour, and is
the human driver of both global capitalism and overconsumption. Through these emotions, creation of wealth,
development and economic success in production and consumption inevitably lead to ecological crises [46-
57].

We therefore need to understand, acknowledge, and find ways to control ourselves. This can be done through
a complete democracy consisting of ingroups. Here we introduce a democratic model based on evolved
behaviour that will unleash the moral and good human, by curbing and controlling the problematic sides, in
order to avoid further environmental degradation. How can we control egoism, ethnocentrism and prevent an
uncontrollable economic competition that is a threat to both environment and our own basis of existence?

Programmed biological functions and evolutionary roots of human universal behaviour have been described
and discussed for several decades. Experiments with unfathomable importance for a discussion of human
behaviour took place in the 1980s. Research showed that consciousness only constitute about one millionth of
our brain cell activity. On top of that, “we” are alerted half a second after a decision is made [58]. Recent
results have confirmed and expanded these findings [59, 60]. Such findings are educating, and are crucial for
explaining human behaviour. It is up to each and every one of us to deal with such disturbing results that
intrude our self-importance and belief of Cartesian control.

Such scientific results are clarifying, but not necessary for the RID model to work. We act accordingly, and
we don’t need to know why.

Behavioural explanations are, in biology, divided into proximate and ultimate reasons. The proximate are the
observed functions, the descriptions of concrete actions. The ultimate reasons are the answers to the “why”
questions: What were the evolutionary benefits from acting this way, i.e. did the behaviour lead to more
descendants (increased fitness) in the past [61]? Scientific results from the last decades have shown that
universal human tendencies readily fall into a pattern of natural and sexual selection, representing evolutionary
advantages in the past [62-66]. Emotions and incitements are extremely complex brain systems that do not
disappear in a few thousand years. Human behavioural ecology, evolutionary psychology and related research
typically pose questions related to ultimate reasons behind human behaviour, whereas social sciences are
dedicated to proximate, usually culture-related reasons [61, 67-70]. Both of these views are necessary in that
they complement each other, and we are therefore now able to take the first real step towards bridging the gap
between them. The analytic values of individual behavioural differences caused by strategic choices triggered
by different situations are emerging on many arenas [71]. The results are opening revolutionary consequences
for social sciences, which should respond with less resistance [40, 41, 63, 72]. Alas, debates on these matters
often ends in claims of biological determinism, which misses the point by introducing a straw man that instead
illustrates the “human fight over truth” [42]. Naturalistic fallacies (“what is natural is good and should be
right”) and teleology (“there is a purpose of behaviour that has a higher, rational meaning”) are not justified
from the scientific results. Evolution has no direction, or higher meaning, other than the logic of fitness itself.
Such straw men are therefore obscuring fruitful discourse. Not only does cultural environment modify
behaviour, but indeed knowledge of evolved incitements in itself, and why changes are difficult are expected
to have behavioural impact. Human behaviour is the result of environmental impact over time. For a very long
time, the environment was relatively stable, and led to evolved incitements reacting to this environment.
Evolved drivers are found in the brain and are inherited, but the strategic reactions to each driver may take
many different forms. In psychology, strategic differences between individuals are described through many
models, of which The Big Five has shown to be a simple and useful one [73]. As previous painful paradigm
shifts through history have shown, established positions are defended with strength and conviction, which in
itself bears all marks of being a human universal evolved incitement [74, 75]. Some thirty years ago, a fierce
battle between established social science and human behaviour researchers, called sociobiologists, was fought
in the US. The battle did unfortunately not reduce the gap between them [42]. Ironically, human behaviour
research predict why paradigm shifts are demanding challenges [40, 76]. To either defend the establishment,
or accept new knowledge, are the two ultimate strategic choices rooted in the open and obscured fights over
status. Status is at the heart of mate choice, the central driver of evolution [63, 64]. Here we see one central
misunderstanding between the two sides: Strategies forming human behaviour are ultimately based on evolved
drivers, incitements and emotions.

3
This means that every thinkable form of human behaviour, individually and/or socially, is not possible. This
lead to a hard-lived misconception that behaviour is claimed to be genetically determined. At least for the last
decades, no behavioural ecologist have said that. On the contrary, it is shown that all behavioural strategies are
necessarily and obviously triggered by the environment. But, there are limits to variation: This is why we
observe that behaviour in ingroups and outgroups are totally different, and precisely why the RID model is
interesting. [33].

In the last decades, a revolution in human behavioural science has taken place [40]. Together with the
discoveries of the concrete brain positioning of universal emotions and incitements, a channel has opened that
can unite social and natural science [33]. This bridge is built on elements from evolutionary psychology, game
theory, human behavioural ecology, sociology, anthropology and political science [77-80]. Together they form
a powerful analytical tool that not only proximately describe, but also ultimately understand and predict,
individual and societal human behaviour.

Environmental movements are generally focusing too little on capitalism and the economic drivers. Activists
often believe that individual knowledge will change economy and society; if we “wake up” we will be prudent.
We now know from evolved human behavior that there is no automatic prudence response to be expected.
Humans are capable of many forms of behavior, but strategies are very dependent on the situation, the
environment: It is the context that trigger if we are generous or egoistic, altruistic or nepotistic. As a result,
environmental movement solutions are generally in the form of wishful thinking; let’s do good. As we will
argue here, such behavior are indeed possible, but for a majority, only in the context of social control: The
ingroup situation.

A growing number of papers discussing democracy, governance terms and theoretical concepts are being
produced, without significant results when it comes to concrete solutions to halt economic environmental
degradation. In this paper, we aim at filling in this gap by proposing a political model, the Representative
Ingroup Democracy (RID), that takes into consideration our species’ history that has shaped individual and
collective behavioural limitations and possibilities. We discuss how these perspectives concern ingroup
democracy, and how collective democracy could be the basis of a sustainable economy [81-83]. We argue that
by including evolved human behaviour, fruitful insight and answers can be found [32, 84, 85]. It is production,
consumption and just distribution of livelihood that needs to be controlled. A political changing process must
avoid as much controversies as possible. We therefore propose to leave out all other opinions and human
interests, like religion, cultural expressions and political views other than those concerning capitalism.
Discussions should focus on the ultimate goal: How do we control production, consummation and just
distribution in an economy with a sustainable purpose? Even the concept of sustainability itself has been the
subject of opinions and debates, which we will try to simplify in our model [86]:

We need to eat, drink and live within global boundaries, with a hopeful perspective of doing so for millennia
to come, not for only a decade or two.

4
The RID Model

Figure 1. The RID model, applied for a society of Norwegian size. Page 299 in [76].

5
We are now living and operating in large groups, societies, where close contacts are weak and consequently
lead to weak social control. Without getting told or being observed by friends or relatives, adopting strategies
of egoism and nepotism is right at hand [46-55]. Not to be watched and held responsible opens up for doing
whatever we like. The “greed is good” in capitalism thrives on such outgroup incitements 4.

Inner moral and altruistic behavior are relatively weak forces in outgroups. But, altruism, trustworthiness and
generosity are publicly either paid homage to, or mocked as an alternative loser strategy, which is exactly the
reason why ingroups will work. Global capitalism is thriving on human universal individual behavior in
outgroups. Each investor acts for his or her own benefit to increase profit. The lack of closeness to competitors
makes such behavior easy. Greed is good is an outgroup strategy.

Within smaller groups consisting of close communicating individuals, it feels uncomfortable to win over or
step on others. Also those who are not present. Scrutinized by fellow ingroup members, egoism is curbed [87-
92]. This behavior has its deep roots in human evolutionary history, all the way back to sexual selection [36,
44, 93, 94]. Under social control where collaboration is rewarded and where greed and egoism lead into social
ostracism, it has been evolutionary beneficial to act unselfish, whether real or fake. These mechanisms have
been extensively studied by game theorists, referred to in the introduction. Human universal ingroup behavior
include for example tit-for-tat decisions, kin selection mechanisms and moderating factors like being watched
by peers. Cross-culturally, humans express desire for showing generosity and fear for not acting generous, in
accordance with the fact that generosity is considered attractive [63, 64]. These traits fit not only sexual
selection, but also the Handicap principle [95-98].

With increasing number of members, from close family via tribal size to outgroups, behaviour gradually
change to outgroup strategies from cooperation and social control to less altruistic strategies like egoism and
free-riding [99-105]. The RID model is constructed to take advantage of the ingroup dynamics and these
controlling mechanisms. This form of democracy can stabilise large societies and alleviate the issues typical
for the current unsustainable societies. The evidence base for rigidity and functionality of ingroups based on
evolved, human universal drivers and incitements is increasing, and range from anthropological cross-cultural
observations to functional Nuclear Magnetic Resonance brain readings of the emotions involved [90-92, 106-
125].

Figure 1 illustrates how this will look like in a country of Norwegian size, based on 25 members per ingroup.
The ingroups on each level are functioning in accordance with what is known as Dunbars Number, so the
number of ingroup members may well be higher than 25, but the strength of ingroup control diminish as size
increases [99-103]. There are about 4 million persons in Norway over 18 years, which is the age of majority
in Norway. In our example with 25 per group, this will yield approximately 160 000 ingroups. Number of
members in a group might be higher, up to 40-50, in which case the number of ingroups will be smaller in all
levels.
All societal activity, production, services, education, health care personnel, pensioners, students, farmers, the
unemployed, in short every person over 18 will be included in a group that will constitute a democratic
governing system. From each group, an elected representative, called a shop steward or a trustee, enters the
next level to be part of a new ingroup, where he/she is presenting the views of the lower ingroup. Depending
on type of work, geographical locations of members and community sizes, the number of ingroup members
may subsequently vary. In order to maintain democratic principles, a person can only be member of one
ingroup. So, in the case of a person having more than one job or function, he or she must decide which group
to enter. In order to maintain a just democracy, a trustee in a higher level will have the exact number of votes
as the number of people in the groups below he or she represents. This will secure that each member of the
society is equally represented with one vote, regardless of ingroup size.
By repeating this process four times, the Norwegian society of about 5 million will be governed by a
hierarchical democracy of about 150 000 elected trustees, about 4 % of the population. Note that a nation of
125 million people will only need one more level because of the exponential factor (5 x 25 = 125). One more
level exceed 1000 million, and will be sufficient for India or China. It might perhaps be a better solution to let
states and provinces in these large countries govern themselves, and instead cooperate within the nation as in

4
Of course this only relates to others, not to you and me… “speak for yourself. I am not like this”. The value of this
irony is an eyeopener, and the evolved background for it is logically understandable.

6
the US. As we will argue, many of the reasons for conflict disappear when competition for profit is removed.
On a global scale, cooperation in the UN and their suborganizations will continue for all nations, even in
situations where some nations have turned to RID governance.
Openness and mandate for each trustee are following democratic rules: Each group will constitute themselves
through the universal principles of how a well-functioning organisation is governed. Einar Gerhardsen, the
prime minister responsible for the basic structure of Norwegian social democracy, wrote in 1931 a booklet
called “The Trustee” (“Tillitsmannen” in Norwegian: [126]). His description of how a democratic group should
function in order to be just and competent is timeless, and follows human behavioural strategies in an ideal
way. The principles described in his book is still used for running every well-functioning organization [127].
Free speech, free submitting of proposals, minutes of meetings and election of a representative that will
represent the group view with or without bound mandate are structures and strategies that control both
unwanted and wanted human universal behaviour. Not only what, but also in which group level specific
decisions are to be taken, will in itself be democratically decided. If lower levels experience a top-down
overrun, they can simply send their representatives to vote against with a bound mandate, or decide that the
specific case or issue should be moved down to their decision level. Remember that interests are likely to be
coherent when it comes to work, wages, prices and solutions in a society without profit competition.

How will this system shape the society?

Here we brainstorm around possible decision responsibilities for each level. Remember that democracy itself
will decide in these matters. The structure of decisions will most certainly be shaped by experiences, and be
subject to changes as time goes by and better solutions emerge. One example is how to deal with censure
motions form the first level, if the shop steward has been elected further up in levels: Maybe all levels must
confirm the censure motion, or maybe repetitive voting is a way to handle this. Again, such matters will be
dealt with by the democracy itself, securing a legitimate acceptance for any solution. The RID model will be
dynamic and flexible, and should be able to handle such matters swift and smoothly.

1st level will govern day-to-day work for the groups. In addition to a shop steward representing next level, a
group trustee and work supervisor may be elected. The latter may communicate changes in production,
qualities and quantities. A continuous research to prolong and promote commodity lives and recycling may
now readily be adopted by the industry. Free from profit motives, cooperation between users and producers
will result in practical and resource profitable solutions. It is possible to produce easy-to-fix refrigerators that
lasts for 100-200 years. Today, products are produced with as low quality as the “market” may accept, in
order to save expenses and increase volume. It will also be in our own interest to freely offer our sustainable
solutions to the rest of the world.

2nd level might handle placing and replacing of workplaces, rehabilitation of buildings, environmental
decisions concerning local areas. Also organising new workplaces may be addressed on this level:
Recycling, waste cleaning, rehabilitate areas, work intensive production that is resource profitable etc.
In Norway, 100 000 sheep dies of injuries each year. Continuous herding of both sheep and domestic rein
deer is not only possible, but should be important work. If we don’t need a specific product or production
anymore, free workforce can either be shifted to other production, or we can all work shorter days or weeks.
Work intensive production is resource profitable: Sustainable herding and agriculture instead of monoculture
fields and non-sustainable farming etc. It is absurd that clean, sustainable food production are not viable
under today’s economy.

3rd level might control larger decisions, like settlement patterns. We might need to rethink settlement: Living
in rural areas is resource demanding: Transport, roads, health care, infrastructure like water and waste reuse
are, alas, less resource effective and less sustainable in rural than in urban areas. An important conclusion
from the IPBES is that the loss of living habitats, areas, is one of the largest threats for biodiversity. To
rehabilitate areas might include depopulation of ecologically important areas, and of course be problematic,
but again: By anchoring them in an ultimate democracy, it might be easier. No-one will lose their income,
and new homes will be provided. Making cities more liveable, greener and prettier, so that we can lead better
lives, will ease the process. Urban areas are often in biodiversity hotspot areas, climatic and geologically,
and long-time planning for moving cities out of them will be feasible in RID.

7
4th and 5th levels will deal with the national and international decisions. All nations, Norway included, are
now heavily dependent on import and export, and in a transition we will need to be pragmatic about needs
until national production of essential goods are restored. For example, Norway need to start sustainable
production of own shoes and clothes, which now are unprofitable. Norway need to increase own sustainable
food production, by using own labour force, freed from unsustainable and unnecessary industrial production.
Remember, high tech solutions that are currently unprofitable might be sustainable. Free from profit need,
we are free to decide what is meaningful, necessary and resource smart products.

If we decide to go this way now, we still have leeway to make dramatic transitions smoothly. The ultimate
legitimacy within RID, and the model’s dynamic consistence opens up for corrections and changes along the
way. We will be free to use all available knowledge and technology, free from profit demands. To think
resource sustainability is close to what we naturally characterise as common sense, often in conflict with
profitability. When this common sense coincide with a safer future, why wouldn’t we act sensibly?

There will no longer be any parting line between public and private sector. There will be no companies
where conflicts arise over profit. We all receive civic pay, and production qualities, volumes and place to
produce will be in accordance with democratic decisions made within ingroup levels. As experience grows,
democracy itself will decide which level the different decisions should be made. Lower levels for everyday
governance, and higher levels for more strategic decisions. Pricing of commodities will be a continuous
process in order to find a balance between what civic pay should be able to afford, and what could be within
sustainable limits. Both necessities and luxury product pricing should mirror resource use.

Production volumes to increase turnover consumption will no longer be the goal, so we can freely decide
within the RID to produce sustainable. Technically, it is no problem to produce refrigerators that last for 100-
200 years or more, easy to repair and maintain. This is not profitable now. Decisions to end production of
harmful, wasteful and unnecessary products can be made. Civic pay and democratic pricing remove the need
for unnecessary jobs and production. We will just work shorter days. Money returns to the original use: As
symbols of exchange.

No-one owns your workplace in order to gain profit. This will in practice be the only loss of freedom: A
person cannot own production means for own benefit and profit. This is the key mechanism to change
capitalism. Through this text, we have tried to avoid irony, so: “The American dream” will be gone, and this
is the price we all will pay.

We do not need the pressure of earning money to go to work. Picture your colleagues at work, and how they
will react if you try to be a free-rider. We do not need the pressure from losing our work, or the pressure
from contract work. We will function perfectly well within our group of known colleagues.

The RID has nothing in common with communism. Communism lacked democracy, as capitalism also do.
Communist regimes were ruled by a small group of party leaders and coryphées, which had the same goals
as any capitalist country: Maximize production and excess.

8
Further discussion

Hypotheses and consequences arising from a society built on RID are many and far-reaching. Our discussion
here is by far exhaustive, but merely points out a societal direction of exiting possibilities. Discussions can be
structured by commenting each point presented in Table 1. Many of the points we make are connected, and
repetitions are difficult to avoid.

Table 1. Hypotheses derived from comparing capitalism to a RID-based society.

Capitalism: RID-controlled economy:

Investments are driven by short time profit.
Long term sustainable production. Real values, NCP,
Success is measured in terms of capital increase.
1. Overall goal resources, and goods and services are value measures for
Profit in the form of symbolic value (money)
for economy goods and services. Democratic, just decisions for reducing
trumps real value (the TEEB failure). Quests for
and production consumption will be equal for all. Recycling and network
new products and resources continue in spite of
industry will not be hindered by lack of profitability.
unrealistic growth possibilities. Not sustainable.
Democracy is a vote for a limited number of
Representative ingroup democracy involving all citizens.
unknown representatives, out of reach, every 4th
Continuous election process through ingroup trustees.
year. Capital and investments governed by large
“Everyone is a politician”. Accountability, inclusion of
and/or global companies outside of democracy
2. Government everyone. The argument that everyone has the same
(“where are the politicians?”). Money talks,
influence will increase acceptance for and ease upcoming
production and consumption growth are also
unpopular decisions. Corruption control through the very
political goals, driven by need for jobs.
same democracy.
Competition between investors and nations.
Uncontrollable overexploitation is a constant
Real and continuous influence opens a possible and
threat. Poverty, inequality and envy trigger
sustainable way out of the unpredictable near future.
conflicts and lower life quality. In the near future,
Population control measures are easier to accept when
3. Results when the overproduction collapse: War over
anchored in a real democracy. Unpopular decisions to
resources. Refugee catastrophes. Apocalyptic
secure the future are easier to accept when there are no
perspectives are highly possible outcomes of
freeriders or millionaires.
global capitalism.
RID decide it all. Civic pay, democratically determined.
Rewards for creativity, effort or hard work may be in the
form of fame instead of money, but hard work may be paid
Unpredictability. Minimal or no influence over
more: RID decides. All hands are needed; recycling will
own working situation. Shareholders make
require manual, low energy workplaces, which today are
decisions whether to foreclose or continue.
non-profitable. Freeriders will be socially controlled by the
Competition trigger low wages, strikes, reduces
4. Work life peers of the ingroup itself. Production goal is to produce
health and life quality through stress. Demand for
enough, not excess: No need for effectivity in the sense of
workplace loyalty is a threat to democratic rights
overproduction to increase profit. When lower production
like freedom of speech. Political decisions in
volumes are needed, more vacation and lower work hours
general must always consider loss of profit.
can be distributed, through the RID.Work hour adjustments
like 6-hour days or four days a week reforms may readily
be introduced.
Sustainable production. Based on best known science, we
Environmental crises out of control, fueled by the democracy are free to decide to avoid production of
Environment production of short-lived, unsustainable, but high resource commodities altogether. Long lived products,
monetary profitable goods, globally transported. easy to repair, recycle and reuse, locally produced, if that is
the best sustainable option.
Quest for short-lived products, profitable, large Sustainable, long-lived, low emission, easy to repair,
volumes. Little or no focus on sustainable recyclable products. Such products will be in everybody’s
Research goals recycling. Small details in the products are interest, because we then don’t have to work so much. This
constructed to fail, in order to increase turnover will free research power.
consummation.
The most important thing in life is now under democratic
Every investor for themselves. Tragedies of the
control. Every citizen having equal democratic influence,
unmanaged commons. General helplessness
Responsibility the feeling of responsibility. Ingroup social control is just,
among people dominate. Decision-making feels
fair and easily influenced: It is highly unlikely that you are
out of democratic control.
alone when conflicts or issues arise.
Culture and entertainment will be more influenced by
ingroups of performers themselves, resulting in
Commercials dominate. Uniformed thinking; a
Culture diversification and variety in expressions. Civic pay will
few artists dominate through commercialism.
equalize cultural expressions and allow a much wider
diversity.

9
 Both genders defined by their relation to a job.
Civic pay ultimately free women. Work or be home with
Women are urged to work in order to be
Gender equality the children are entirely each woman’s own decision. Local
economically free and “equal” with men.
kindergartens can be established when needed.
Children are not suitable in this equation.
Health not measured in money, but in life quality. Every
Costly, non-profitable; appear therefore as
Health, the elder age group representing valuable sides of human life: To
expensive, societal liability problems, not
and children have children is not a burden to society: Civic pay removes
productive for investors.
all extraordinary decisions,

International cooperation is not an economic threat, in that

Competition between investors and countries
globally. Competition for profit make nature and
Internationally employees the losers. When economic growth
halts, conflicts escalate. Resource wars are to be
expected.
competition for profit is gone: Global cooperation for
sustainability; nations will mutually benefit from sharing
new, sustainable technology and production: It will be in
our own interest if other nations adopted our low resource,
low energy, high tech sustainable production. A big conflict
arena is gone.

Transfer of RID democracy to interested countries.

Very little political effect. Global capitalism
Lowering conflict levels through just trade, sustainable
Development upholds unjust differences. Increasing refugee
production technology and competence. Need for own
aid problems caused by poverty, war and
manpower. A real democracy makes it more likely to
environmental degradation.
accept lower, sustainable and just consummation.

Humanity has never faced a situation like this. What are our options?

Production and consumption levels threaten the regeneration of life support systems on a global scale. Even if
we don’t have a detailed description of every breakdown or when they will come, the scientific community are
unanimous about the upcoming and ongoing collapses in ecosystems. The main reason for concern is the fact
that global economy is not constructed for sustainable production. This is the real elephant in the room: Growth
of capital is the goal, and will continue to be as long as investors compete in a free market. Even if a nation
would use democracy to steer private investors and demand them directly to go sustainable, the loss of profit
would lead to flight of capital, unemployment and loss of political power for the intervenors. The fruitless
environmental conferences over the last decades illustrate the point: Even if political will should come to
action, each nation cannot act sustainable without losing capital, jobs and income. The world is caught in a
vice that is beyond democratic control. We believe that we need an alternative to go for, to be enthusiastic
about. That means it has to be credible, and cover both the physical world as well as humanitarian well-being,
cultural aspects and safety in the broad sense of the word. Many perspectives are so interconnected that we
have found it difficult to avoid repeating several arguments and points through the text: We are afraid to lose
readers from misunderstandings. We do not claim that we have considered all aspects of the RID model, but
we insist that our suggestion is worth a thorough discussion and elaboration.

Will RID work?

Human universal behaviour is struggling to cope with the evolutionary new situation of mega-societies [128,
129]. Differences in behaviour between small and large groups have been observed and recognised by many,
but scientific explanations of differences in behavioural strategies according to group size have until now been
scarce [99-101]. Still, the most prominent solution to prevent overexploitation is the moralistic “we need to
take action, stop consuming and be prudent”. This strategy has failed in megasocieties, outgroups, but is on
the contrary the very foundation of an ingroup. Social control, cooperation and just decisions are functions that
hold ingroups together. Free-riders are demasked, generosity appreciated and altruism rewarded [130]. These
mechanisms are present in every organisation based on democratic elections of representation and censure
motions, and thereby open up for sustainable strategic behaviour [131, 132]. We predict that the RID model
will enable stable and democratic sustainable production, distribution, equality and social security in all human
arenas, by giving each individual equal responsibility and influence [131]. We predict that the RID model will
enhance legitimacy and interdependencies and regulate the distribution of power and welfare through
democratic decision-making processes.

10
1. Overall goal for economy and production

A sustainable economy must have a production goal of sustainable goods and services. If one defines
sustainability as a complete cycle of materials and energy that is not taking a toll on the future, it is difficult to
find even one single example within capitalism that goes in this direction. If we free production from the profit
motive, it should be possible to focus on sustainable goods. Sustainability will therefore require that no private
person can own and make profit from other’s workplaces.

An important point is the model’s handling of symbolic versus real values. The human universal measure of
value is related to short term exchange values. Money releases an evolved feeling of security and content [84].
Consequently, it is extremely difficult to criticise capitalism’s measure of success in terms of the money
symbol, because the human mind itself believe money to represent a secure future. The money value feeling
masks and obscures the differences between symbolic values and real values. A Norwegian member of the
parliament finance committee stated that Norway now have so much money from oil production that “we can
live on it forever”. Symbolic values cannot produce goods without real values. Future goods are made of
concrete resources, not money. These ES must be present in the future. In case of shortage of basic ES, the
exchange value of capital, gold, art or any other symbol value will be lost. The struggle to price real values by
monetary means, like the TEEB initiative, fail to consider the time scale and the global physical resource limits.
We predict that such goals can be achieved by democratic ownership, which will enhance legitimacy and
interdependencies and regulate the distribution of power and welfare through democratic decision-making
processes. Ingroups will manage their members’ own workplaces, with democratically regulated civic pays.
By removing profit from ownership as the very driver behind overproduction and -consumption, the democracy
itself decides what to do with own labour force. This key point will free production value from being measured
in monetary value, and change production focus from symbolic value to real value. Sustainable production, in
the original meaning of the word, will therefore be a real option. Today, one rarely finds any division between
symbolic value and real value. The TEEB initiative is an honest try, but misses this central point which could
have represented an important and timely critique of capitalism.

2. Government. All civil rights will still be present. Political parties will advocate certain standpoints,
demonstrations and freedom of speech are constitutional rights, along with a free and scrutinizing press as an
important aspect of the society, as before.

The crucial point of RID that will be a gamechanger is that production of all goods and services are brought
under democratic control. Social wages or civic pay will be democratically decided, as well as prices. Through
ingroup social control and democratically decided commodity pricing, just distribution and equality will make
it easier to increase the overall acceptance of lower consumption of high resource goods and services. To avoid
any forms of corruption, this will include transparent, just and democratic regulation of income, prices, health
services and all central functions in a society. Recent research in behavioural economics indicate that people
are less one-eyed individually money-focused in social settings [133-135].

The RID model is based on accepting human weakness. Tragedies of Unregulated Commons are facts, found
in all corners of human activities. “Waking up” has proven not to be viable in outgroups and societies.

The structure of small ingroups sending a representative to the next level of ingroups is based on modern
behavioural sciences like game theory, natural and sexual selection and ingroup – outgroup strategies. Humans
have inclinations to choose strategies of cooperation and contribution, as well as egoism and corruption. What
social sciences describe is that the first strategies dominate in ingroups, and the latter in outgroups [68, 69,
136, 137]. The RID model is firmly based on solid scientific research in different areas like human behavioural
ecology, neuroeconomics, evolutionary psychology and game theory [47-49, 138]). The science of game
theory shows how strategies for just, solidarity, empathy and generosity flourish in the closeness found in
small groups of acquainted colleagues, peers and friends [99-101, 121, 122, 139-144]. Human behavioural
ecology can explain why this behaviour is evolved, and therefore universal [36]. The levels of ingroups will
function as buffers towards egoism, corruption and nepotism [115]. Controlling these mechanisms are equally

11
important in order to make a democracy resilient and stable. The 1st level of RID is the most important buffer:
Non-cooperative or corrupt representatives will be filtered out here first. When implemented, the democracy
itself can decide on which level decisions should be made. Both top-down and bottom-up decisions will be
anchored within the democracy, giving acceptance to unpopular decisions that most likely must be taken in
the near future.

BRAINSTORM, NOT ELABORATED FURTHER, HELP NEEDED:

5. References

1. Anonymous, New Climate Economy Report. 2018, The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate:
Washington. p. 208.
2. York, R. and J.A. McGee, Does Renewable Energy Development Decouple Economic Growth from CO2
Emissions? Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 2017. 3: p. 1-6.
3. Ayres, R.U., Sustainability economics: Where do we stand? Ecological Economics, 2008. 67(2): p. 281-310.
4. Global Crises, Global Solutions: Costs and Benefits. 2 ed. 2009, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Simon, J., The ultimate resource 2. 1996: Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ
6. Raworth, K., Doughnut Economics - Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist. 2018: Random House
Business.
7. IPBES, The IPBES assessment report on land degradation and restoration. Montanarella, L., Scholes, R., and
Brainich, A. (eds.). Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services. 2018: IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. p. 744.
8. IPBES, Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Global Assessment
Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. 2019.
9. Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia,
C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M.
Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.), Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global
warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in IPCC
reports. 2018.
10. Grooten, M.a.A., R.E.A.(Eds). Living Planet Report - 2018: Aiming Higher. WWF, Gland, Switzerland. 2018.
11. Ring, I., et al., Challenges in framing the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: the TEEB initiative. Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2010. 2(1-2): p. 15-26.
12. Kumar, P., ed. TEEB. Foundations, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic
Foundations 2010, Earthscan, London.
13. MA, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. . 2005: World Island
Press, Washington DC.
14. Diaz, S., et al., Assessing nature's contributions to people. Science, 2018. 359(6373): p. 270-272.
15. Ward JD, et al., Is Decoupling GDP Growth from Environmental Impact Possible? PLoS ONE 2016.
11(10)e0164733.
16. Hennicke, P. and A. Khosla, DECOUPLING ECONOMIC GROWTH FROM RESOURCE CONSUMPTION. A
TRANSFORMATION STRATEGY WITH MANIFOLD SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS FOR INDIA AND GERMANY.
2014.
17. Douthwaite, R., The Ecology Of Money. Green Books, Devon. 2006,
https://www.feasta.org/documents/moneyecology/contents.htm.
18. Parrique T., B.J., Briens F., C. Kerschner, Kraus-Polk A., Kuokkanen A., Spangenberg J.H.,. , Decoupling
debunked: Evidence and arguments against green growth as a sole strategy for sustainability. 2019: European
Environmental Bureau. p. 77.
19. Jackson, T. and P.A. Victor, Unraveling the claims for (and against) green growth. Science, 2019. 366(6468): p.
950-951.
20. Hickel, J. and G. Kallis, Is Green Growth Possible? New Political Economy, 2019.
21. Giampietro, M. and S.O. Funtowicz, From elite folk science to the policy legend of the circular economy.
Environmental Science & Policy, 2020. 109: p. 64-72.
22. Daly, H., From uneconomic Growth to a Steady State Economy. . Advances in Ecological Economics. 2014,
Northampton: MA: Edward Elgar.
23. Govindan, K. and M. Hasanagic, A systematic review on drivers, barriers, and practices towards circular economy:
a supply chain perspective. International Journal of Production Research, 2018. 56(1-2): p. 278-311.

12
24. Otero, I., et al., Biodiversity policy beyond economic growth. Conservation Letters: p. 18.
25. Patterson, S., Dark Pools: The Rise of the Machine Traders and the Rigging of the U.S. Stock Market 2013, New
York: Random House.
26. Mazzucato, M., The Value of Everything. Making and taking in the global Economy 2019: Penguin books.
27. Kopnina, H., JESD Forsaking Nature? Contesting Biodiversity through competing discourses of sustainability.
Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 2013a. 7: p. 51-63.
28. Gómez-Baggethun, E., More is more: Scaling political ecology within limits to growth. Political Geography, 2019:
p. 102095.
29. O’Keeffe, A., Hardwired Humans. 2012: Roundtable Press
30. Gómez-Baggethun, E., More is more: Scaling political ecology within limits to growth. Political Geography,
2020. 76: p. 102095.
31. Evangelista, R., Calls for change. The scientific status of economic theory and the future of democracy: A review
of three recent contributions. Forum for Social Economics, 2019. 48(4): p. 373-382.
32. Penn, D.J. and I. Mysterud, eds. Evolutionary perspectives on environmental problems. 1st ed. 2007, Aldine
Transactions, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, New Jersey: London. 364.
33. Mooney, H.A., A. Duraiappah, and A. Larigauderie, Evolution of natural and social science interactions in global
change research programs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
2013. Early ed.: p. 8.
34. Ostrom, E., Collective Action and the Evolution of Social Norms. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1999. 14(2):
p. 43.
35. Ostrom, E., Governing the Commons: the Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. 1990, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. 280.
36. Low, B.S., Why Sex Matters: A Darwinian Look at Human Behavior. 2000, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
412.
37. Marlowe, F., Showoffs or Providers? The parenting Effort of Hazda Men. Evolution and Human Behavior, 1999.
20, 6(Special Issue: Stepparental Investment): p. 391-404.
38. Low, B.S. and M. Ridley, Why we're not environmental altruists: and what we can do about it. Human Ecology
Review, 1994. 1: p. 107-136.
39. Smith, D.L., Why we lie : the evolutionary roots of deception and the unconscious mind 2004: New York : St.
Martin's Griffen. 238.
40. Barkow, J.H., Missing the revolution: Darwinism for social scientists. 2006, Oxford: Oxford University Press. VII,
302 s.
41. Barkow, J.H., L. Cosmides, and J. Tooby, The Adapted Mind. 1992, New York: Oxford University Press.
42. Segerstråle, U., Defenders of the truth : the battle for science in the sociobiology debate and beyond. 2000,
Oxford: Oxford University Press. IX, 493 s.
43. Wilson, E.O., Consilience. The unity of knowledge 1998, New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
44. Hardin, G., The tragedy of the unmanaged commons. Trends Ecol. Evol., 1994. 9(5): p. 199.
45. Diamond, J., Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed. 2005, New York: Viking. 575.
46. Preuschoff, K., S. Quartz, and P. Bossaerts, Markowitz in the brain? Revue D Economie Politique, 2008. 118(1):
p. 75-95.
47. Solnais, C., et al., The contribution of neuroscience to consumer research: A conceptual framework and empirical
review. Journal of Economic Psychology, 2013. 36: p. 68-81.
48. Gray, M.A., et al., Physiological recordings: Basic concepts and implementation during functional magnetic
resonance imaging. Neuroimage, 2009. 47(3): p. 1105-1115.
49. Rachul, C. and A. Zarzeczny, The rise of neuroskepticism. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 2012.
35(2): p. 77-81.
50. Sundie, J.M., et al., Peacocks, Porsches, and Thorstein Veblen: Conspicuous Consumption as a Sexual Signaling
System. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2011. 100(4): p. 664-680.
51. Vohs, K.D., The Mere Thought of Money Makes You Feel Less Pain. Harvard Business Review, 2010. 88(3): p. 28-
29.
52. Zhou, X.Y., K.D. Vohs, and R.F. Baumeister, The Symbolic Power of Money: Reminders of Money Alter Social
Distress and Physical Pain. Psychological Science, 2009. 20(6): p. 700-706.
53. Sescousse, G., J. Redoute, and J.C. Dreher, The Architecture of Reward Value Coding in the Human Orbitofrontal
Cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 2010. 30(39): p. 13095-13104.
54. Nieuwenhuis, S., et al., Knowing good from bad: differential activation of human cortical areas by positive and
negative outcomes. European Journal of Neuroscience, 2005. 21(11): p. 3161-3168.
55. Nieuwenhuis, S., et al., Activity in human reward-sensitive brain areas is strongly context dependent.
Neuroimage, 2005. 25(4): p. 1302-1309.
56. Foster, J.B., Ecology against capitalism. . 2002: New York: Monthly Review Press.

13
57. Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J. and Behrens, W.W., The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of
Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. 1972, London: Earthscan.
58. Libet, B., Mind time: The temporal factor in consciousness. 2004, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
59. Baumeister, R.F., E.J. Masicampo, and K.D. Vohs, Do Conscious Thoughts Cause Behavior?, in Annual Review
of Psychology, Vol 62, S.T. Fiske, D.L. Schacter, and S.E. Taylor, Editors. 2011. p. 331-361.
60. Vohs, K.D. and J.W. Schooler, The value of believing in free will - Encouraging a belief in determinism increases
cheating. Psychological Science, 2008. 19(1): p. 49-54.
61. Tinbergen, N., On the aims and methods of ethology. Z. Tierpsychologie, 1963. 20: p. 410-433.
62. Nesse, R.M. and G.C. Williams, Why we get sick: The new science of Darwinian medicine. 1994, New York:
Vintage Books.
63. Buss, D.M., Evolutionary psychology : the new science of the mind. Fifth edition. ed. 2016: Routledge.
64. Buss, D.M., The Evolution of Desire. Strategies of Human Mating. 4th ed. revised. 2003, New York, USA: Basic
Books. 359.
65. Buss, D.M., Human nature and culture: An evolutionary psychological perspective. Journal of Personality, 2001.
69(6): p. 955-978.
66. Swain, J.E., The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology &
Biological Psychiatry, 2011. 35(5): p. 1242-1254.
67. Ostrom, E., M.A. Janssen, and J.M. Anderies, Going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, 2007. 104(39): p. 15176-15178.
68. Dietz, T., E. Ostrom, and P.C. Stern, The Struggle to Govern the Commons. Science Magazine, 2004: p. 1-18.
69. Costanza, R., et al., eds. Institutions, Ecosystems, and Sustainability. Ecological Economics Series, ed. R.
Costanza. 2001, Lewis Publishers: Boca Raton, London, New York, Washington DC. 270.
70. Ostrom, E., et al., Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges. Science, 1999. 284.
71. Peterie, M. and D. Neil, Xenophobia towards asylum seekers: A survey of social theories. Journal of Sociology,
2020. 56(1): p. 23-35.
72. Ellis, L., A discipline in Peril: Sociology’s future hinges on Curing its Biophobia. Amer. Sociol., 1996. 27: p. 21-41.
73. Vedel, A., Big Five personality group differences across academic majors: A systematic review. Personality and
Individual Differences, 2016. 92: p. 1-10.
74. Snow, C.P., The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. 1959.
75. Kuhn, T.S., The structure of scientific revolutions. 3rd ed. 1996 Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 212.
76. Bongard, T. and E. Røskaft, Det biologiske mennesket - individer og samfunn i lys av evolusjon. 2010: Tapir
Akademisk Forlag.
77. Srivastava, M., G.D. Sharma, and A.K. Srivastava, Human brain and financial behavior: a neurofinance
perspective. International Journal of Ethics and Systems, 2019. 35(4): p. 485-503.
78. Koban, L. and G. Pourtois, Brain systems underlying the affective and social monitoring of actions: An integrative
review. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 2014. 46: p. 71-84.
79. Carroll, J., Evolutionary Social Theory The Current State of Knowledge. Style, 2015. 49(4): p. 108-137.
80. Berkman, E.T. and E.B. Falk, Beyond Brain Mapping: Using Neural Measures to Predict Real-World Outcomes.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2013. 22(1): p. 45-50.
81. Mason, M., Transparency, accountability and empowerment in sustainability governance: a conceptual review.
Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 2019: p. 1-14.
82. Lepori, M., Towards a New Ecological Democracy: A Critical Evaluation of the Deliberation Paradigm Within
Green Political Theory. Environmental Values, 2019. 28(1): p. 75-99.
83. Winter, C.J., Decolonising Dignity for Inclusive Democracy. Environmental Values, 2019. 28(1): p. 9-30.
84. Betzig, L., Human nature: A critical reader 1997, New York: Oxford University Press. 489.
85. O'Keeffe, A., Hardwired Humans: Successful Leadership Using Human Instincts. 2011, Australia: Roundtable
Press.
86. Moore, J.E., et al., Developing a comprehensive definition of sustainability. Implementation Science, 2017. 12:
p. 8.
87. Maxwell-Smith, M.A., et al., Competition and intergroup bias: Toward a new construal process framework
distinguishing competitive perceptions from competitive motivations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,
2016. 19(6): p. 808-832.
88. Robbins, J.M. and J.I. Krueger, Social projection to ingroups and outgroups: A review and meta-analysis.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2005. 9(1): p. 32-47.
89. Takano, Y. and E. Osaka, ''Japanese collectivism'' and ''American individualism'': Reexamining the dominant
view. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 1997. 68(4): p. 312-327.
90. Moradi, Z., et al., Attentional saliency and ingroup biases: From society to the brain. Social Neuroscience, 2020:
p. 10.

14
91. Amiot, C.E., et al., Bringing together humanistic and intergroup perspectives to build a model of internalisation
of normative social harmdoing. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2020. 50(3): p. 485-504.
92. Endevelt, K., N. Schori-Eyal, and E. Halperin, Everyone should get the same, but we should get more: Group
entitlement and intergroup moral double standard. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 2020: p. 21.
93. Trivers, R.L., The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 1971. 46(March): p. 35-54.
94. Trivers, R.L., Social Evolution. 1985, Menlo Park, California: Benjamin/Cummings Publishers Company.
95. Paolini, D., The ostracism and its consequences: A literature review. Psicologia Sociale, 2019. 14(3): p. 317-341.
96. Ferris, L.J., et al., Feeling Hurt: Revisiting the Relationship Between Social and Physical Pain. Review of General
Psychology, 2019. 23(3): p. 320-335.
97. Zahavi, A. and A. Zahavi, The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece of Darwin's Puzzle. 1997, Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
98. Akerlof, G.A. and R.J. Shiller, Phishing for Phools: The Economics of Manipulation and Deception. 2015:
Princeton University Press.
99. Mac Carron, P., K. Kaski, and R. Dunbar, Calling Dunbar's numbers. Social Networks, 2016. 47: p. 151-155.
100. Zhao, J.C., et al., Being rational or aggressive? A revisit to Dunbar's number in online social networks.
Neurocomputing, 2014. 142: p. 343-353.
101. Goncalves, B., N. Perra, and A. Vespignani, Modeling Users' Activity on Twitter Networks: Validation of Dunbar's
Number. Plos One, 2011. 6(8): p. 5.
102. Sutcliffe, A.G., D. Wang, and R.I.M. Dunbar, Modelling the Role of Trust in Social Relationships. Acm
Transactions on Internet Technology, 2015. 15(4): p. 24.
103. Sutcliffe, A., et al., Relationships and the social brain: Integrating psychological and evolutionary perspectives.
British Journal of Psychology, 2012. 103: p. 149-168.
104. Dunbar, R.I.M. and M. Spoors, Social networks, support cliques, and kinship. Human Nature, 1995. 6: p. 273-
290.
105. Dunbar, R.I.M., Barrett, L., The Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. 2007: Oxford University Press.
706.
106. Falk, C.F., S.J. Heine, and K. Takemura, Cultural Variation in the Minimal Group Effect. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 2014. 45(2): p. 265-281.
107. Wilkins, J.F. and S. Thurner, THE JERUSALEM GAME: CULTURAL EVOLUTION OF THE GOLDEN RULE.
Advances in Complex Systems, 2010. 13(5): p. 635-641.
108. Tam, K.P., C.Y. Chiu, and I.Y.M. Lau, Terror management among Chinese: Worldview defence and intergroup
bias in resource allocation. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2007. 10(2): p. 93-102.
109. Singh-Manoux, A. and C. Finkenauer, Cultural variations in social sharing of emotions - An intercultural
perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2001. 32(6): p. 647-661.
110. Jobling, I., The psychological foundations of the hero-ogre story - A cross-cultural study. Human Nature-an
Interdisciplinary Biosocial Perspective, 2001. 12(3): p. 247-272.
111. Mei, D.M., W.J. Zhang, and L.J. Yin, Neural responses of in-group "favoritism" and out-group "discrimination"
toward moral behaviors. Neuropsychologia, 2020. 139: p. 10.
112. Simas, E.N., S. Clifford, and J.H. Kirkland, How Empathic Concern Fuels Political Polarization. American Political
Science Review, 2020. 114(1): p. 258-269.
113. Porat, R., M. Tamir, and E. Halperin, Group-Based Emotion Regulation: A Motivated Approach. Emotion, 2020.
20(1): p. 16-20.
114. Harada, T., et al., Cultural influences on neural systems of intergroup emotion perception: An fMRI study.
Neuropsychologia, 2020. 137: p. 13.
115. de Zavala, A.G., K. Dyduch-Hazar, and D. Lantos, Collective Narcissism: Political Consequences of Investing Self-
Worth in the Ingroup's Image. Political Psychology, 2019. 40: p. 37-74.
116. Fritsche, I., et al., A Social Identity Model of Pro-Environmental Action (SIMPEA). Psychological Review, 2018.
125(2): p. 245-269.
117. Kawakami, K., D.M. Amodio, and K. Hugenberg, Intergroup Perception and Cognition: An Integrative
Framework for Understanding the Causes and Consequences of Social Categorization, in Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Vol 55, J.M. Olson, Editor. 2017, Elsevier Academic Press Inc: San Diego. p. 1-
80.
118. Blocker, H.S. and D.N. McIntosh, Not All Outgroups Are Equal: Group Type May Influence Group Effect on
Matching Behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 2017. 41(4): p. 395-413.
119. Anvari, F., et al., The social psychology of whistleblowing: An integrated model. Organizational Psychology
Review, 2019. 9(1): p. 41-67.
120. Abrams, A.M.H. and A.M. Rosenthal-von der Putten, I-C-E Framework: Concepts for Group Dynamics Research
in Human-Robot Interaction Revisiting Theory from Social Psychology on Ingroup Identification (I), Cohesion (C)
and Entitativity (E). International Journal of Social Robotics, 2020: p. 17.

15
121. Vanman, E.J., The role of empathy in intergroup relations. Current Opinion in Psychology, 2016. 11: p. 59-63.
122. Molina, L.E., L.R. Tropp, and C. Goode, Reflections on prejudice and intergroup relations. Current Opinion in
Psychology, 2016. 11: p. 120-124.
123. Menges, J.I. and M. Kilduff, Group Emotions: Cutting the Gordian Knots Concerning Terms, Levels of Analysis,
and Processes. Academy of Management Annals, 2015. 9(1): p. 845-928.
124. Halevy, N., et al., Morality in intergroup conflict. Current Opinion in Psychology, 2015. 6: p. 10-14.
125. Gonzalez-Liencres, C., S.G. Shamay-Tsoory, and M. Brune, Towards a neuroscience of empathy: Ontogeny,
phylogeny, brain mechanisms, context and psychopathology. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 2013.
37(8): p. 1537-1548.
126. Gerhardsen, E., Tillitsmannen. 9. utgave 2006 ed. 1931: Gyldendal akademisk.
127. Rehfeld, A., Representation Rethought: On Trustees, Delegates, and Gyroscopes in the Study of Political
Representation and Democracy. American Political Science Review, 2009. 103(2): p. 214-230.
128. Gintis, H., Game Theory Evolving: A Problem-centered Introduction to Evolutionary Game Theory. Second
Edition ed. 2009, Princeton: Princeton University Press. 408.
129. Henrich, J., et al., Foundations of human sociality. 2004: Oxford University Press, New York. 451.
130. Nielsen, R. and J.A. Marrone, Humility: Our Current Understanding of the Construct and its Role in Organizations.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 2018. 20(4): p. 805-824.
131. Diefenbach, T., Why Michels' 'iron law of oligarchy' is not an iron law - and how democratic organisations can
stay 'oligarchy-free'. Organization Studies, 2019. 40(4): p. 545-562.
132. Budge, G., et al., "It kind of fosters a culture of interdependence": A participatory appraisal study exploring
participants' experiences of the democratic processes of a peer-led organisation. Journal of Community & Applied
Social Psychology, 2019. 29(3): p. 178-192.
133. Thaler, R.H. and C.R. Sunstein, "Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness". 2008: Yale
University Press.
134. Watts, D.J., Everthing is Obvious. How Common Sense Fails Us. 2011: Crown Business, New York.
135. Ormerod, P., Positive Linking. How Networks Can Revolutionise the World. 2012: Faber and Faber, Croydon.
136. Ostrom, E., Collective Action and the Evolution of Social Norms. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2000. 14(3).
137. Molenberghs, P. and W.R. Louis, Insights From fMRI Studies Into Ingroup Bias. Frontiers in Psychology, 2018.
9: p. 12.
138. Kopnina, H., Schooling the World: Exploring the critical course on sustainable development through an
anthropological lens. International Journal of Educational Research, 2013. 62: p. 220-228.
139. Perc, M., et al., Evolutionary dynamics of group interactions on structured populations: a review. Journal of the
Royal Society Interface, 2013. 10(80).
140. Kugler, T., E.E. Kausel, and M.G. Kocher, Are groups more rational than individuals? A review of interactive
decision making in groups. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Cognitive Science, 2012. 3(4): p. 471-482.
141. Weirich, P., Collective acts. Synthese, 2012. 187(1): p. 223-241.
142. Petersen, M.B. and L. Aaroe, Is the Political Animal Politically Ignorant? Applying Evolutionary Psychology to
the Study of Political Attitudes. Evolutionary Psychology, 2012. 10(5): p. 802-817.
143. Paolini, S., N.C. Harris, and A.S. Griffin, Learning anxiety in interactions with the outgroup: Towards a learning
model of anxiety and stress in intergroup contact. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 2016. 19(3): p. 275-
313.
144. Molenberghs, P. and W.R. Louis, Insights From fMRI Studies Into Ingroup Bias. Frontiers in Psychology, 2018.
9.

16