With regard to Mr. Dickens' comment regarding whether stress should cause
sexual arousal, I am tempted to think that evolutionary psychology can
certainly explain this phenomenon. Early societies, according to most models
of human development, used the males as hunters and warriors; females were
gatherers. With this division of labor, males certainly incurred the more
perilous part of the community's job. Before an important hunt or major
battle, it is manifestly in the male's evolutionary favor to become sexually
aroused; after all, this may be his genome's last chance to reproduce itself!
Even if he dies in battle, his sex partners -- still safely at home -- will
be able to bear his young. From an economic perspective, a man who expects
to die tomorrow discounts the future at a rate of infinity and thus strives
to consume as much product as possible immediately.
Some variant of this story is likely true for women as well; if virtually
the entire male contingent of the tribe (and probably the fittest contingent
at that) is going off to war, women must be impregnated immediately if they
are to bear fit offspring. Hence they, too, increase the rate at which they
discount the future.
I would suppose that this increased rate is the cause of increased
happiness in the public. If people discount the future at a high rate, they
are likely to indulge in "instant gratification," intensifying their spending
and reaping the short-term utility of their action. This boosts their level
of happiness, causing the poll results. (This might also suggest that the
oft-noted increase in wartime GDP stems in part from the private sector.)
Any thoughts?
--Brian Auriti
