Short versus long term

I think a lot about the short vs. the long term. Long term consciousness is probably the most importance difference between us and other animals. Of course (to paraphrase Darwin), it is a difference of degree, not essence, but still, the difference is quite striking: we are capable of thinking in terms of geological time, while most other members of the animal kingdom with similar life-spans probably don't get further than the concept of seasons. 

Apparently, newly born babies start with no concept of time whatsoever, but as they grow, they learn to handle ever-increasing time spans. My eldest - now eight - has no trouble imagining things happening years from now, including having children of her own. And human  society as a whole has shown a similar sort of development: collectively, we become more conscious of the long term with every new generation. The acceptance of the theory of evolution is just one of many examples, as are the idea that we might want to preserve our cultural history, and our current concern with climate change: all indicate that collectively, we are thinking in ever-longer time spans.  

Emotions are a bit different. Emotional development also passes through phases in individual humans and in society as a whole, but as compared to the above-mentioned examples of commonplace long-term thinking, emotions are short-term. They can be useful as short-term aids to survival (think fight-or-flight responses), but they can also get in the way of our long-term collective interests. Which is why we tend to see emotions as something to keep in check. 

Seen in Darwinian terms, we could see this process as the competition between two different systems designed to do the same thing (processing stimuli and formulating a response). And according to Darwin, the winner will be the more adaptable of the two. So kudos to the nervous system with its rapid-fire electrical signals, and a booby prize to hormones. (Sad, but logical.)