This paper examines why fundamental freedoms are so unevenly distributed across the earth. Climato-economic theorizing proposes that humans adapt needs, stresses, and choices of goals, means, and outcomes to the livability of their habitat. The evolutionary process at work is one of collectively meeting climatic demands of cold winters or hot summers by using monetary resources. Freedom is expected to be lowest in poor populations threatened by demanding thermal climates, intermediate in populations comforted by undemanding temperate climates irrespective of income per head, and highest in rich populations challenged by demanding thermal climates. This core hypothesis is supported with new survey data across 85 countries and 15 Chinese provinces and with a reinterpretative review of results of prior studies comprising 174 countries and the 50 states in the United States. Empirical support covers freedom from want, freedom from fear, freedom of expression and participation, freedom from discrimination, and freedom to develop and realize one's human potential. Applying the theory to projections of temperature and income for 104 countries by 2112 forecasts that (a) poor populations in Asia, perhaps except Afghans and Pakistanis, will move up the international ladder of freedom, (b) poor populations in Africa will lose, rather than gain, relative levels of freedom unless climate protection and poverty reduction prevent this from happening, and (c) several rich populations will be challenged to defend current levels of freedom against worsening climato-economic livability.

The relationship of climate and monetary resources to various freedoms can be enriched if the conceptual links – “psychobehavioral adaptations” – are conceptualized more broadly as reflections of a richer cultural context that involves multiple physical and psychological resources, as proposed by social resource theory and a number of models of the emergence of social meaning.

A climate that is too cold to grow crops for part of the year demands foresight and self-control skills. To the extent that a culture has developed intertemporal bargaining, its members will have more autonomy, but pay the cost of being more compulsive, than members of societies that have not. Monetary resources will be a consequence but will also be fed back as a cause.

Although Van de Vliert presented an entertaining story containing several original observations, an implicit assumption that climate affects human society identically through the history is not realistic. If almost everything is explained by cold winters or hot summers, then nothing is explained. Ignoring rival explanations does not make the proposed theory more convincing.

Does the interaction between climactic demands, monetary resources, and freedom suggest a more general relationship between the environmental challenges that human societies face and their resources to meet those challenges? Using data on press freedom (Van de Vliert 2011a), we found no evidence of a similar interaction with natural resources (as measured by oil exports) or risk for natural disasters.

Van de Vliert's findings fit nicely with our recent arguments implying that (1) differentiated selfhood is partly motivated by requirements of cultural groups, and (2) free will mainly exists within culture. Some cultural groups promote individual freedom, whereas others constrict it so as to maintain elites' power and privilege. Thus, freedom is, to a great extent, a creation of culture.

Van de Vliert proposes a comprehensive explanation for differences in “freedoms” in diverse human populations based on climate and monetary resources. This intriguing approach, though derived from an evolutionary view covering all species, is based exclusively on human populations. This anthropocentric lens is challenged by ways of testing Van de Vliert's thesis more generally using playfulness as a surrogate for freedom.

The target article provides an intermediate account of culture and freedom that is conceived to be curvilinear by treating economic development not as an adaptive outcome in response to climate but as a cause of culture parallel to climate. We argue that the extent of environmental variability, including climatic variability, affects cultural adaptation.

Evidence Van de Vliert draws on is more consistent with the idea that settlement in the frontier encourages independent mentality and individualistic social institutions. This cultural system can sometimes flourish, generating both wealth and power, but clearly not always. In our view, wealth is, for the most part, a measure of success of any given cultural group, and climate is important to the extent that it plays a role in creating rugged lands of frontier.

Climate, diet, lifestyle, and environmental settings have all been shown to modulate mood, play a role in mental disorders, and even pose a mental health risk. Can climatotherapy, in its adaptive approach aiming to restore balance among the economic, social, and ecological realms of human societies, situate itself as a therapeutic avenue for the promotion of sustainable mental health?

Using representative data from 55 nations, I show that individual level wealth interacts with climate in predicting individual happiness but not postmaterialism values. I propose that more research is needed to identify (a) the specific mechanisms of how wealth buffers climatic demands at the individual level and (b) the neurocognitive and physiological reactions of individuals situated in different ecological niches.

This commentary describes the use of ecological priming methods to address the limitations of the correlational research discussed in the target article. We provide examples from our own work on cultural tightness–looseness to illustrate how we can bring ecological and societal conditions into the laboratory in order to study the impact of ecological threats on psychological processes experimentally.

Given Van de Vliert's impressive dataset and prognoses, I will discuss three limitations. First, the evolutionary argument does not adequately take into account how political changes influence freedoms. Second, the operationalizations of needs and freedoms are limited and questionable. Third, a direct relationship between climate, monetary resources, and psychological variables is a simplification neglecting various intervening variables.

Van de Vliert associates a greater difference between upper- and lower-class freedoms under less favorable environmental conditions. This pattern is similar to models of the emergence of state-level hierarchies. I argue that Van de Vliert has provided a supportive strand to the history of ancient Near East religion.

The target article's climato-economic theory will benefit by allowing for bidirectional effects and the heterogeneity of types of freedom, in order to more fully capture the coevolution of societal wealth and freedom. We also suggest alternative methods of testing climato-economic theory, such as longitudinal analyses of these countries' histories and micro-level experiments of each of the theory's hypotheses.

The climato-economic theory postulates mechanisms of threat and challenge to explain differences between countries. Interestingly, both of these mechanisms are often considered to be components of the models of organizational climate for creativity. We show that among rich countries, climatic demands are related to creative achievement in a reversed-U manner, whereas the relationship is linear among poor countries.

To evaluate and extend climato-economic theory, the use of more micro units of analysis, such as cities and families, may open up new data sources. The consideration of environmental demands other than thermal climate may also broaden the range of useful data. Longitudinal designs can provide causal evidence, and so can experiments if the theory can be applied to individuals.

Van de Vliert embraces a “supply side” model of human needs, underplaying a “demand” model whereby individuals, motivated by psychological needs, develop coping strategies that help them meet their personal goals and collectively exert an influence on social and economic systems. Undesirable climates may inflate the value of financial capital, but they also boost the value of social capital.

Van de Vliert puts forward a model of how climate and economics interact to shape human needs, stresses, and freedoms. Although we applaud the construction of this model, we suggest that more needs to be done. Specifically, by adopting a multi-level and experimental approach, we can develop an integrated, causal, and psychological model of climato-economics.

Hot and cold climates have posed differential threats to human survival throughout history. Cold temperatures can pose direct threats to survival in themselves, whereas hot temperatures may pose threats indirectly through higher prevalence of infectious disease. These differential threats yield convergent predictions for the relationship between more demanding climates and freedom of expression, but divergent predictions for freedom from discrimination.