> This means accepting that a man who shoots into a crowd has no more control over his fate than the victims who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It means treating drunk drivers who barrel into pedestrians just like drivers who suffer a sudden heart attack and veer out of their lane.<p>> “The world is really screwed up and made much, much more unfair by the fact that we reward people and punish people for things they have no control over,” Sapolsky said. “We’ve got no free will. Stop attributing stuff to us that isn’t there.”<p>I don't how much the reporter has embellished things but this seems really, really, <i>really</i> silly.<p>"People have no free will" does not mean that "incentives don't matter." Obviously, or we could simply prove that free will exists by noting that incentives <i>do</i>, in fact, matter.<p>Would more people create Ponzi schemes if they didn't have examples like Madoff and SBF of it all crashing down? Absolutely. Would more people steal if they knew they couldn't face punishment? Yes. Would more people drink and drive if there were no consequences for doing so? Yes. If Company A offers me more money than Company B, am I more likely to take the offer from Company A? Yes.<p>Given that incentives matter, it is <i>absolutely</i> fair and reasonable to "reward people and reward people" for their actions.<p>Even though I think the premise that people don't have free will is likely correct!<p>(It's also quite odd that Sapolsky would <i>ask people to change their behavior</i>, given his apparent beliefs...)