Predictability and climate can be seen from different points of view. On the basis of Life History Theory (e.g., Hill Reference Hill1993; Kaplan & Gangestad Reference Kaplan, Gangestad and Buss2005), it is claimed that fast life strategies (related to reproducing earlier, having higher mortality and morbidity rates, having higher levels of violence) are adopted when life events are unpredictable and harsh (Ellis et al. Reference Ellis, Figueredo, Brumbach and Schlomer2009; Griskevicius et al. Reference Griskevicius, Tybur, Delton and Robertson2011), and slow life strategies (the opposite) are adopted when life is more predictable and less harsh. Van Lange et al. connect this to climate and claim that in warmer areas close to the equator, life is more unpredictable and harsher (from the perspective of climate as a result of viruses and natural disasters). Contrary to this argument, if one focuses on climate and its seasonal variation close to the equator, the climate is less extreme and there is less seasonal variation. From the perspective of climate arises the question: What can be more predictable and less harsh than constant warmth with little variation? Contrary to the authors' claim, it is plausible that areas close to the equator are more predictable, and considering purely climate, seasonal changes in areas farther from the equator can result in harsh life conditions such as freezing winters, unexpected summer droughts, and floods.

From a historical perspective, in those regions where the weather was comfortably warm all year, crops could be harvested twice a year and food and shelter were available all year. However, in the past, a second harvest in the winter was not possible in northern regions and it was more difficult to find shelter, which made living conditions harsher and less predictable. In short, they had fewer exposed resources during a certain part of the year. These conditions could have motivated northerners to become more future oriented, that is, to think about the forthcoming winter and its possible negative consequences and, thus, to accumulate and save resources (Ashkanasy et al. Reference Ashkanasy, Gupta, Mayfield, Trevor-Roberts, House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman and Gupta2004). These northerners were forced to accumulate resources to cover the periods when resources were scarce. For them, future orientation was the key to survival (Zimbardo & Boyd Reference Zimbardo and Boyd2008). Throughout history, this accumulating behavior driven by future orientation allowed northern societies to reach a higher level of economic development, whereas in southern regions, where resources were available all year long, societies were less focused on the future.

As accumulation of resources reached a point when there were more than enough resources for one harsh winter, the perceived availability of resources changed. If the pantry is full all year, the perceived scarcity of resources changes fundamentally in a positive direction despite the variation in climate (e.g., unpredictable droughts, floods, or freezing winters). Societies that accumulated resources were more able to provide these to individuals than societies that were less pressured to accumulate. Thus, the northerners gained more control over the environment to make the living conditions more predictable and less harsh. This future-oriented accumulative attitude for controlling the harshness of winter finally made the immediate environment of the northerners more predictable than was necessary for the southerners. With a relatively constant warm climate without variation, southerners developed a present hedonistic time perspective that enabled them to enjoy each day more fully, which, in turn, led to pleasure-seeking behavior instead of accumulating behavior.

Resource accumulation is the basis of wealth. Northerners were forced to accumulate resources as a consequence of hard winters, which in turn led to gradual economic development. This economic growth created improved living conditions that in turn led to more predictable and less harsh living conditions. On the other hand, southerners were not forced to think of the future because their winters were mild or nonexistent and thus they did not have to learn how to accumulate resources. Here lies a paradox: Exposure to available resources (as a result of the climate) could create social psychological situations that could stimulate the foundation of resource accumulation and, in turn, provide better and more predictable living conditions in northern countries with less fortunate climates. To our best knowledge, data directly underpinning this hypothesis are scarce. However, it is in line with Morselli's (Reference Morselli2013) argument that future orientation – in contrast to present or past orientation – can be considered as a way of coping with uncertain environmental factors.

In sum, we claim that climate, as an important contextual factor, has a direct impact on time perspective (Chen & Vazsonyi Reference Chen and Vazsonyi2011), whereas fast and slow life strategies are consequences of the economic conditions created by presence of a future orientation or lack of a future orientation. It is clear that more northern nations, or those geographical areas within any nation, above the equator, have higher gross national products.

In conclusion, we claim that paradoxically the harsher and more unpredictable life conditions led to the development of a future time perspective, which – through resource accumulation in the long run – resulted in better economic conditions (with less threat and more predictability) that finally resulted in a slower life strategy. That meant being aware that their future needs were relatively secured, they could enjoy daily life more fully.