This is not the 'evolutionary perspective' as you claim it is. This is just your perspective dressed in evolutionary terminology so that the reader will believe that if you accept human evolution, you MUST accept this conclusion. But the fact that you came up with a possible evolutionary past and thought of a constraint that could've pushed us to develop the adaptive behavior of procrastination doesn't in any way imply that this is actually the way things happened. Procrastination might've been a fitness-maximizing adaptation (or even just a spandrel [1]) for so many other equally convincing reasons.
It's really strange that while for molecular & morphological phenotypes we use rigorous methods to measure evolutionary relatedness so we can determine possible sequences of evolutionary adaptations that led to them, when it comes to behavioral phenotypes people think that conceivability arguments coupled with very inconclusive evidence are sufficient to demonstrate that some evolutionary story is true.
It's really strange that while for molecular & morphological phenotypes we use rigorous methods to measure evolutionary relatedness so we can determine possible sequences of evolutionary adaptations that led to them, when it comes to behavioral phenotypes people think that conceivability arguments coupled with very inconclusive evidence are sufficient to demonstrate that some evolutionary story is true.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology)