Proposed developing of social evolution theory

[charles brough]

Here proposed are the following points . . .

 

1.Human biological evolution in the last 40,000 years has been too

minute to explain even in part the immense growth of human population

and cultural heritage since then. Since all change in nature is the

result of some form of natural selection (evolution), the explaining

of what process has caused the cultural growth and enabled our growth

in numbers must belong to a field we can call “social or cultural

evolution.”

 

2.The term “social” (or “society”) is more appropriate than

“culture” (despite consensus the social science theorist's preference

for it since the 1950s) because “cultures” can only be adequately

defined as being a product of some entity---of a “large

group“ (“society?”).

 

3.It is proposed that “society” be defined as “any mass of people

occupying territory and bonded together by a world-view and way-of-

thinking belief system that is in “the mainstream.” The "mainstream"

is where the largest and most culturally/technologically-developed

societies exist and where social evolution is centered (somewhat

comparable to an animal "breeding ground").

 

4.Belief-system bonded “societies” are proposed as the evolutionary

unit because, like all other primates and most mammals, we humans

evolved as small group social beings through millions of years of

evolution. It became possible for us to organize into larger groups

than the small ones we evolved in only because language-speech enabled

us to adopt ideological systems that could expand our group size.

Thus, both society and civilization are dependent upon a tight

ideological bond. When it grows old, divides and weakens, it becomes

increasingly difficult to find ways of patching it back together.

Social problems multiply and, eventually, the secular “patching”

itself divides and society disintegrates as the public is forced to

turn back to the fundamentals of their by now ancient faith.

 

5.The result is that societies experience a sort-of life cycle. This

process is not biological but rather a social evolutionary process in

which the presence of competing societies cause them to adopt secular

ideologies in order to survive longer. Also, any new ideological

system that is adopted has to be competitive, that is, it needs to

function in a way that enables it to grow at the expense of the others

if necessary.

 

6.This is a process that assumes we are all of one race, the human

race, and that the only thing that separates us is our ideological

systems and thus, the distinct culture and technology they foster.

 

7.The main benefit of this proposed approach is that it enables us to

figure out what stage we are in the society life-cycle, to understand

the role of the secular system, and understand why world affairs are

now heading our over-populated, nuclear-armed world in a troubling

direction.

 

I develop the points further and into a general theory which can be

accessed on my web page link posed next to my name in the

membership list . . .

 

Charles,

[Essay]

Neat perspective Charles. This isn't just sociology, is it.

...be back later....

~ :(

[charles brough]

Neat perspective Charles. This isn't just sociology, is it.

...be back later....

~ :hihi:

 

No, I think it could best be classified as social science theory. It is worked on from the perspective of some ten to twelve different social and natural sciences. After all, there is no getting around it; the rise and fall of human societies and civilizations is complex. The work of the experts needs to be pulled together so we can know where humanity is now and what can and should be done from here . . .

 

charles

[Galapagos]

4.Belief-system bonded “societies” are proposed as the evolutionary

unit

 

In order for this to work the unit of selection has to differentially reproduce(groups must spawn other entire groups, and then those groups must differentially reproduce other entire groups), copy itself with a reliable degree of fidelity(the traits being copied for must be blindly selected and increase the fitness of the groups inheriting them), and migration/group mixing rates have to be low/slow while extinction rates of entire groups occurs more rapidly. The traits being selected for in the entire group must be more strong/rapid than countervailing selection on traits of the individuals within the group.

I seriously doubt what you are proposing meets the above requirements.

 

Can you give any more specific examples of your group selection as it has acted throughout history?

[charles brough]

In order for this to work the unit of selection has to differentially reproduce(groups must spawn other entire groups, and then those groups must differentially reproduce other entire groups), copy itself with a reliable degree of fidelity(the traits being copied for must be blindly selected and increase the fitness of the groups inheriting them), and migration/group mixing rates have to be low/slow while extinction rates of entire groups occurs more rapidly. The traits being selected for in the entire group must be more strong/rapid than countervailing selection on traits of the individuals within the group.

I seriously doubt what you are proposing meets the above requirements.

 

Can you give any more specific examples of your group selection as it has acted throughout history?

 

You describe the process of biological evolution very well, but a form of natural selection can occur between societies as entities even though they are not biological entities. In my work I find natural selection processes going on between social entities that differ from biological evolutionary processes. I conclude that social evolution operates similarly to but not the same as biological evolution.

 

As you are aware, societies have no genetic system. However, mainstream ideological systems that are able to bind masses of people into a single social entity (such as "the West" and Islam) and endure for thousands of years can be reasonably be treated as social entities. In a sense, they even reproduce.

For example, Christianity was an ideology that grew from a base of Babylonian mythology, Zoroastrian monotheism, Babylonian moral codes, etc. It spread and formed the society of Christendom---later termed "The West." In social evolutionary terms, this was "reproduction." The new society obtained its "genetic" material from advanced concepts of other, older societies. Because mainstream ideological systems are able to bond people into social entities that last thousands of years, they have a genetic-like feature. They are able to adopt new ideas to merge with their own and to, in turn, unwillingly pass on to other societies their own advanced technology and ideals. This process involves competition if not outright survival of the fittest. Certainly, it is a process of natural selection. Societies that are too small (hence unsuccessful) are left out of the mainstream and, like nearly all surviving hunting-gathering troops, destined to be totally replaced.

 

Social evolutionary processes are many and complex. It is hard to put them down in a single paragraph, but so are biological ones. The main difference is that social evolution is not subject to experimentation as are some biological evolutionary processes. But all science has to perform as best it can to the limitations it faces. And since the consensus social theory is what is put in all our school systems from grade one to Ph.D---and, hence, shapes public opinion---its importance can hardly be minimized.

 

charles

[questor]

The social cultures of the USA provide ample fodder to study social evolution. We have no national idealogical sameness. We have wealthy, we have poor, we have black,white, indian, Muslim, Jew, Christian, atheist. We don't have consensus on what makes a good citizen, or a good leader, or a good economic system. Since we are free, we can all pursue the things that please us. Some love rap music, pornographic literature, shapeless masses on canvas passing for art, absence of religion, political correctness. Others think some of these things demeans society and cheapens our culture. Since we have so many cultural differences, with our differences widening and coarsening, perhaps we are devolving rather than evolving.

[Galapagos]

You describe the process of biological evolution very well, but a form of natural selection can occur between societies as entities even though they are not biological entities. In my work I find natural selection processes going on between social entities that differ from biological evolutionary processes. I conclude that social evolution operates similarly to but not the same as biological evolution.

Natural selection will operate on any replicators that meet the requirements(variation, heritability, differential survival/reporduction). I'm saying that it is very unlikely that it shaped groups in the way you are saying, and if it has, the effects would be negligible compared to selection at the level of the individual unit of culture.

As you are aware, societies have no genetic system. However, mainstream ideological systems that are able to bind masses of people into a single social entity (such as "the West" and Islam) and endure for thousands of years can be reasonably be treated as social entities. In a sense, they even reproduce.

For example, Christianity was an ideology that grew from a base of Babylonian mythology, Zoroastrian monotheism, Babylonian moral codes, etc. It spread and formed the society of Christendom---later termed "The West." In social evolutionary terms, this was "reproduction." The new society obtained its "genetic" material from advanced concepts of other, older societies. Because mainstream ideological systems are able to bond people into social entities that last thousands of years, they have a genetic-like feature. They are able to adopt new ideas to merge with their own and to, in turn, unwillingly pass on to other societies their own advanced technology and ideals. This process involves competition if not outright survival of the fittest. Certainly, it is a process of natural selection. Societies that are too small (hence unsuccessful) are left out of the mainstream and, like nearly all surviving hunting-gathering troops, destined to be totally replaced.

 

Social evolutionary processes are many and complex. It is hard to put them down in a single paragraph, but so are biological ones. The main difference is that social evolution is not subject to experimentation as are some biological evolutionary processes. But all science has to perform as best it can to the limitations it faces. And since the consensus social theory is what is put in all our school systems from grade one to Ph.D---and, hence, shapes public opinion---its importance can hardly be minimized.

 

charles

 

Your example is incredibly vague. Can you give a specific example of an iterative replication process occurring, and describe what traits(traits inherited from the original group) resulted in increased fitness for the groups.

You must also take into account contact with other groups, imitation, and mutation of cultures and customs. Selection at the level of individual units of culture, such as memes, would also be occurring much more rapidly and have a much larger effect than selection at the level of the group as you suggest.

 

Are you familiar with the work of Jared Diamond? I think his work explains the rise and fall of societies much better than any group selection model does.

[charles brough]

Natural selection will operate on any replicators that meet the requirements(variation, heritability, differential survival/reporduction). I'm saying that it is very unlikely that it shaped groups in the way you are saying, and if it has, the effects would be negligible compared to selection at the level of the individual unit of culture.

 

 

Your example is incredibly vague. Can you give a specific example of an iterative replication process occurring, and describe what traits(traits inherited from the original group) resulted in increased fitness for the groups.

You must also take into account contact with other groups, imitation, and mutation of cultures and customs. Selection at the level of individual units of culture, such as memes, would also be occurring much more rapidly and have a much larger effect than selection at the level of the group as you suggest.

 

Are you familiar with the work of Jared Diamond? I think his work explains the rise and fall of societies much better than any group selection model does.

 

For the most part, the social evolutionary process is not an iterative replication process. I have made no effort to confine it to biological terms. I have gone over the historical process and describe what it is whether it fits the biological pattern you and others are used to or not. It is a new and separate process. There is no genetics involved, so how could it be the same? All we are dealing with is huge mainstream social units that follow a pattern that is similar to a biological life cycle. These big units successfully crowd out lesser units which gradually die out. You wanted an example; I gave you one (Babylon, etc.). You say it is vague; I agree when it is compared to the biological process. It is as clear and simple as it can be made, however, and not too "vague" to explain how evolutionary processes account for human history and for the growth of our cultural heritage and its technology---and, thus, our mounting population numbers.

 

I have read several books by J Diamond and was not so impressed as to read any more of them.

 

charles

[charles brough]

The social cultures of the USA provide ample fodder to study social evolution. We have no national idealogical sameness. We have wealthy, we have poor, we have black,white, indian, Muslim, Jew, Christian, atheist. We don't have consensus on what makes a good citizen, or a good leader, or a good economic system. Since we are free, we can all pursue the things that please us. Some love rap music, pornographic literature, shapeless masses on canvas passing for art, absence of religion, political correctness. Others think some of these things demeans society and cheapens our culture. Since we have so many cultural differences, with our differences widening and coarsening, perhaps we are devolving rather than evolving.

 

You have a good description of our modern secular society---especially in the US! It is so divided that we had to come up with strange new ideals such as "diversity is good" and that it is good to have "an open mind" (meaning one that never manages to sort out what is ingested into a self-consistent whole). Diversity means division and division causes weakness.

[Galapagos]

For the most part, the social evolutionary process is not an iterative replication process. I have made no effort to confine it to biological terms. I have gone over the historical process and describe what it is whether it fits the biological pattern you and others are used to or not. It is a new and separate process. There is no genetics involved, so how could it be the same?

 

You are very, very mistaken here. Selection will work on any replicators that meet the requirements of copying, changing, and competing, and this includes individual replicating units of culture. The process will indeed be different for some reasons I outlined in the previous post(imitation, rapid mutation), but it will still be the same natural selection(perhaps with a bit of a more Lamarckian look).

 

All we are dealing with is huge mainstream social units that follow a pattern that is similar to a biological life cycle. These big units successfully crowd out lesser units which gradually die out. You wanted an example; I gave you one (Babylon, etc.). You say it is vague; I agree when it is compared to the biological process. It is as clear and simple as it can be made, however, and not too "vague" to explain how evolutionary processes account for human history and for the growth of our cultural heritage and its technology---and, thus, our mounting population numbers.

 

No, it is incredibly vague and a poor example, and I have read of at least one better example put forward by Sober & Wilson, which I also did not find very convincing.

 

 

I have read several books by J Diamond and was not so impressed as to read any more of them.

charles

That's a shame, because "Guns, Germs, and Steel" explains arbitrary factors like biogeography and agriculture lead to the success of certain societies, and it won much acclaim and a Pulitzer prize for doing so.

 

 

 

Here is an example of natural selection working on individual units of culture:

 

Human Culture Subject To Natural Selection, Study Shows

Natural selection and cultural rates of change ? PNAS

 

Even if something like what you are suggesting is true(you have so far put forth very bad explanations and examples for a tired idea), the selection at the level of the group would be nil compared to the rapid selection occurring at the level of the individual unit of culture. In the above study(done at Stanford, co-authored by famed scientist P. Ehrlich), it is shown that symbols and decoration evolve(by natural selection) at a rate much more rapidly than cultural units needed for survival in the environment(in this case, canoe designs). This would be going on both within and between competing groups in most cases, and would easily swamp out any group selection forces as you have outlined them.

[charles brough]

Look, Galapagos, if you want to discuss this, fine, but I am not impressed by you backing yourself up with "authorities," such as one winning the Pulitzer prize. I am not going the consensus rout, much less the work of Diamond. I am dealing with something very different. Also, I am neither swayed nor impressed by remarks such as:

 

"You are very, very mistaken here.

 

No, it is incredibly vague and a poor example,

 

you have so far put forth very bad explanations and examples for a tired idea"

 

Instead, why not tell me how the meme theory explains the rise and fall of civilizations? (Do cultural memes reverse replicate and cause civilizations to decline?) If you do that and manage to adopt some manners, I will gladly show you how I explain the rise and fall of societies in a single (long) paragraph.

 

charles

[questor]

Charles, could you favor the rest of us with your theory?

[ quote] If you do that and manage to adopt some manners, I will gladly show you how I explain the rise and fall of societies in a single (long) paragraph

[charles brough]

Questor, I'd be happy to favor you all, but I am awaitn a response from Galloping Galapagos. . . .

:)

 

charles . . .

[Galapagos]

Look, Galapagos, if you want to discuss this, fine, but I am not impressed by you backing yourself up with "authorities," such as one winning the Pulitzer prize. I am not going the consensus rout, much less the work of Diamond. I am dealing with something very different.

You have apparently completely ignored the relevant work done in the fields of sociobiology, cultural anthropology, cognitive science, etc. You do not have to "go the consensus route" to be informed or avoid unnecessarily(and in my opinion, poorly) reinventing the wheel. You are dealing with a subject that much has been published on, and you have apparently failed to mention any of it in your own work.

Also, I am neither swayed nor impressed by remarks such as:

 

"You are very, very mistaken here.

 

No, it is incredibly vague and a poor example,

 

you have so far put forth very bad explanations and examples for a tired idea"

You do not have to be impressed, but I still think you are very, very mistaken, that you have put forward only one vague and poor example, and that group selection(especially regarding culture) is a tired idea.

You posted looking for feedback, and I have criticized your work. You do not have to accept the criticism, but it makes one wonder why you bothered sharing.

 

Instead, why not tell me how the meme theory explains the rise and fall of civilizations? (Do cultural memes reverse replicate and cause civilizations to decline?)

I do not think "meme theory explains the rise and fall of civilizations", and that is not the topic of this thread. This thread is about your proposal, which you have yet to give one single solid example of.

 

 

 

I will gladly show you how I explain the rise and fall of societies in a single (long) paragraph.

 

Can you give a single specific example of selection working in the way you are claiming?

[Essay]

Gala....

I'm sorry, but it seems to me that most of your examples support Charles' suggestion that a fairly good analogy can be drawn between social and biological evolution. Within the complexities of biological evolution, the epigenetic influences, SNP's, CNP's, linkages, translocations, inversions, changing rates and types of mutation, and the many different levels on which the environment can influence genes and transmission, I think there are plenty of good analogies for the complexities of social evolution, cultural drift, random events, unintended consequences, media influences, transportation effects, environmental changes that affect society on many different levels, etc.

 

We need integrative sciences these days, and this seems like a good start. I don't think Charles' focus on cohesive units like religion is meant to be the main focus either, just a gross example of transmission (and change) over time.

 

...and looking at society over time is another parallel too....

From your link:

Human Culture Subject To Natural Selection, Study Shows

Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb and other books on dilemmas facing contemporary human society, said he does not understand why more effort is not going into urgently needed solutions. "What we don't know, and need to learn, is how cultures change and how we can ethically influence that process," he said.

 

Deborah S. Rogers, a research fellow at Stanford, said their findings demonstrate that "some cultural choices work while others clearly do not."

"Unfortunately, people have learned how to avoid natural selection in the short term through unsustainable approaches such as inequity and excess consumption. But this is not going to work in the long term," she said. "We need to begin aligning our culture with the powerful forces of nature and natural selection instead of against them."

 

...Hybrid vigor vs. competition to extinction....

...will conservatives and liberals work to synergize or outcompete the other?

 

Interesting cultural questions can be framed in this evolutionary perspective, don't you think?

 

~ :)

[Galapagos]

Gala....

I'm sorry, but it seems to me that most of your examples support Charles' suggestion that a fairly good analogy can be drawn between social and biological evolution. Within the complexities of biological evolution, the epigenetic influences, SNP's, CNP's, linkages, translocations, inversions, changing rates and types of mutation, and the many different levels on which the environment can influence genes and transmission, I think there are plenty of good analogies for the complexities of social evolution, cultural drift, random events, unintended consequences, media influences, transportation effects, environmental changes that affect society on many different levels, etc.

I posted that article to demonstrate natural selection working on culture at a level lower than the group, not to contest that natural selection works on culture. I was providing the same kind of evidence that I am requesting Charles provide.

I'm contesting Charles #4 in the OP(4.Belief-system bonded “societies” are proposed as the evolutionary unit), in that I do not think that these groups are isolated enough, or replicating fast enough/with enough fidelity for any interesting selection to occur.

 

We need integrative sciences these days, and this seems like a good start. I don't think Charles' focus on cohesive units like religion is meant to be the main focus either, just a gross example of transmission (and change) over time.

Again, I think that his claim that selection occurs at the level of cultural groups is incorrect. I think looking at selection at the level of individual units of culture(memes) is a more promising approach(cultural units replicate selfishly like genes, not for the good of any other entities), but not without some of its own problems.

[Essay]

That sound reasonable. I guess we're just looking at the units of the analogy differently.

As I say, I think evolution is complex enough to handle some kind of analogy to civilization; let's see what Charles says....

 

Cheers,

~ :)