Proposed developing of social evolution theory

[Cedars]

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.”

 

Charles,

 

Seems this belief is being refined.

 

"Human evolution has been moving at breakneck speed in the past several thousand years, far from plodding along as some scientists had thought, researchers said on Monday.

 

In fact, people today are genetically more different from people living 5,000 years ago than those humans were different from the Neanderthals who vanished 30,000 years ago, according to anthropologist John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin."

 

Rapid acceleration in human evolution described | Health | Reuters

 

Heres a different article on the same study with additional snippets:

 

Are Humans Evolving Faster? | Science & Consciousness Review

[questor]

Charles, this could lead to an interesting discussion if you would do as you said and condense your proposition into the single paragraph. I'm having trouble viewing a biological process (evolution) as being somehow comparable to or connected to societal evolution.

[charles brough]

Galapagos, several posts back you defined natural selection this way: "Natural selection will operate on any replicators that meet the requirements(variation, heritability, . . . " My point has been that having a genetic structure is essential for natural selection to bring about biological evolution. As you say, it has to have "heritability." What I am saying is that societies have a type of heritability that is not genetic and, hence, only resemble biological evolution.

 

I understand you may not recognize any such heritability factor operating on human history, but I think I have explained correctly what I intended to get across.

 

I am sorry I cannot explain a complicated 40,000 year process requiring about 150 pages of text in a way that does not seem vague to you . . .

 

Weather, climate, plagues, etc. all affect civilizations of course, but each society deals with them according to how capable and efficient they are, and that is cyclical. Those "explanation" go back some 60 years and do not explain the rise and fall of civilizations. The "meme" theory would be more appealing to me if someone could explain how it causes a civilization to mature and then decline. . .

[Galapagos]

Galapagos, several posts back you defined natural selection this way: "Natural selection will operate on any replicators that meet the requirements(variation, heritability, . . . " My point has been that having a genetic structure is essential for natural selection to bring about biological evolution. As you say, it has to have "heritability." What I am saying is that societies have a type of heritability that is not genetic and, hence, only resemble biological evolution.

Natural selection functions on culture in ways that are recognizable according to the study I linked to earlier. Note that the objections I am making to your claims do not apply to the aforementioned example.

 

I am saying that societies are in constant flux; constantly merging and changing to the point where there is no recognizable external boundary. They do not reproduce in a way that is definite or fitness-definable.

I understand you may not recognize any such heritability factor operating on human history, but I think I have explained correctly what I intended to get across.

 

I am sorry I cannot explain a complicated 40,000 year process requiring about 150 pages of text in a way that does not seem vague to you . . .

If selection at the level of the group as you have described has been an important factor in the differential success of societies for the past 40,000 years you should be able to give one specific, clear example.

[JulianKeller]

Reading thru just wondering how exactly does behaviour become genetic? :eek:

 

It arises from this question I posted:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/psychology/16849-questions-ive-been-wondering.html

 

An I figured it'd be better here in biology :( An since this is a social evolution thread I figured it'd be perfect to stick my question in, especial since that kind of answers the person above me's question.

[charles brough]

Natural selection functions on culture in ways that are recognizable according to the study I linked to earlier. Note that the objections I am making to your claims do not apply to the aforementioned example.

 

I am saying that societies are in constant flux; constantly merging and changing to the point where there is no recognizable external boundary. They do not reproduce in a way that is definite or fitness-definable.

 

If selection at the level of the group as you have described has been an important factor in the differential success of societies for the past 40,000 years you should be able to give one specific, clear example.

 

Galapagos, I understand why you are confused over my statements. I thought I had defined my terms earlier and without key terms having only one single clear meaning, the confusion remains eternal. As I explain in the Atheistic Science Institute - home page , I define "society" as people bonded by a mainstream ("large") "religion" (world-view and way-of-thinking). I do not use the world "culture" as anything but a product of a society. Yes, it does change some but continues to be identifiable as that of the society.

 

You wanted an example, the simplest one is that as the religions became more closed systems of thinking, they managed to be more successful in binding more people into single societies (such as, now, in the sense that all Muslims identify themselves as part of a society outside of Christian or HIndu society). The result is that hunting/gathering groups have been pushed to the fringes of the Earth and are nearly all gone.

 

charles

[Cedars]

Reading thru just wondering how exactly does behaviour become genetic? <_<

 

It arises from this question I posted:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/psychology/16849-questions-ive-been-wondering.html

 

An I figured it'd be better here in biology :P An since this is a social evolution thread I figured it'd be perfect to stick my question in, especial since that kind of answers the person above me's question.

 

Probably the most visible examples are within humans domestic animals, especially the dogs.

 

Sighthound - Wikipedia

 

Scent hound - Wikipedia

 

I chose these two dog types simply because it is wrapped around their basic survival skill, hunting.

 

Another study in Siberia involving foxes is a good read also. Rapid changes via selection based on fox behavior, primarily temparment resulting in physical changes in offspring.

 

Trut Fox Study

 

Same article but much easier to read, in PDF format:

http://www.floridalupine.org/publications/PDF/trut-fox-study.pdf

 

Whether we admit it or not, in the course of human existence we have done the same thing as was done to the hounds, the foxes, all other domestics. Killing off our enemies/rival tribes, the taking of slaves, women as property (trading/selling/dowries for your offspring), and capital punishment/banishment, and many more actions which were all based on cultural/societal norms.

 

Think about what it took for a slave to survive. The temperment involved.

 

Placing yourself in one of these societies, how would you try to place your daughter into a marriage? An advantage for your daughter would be an advantage for you (most likely) as the bond between the two families is created. You have two daughters, one submissive, one rebellious. Which daughter would you try to place with the silk merchant, in a civilization that allows the killing of a wayward wife, or the divorce of a wife who will not perform her domestic duties. And what did it take to become a successful merchant?

 

It really hasnt been that common that two individuals decided for themselves who they would be married to throughout human history (as I understand it). While the daughters seem to have the least amount of choice in such matters, does anyone really think the merchant would not also have the same control over his son, for the most part?

 

Now your original question:

 

What causes some people to feel as if they need to figure things out?

This is a pretty broad question, and I think some should be replaced with the word many or most. Where it can be reduced to some people would be to categorize what is it that some people feel they need to answer.

 

Example: Why study physics rather than medicine? Both require the need to figure things out.

 

Whats the difference between Einstein and the people who pour over his works now? All have the need to figure things out, but is the 8th grader checking out Einsteins works different from Einstein in the need to figure things out?

 

The motivation for such things? To increase profit or leisure time (depending on self). Its the building of a better mousetrap so to speak. The catcher of the most fish has more to trade, so the move from spear fishing to net fishing may result in higher profit or more time to paint on cave walls without being a starving artist. The man with the most fish also has a higher probability of being offered a higher dowry from the father looking to get his daughter married and has more choice in whos daughter he gets.

 

Not sure if this is where you were headed with your questions but this is my overview of these things.

[charles brough]

Whether we admit it or not, in the course of human existence we have done the same thing as was done to the hounds, the foxes, all other domestics. Killing off our enemies/rival tribes, the taking of slaves, women as property (trading/selling/dowries for your offspring), and capital punishment/banishment, and many more actions which were all based on cultural/societal norms.

 

Think about what it took for a slave to survive. The temperment involved.

 

Placing yourself in one of these societies, how would you try to place your daughter into a marriage? An advantage for your daughter would be an advantage for you (most likely) as the bond between the two families is created. You have two daughters, one submissive, one rebellious. Which daughter would you try to place with the silk merchant, in a civilization that allows the killing of a wayward wife, or the divorce of a wife who will not perform her domestic duties. And what did it take to become a successful merchant?

 

It really hasnt been that common that two individuals decided for themselves who they would be married to throughout human history (as I understand it). While the daughters seem to have the least amount of choice in such matters, does anyone really think the merchant would not also have the same control over his son, for the most part?

 

Your examples of behavioral natural selection are good but as societies and their cultures or beliefs change, perhaps all that natural selection has no effect on our genes. Myself, I think the natural selection occurs between the societies, their cultures and beliefs. This would mean that innate human behavioral patterns that got us into societies (ever larger social groupings)

have not needed to change and, hence, haven't changed. For example, if extremes in wealth here continue to widen, it seems to me, how about you?, that it would ultimately end in a bloody revolution---perhaps reminiscent of the French Revolution. We are culture-induced by our ideological system

to be humane and tolerant, but it is an uphill struggle that requires a lot of hate and intolerance for those who are intolerant and filled with race hate.

It is our ideologies that have evolved and not in the form of "memes," I propose, but in the form of whole mainstream ideological systems such as Christianity, Islam, Marxism and now our Secular Humanism.

 

Whats the difference between Einstein and the people who pour over his works now? All have the need to figure things out, but is the 8th grader checking out Einsteins works different from Einstein in the need to figure things out?

The motivation for such things? To increase profit or leisure time (depending on self).

 

Much of our "selfish" behavior is shaped by the society's belief system (Secular Humanism) towards giving to charity, helping others, doing well on the job, etc. because our belief system gives us status when we do so. The whole economic system is subliminally geared to enabling the individual to take care of his own economic needs in a way that benefits others/society. This is the principle behind the whole legal framework of our capitalistic system.

[Galapagos]

Myself, I think the natural selection occurs between the societies, their cultures and beliefs. This would mean that innate human behavioral patterns that got us into societies (ever larger social groupings)

have not needed to change and, hence, haven't changed.

[...]

It is our ideologies that have evolved and not in the form of "memes," I propose, but in the form of whole mainstream ideological systems such as Christianity, Islam, Marxism and now our Secular Humanism.

There are other objections I would like to make to your whole scheme, but this one is the most obvious and you still don't seem to be grasping the objection being made, and why it is such a critical one.

 

Societies and religions [units of culture] do not function as superorganismic units of selection for several reasons.

-no recognizable external boundaries(too much migration, merging, trade of culture)

-human groups long outlive such cultural/ideological paradigm shifts(culture often changes far more rapidly than the life time of the society it is in)

 

Natural selection requires heritable variation in fitness

 

Variation is the raw material of selection, but too much[strong] variation(drift, mutation, etc) will swamp out any chances of selection occurring. This means that the groups must be isolated to avoid the equivalent forces on culture(merging, transforming, exchanging etc)

For what you are saying to work, groups must be reproducing, their spawn must then reproduce, and inherited traits must be the cause of their differential success.

Natural selection is supposed to produce cumulative complex adaptations as a result of differential reproduction. Your model can certainly not satisfy these fundamental stipulations.

 

Also, just curious about your views on the generation of culture. Where do you think these ideologies and cultures come from(how are they produced by minds?)? And what do you think they exist as? "Norms"?

[Cedars]

Your examples of behavioral natural selection are good but as societies and their cultures or beliefs change, perhaps all that natural selection has no effect on our genes. Myself, I think the natural selection occurs between the societies, their cultures and beliefs. This would mean that innate human behavioral patterns that got us into societies (ever larger social groupings) have not needed to change and, hence, haven't changed.

But they HAVE changed as these newest studies indicate.

 

"The new study comes from two of the same University of Utah scientists -

Harpending and Cochran - who created a stir in 2005 when they published

a study arguing that above-average intelligence in Ashkenazi Jews -

those of northern European heritage - resulted from natural selection in

medieval Europe, where they were pressured into jobs as financiers,

traders, managers and tax collectors. Those who were smarter succeeded,

grew wealthy and had bigger families to pass on their genes. Yet that

intelligence also is linked to genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs and

Gaucher in Jews."

 

“We aren’t the same as people even 1,000 or 2,000 years ago,” he says, which may explain, for example, part of the difference between Viking invaders and their peaceful Swedish descendants. “The dogma has been these are cultural fluctuations, but almost any temperament trait you look at is under strong genetic influence.”

 

Link in Post 18.

 

For example, if extremes in wealth here continue to widen, it seems to me, how about you?, that it would ultimately end in a bloody revolution---perhaps reminiscent of the French Revolution.

Not as long as people still own their homes or are able to make their payments. It would take a Great Depression to even come close to sparking a revolution and that would only happen if the government didnt try to help. And they would because its a well known recipe for disaster. They know about the french revolution too.

 

 

 

We are culture-induced by our ideological system

to be humane and tolerant, but it is an uphill struggle that requires a lot of hate and intolerance for those who are intolerant and filled with race hate.

It is our ideologies that have evolved and not in the form of "memes," I propose, but in the form of whole mainstream ideological systems such as Christianity, Islam, Marxism and now our Secular Humanism.

 

We are taught to be humane and tolerant via Reward and Punishment. Sometimes that reward or punishment is cloaked in Culture, ideology, etc. What those rewards are or the punishment inflicted has varied via culture/ideology.

 

Much of our "selfish" behavior is shaped by the society's belief system (Secular Humanism) towards giving to charity, helping others, doing well on the job, etc. because our belief system gives us status when we do so. The whole economic system is subliminally geared to enabling the individual to take care of his own economic needs in a way that benefits others/society. This is the principle behind the whole legal framework of our capitalistic system.

 

All of our behavior is shaped by the basic drive to gather resources for Self. We have dressed it up via charity (god(s) demand giving), taxes (a state inflicted stipend), beyond that helping others is a personal choice. Corps get tax breaks, individuals get tax breaks, donations to your church are tax breaks, etc. Take out the tax breaks and watch what happens. You can get an over-view of that when Reagan required receipts for any tax deductable donations (cumulative) over $500 on your individual tax form. Reported donations dropped significantly. Doing well on the job has its own gathering resources for self motivation. Your paycheck. The possibility of increasing that paycheck. Some people get lucky and only work for something to do. Personally, when I hear of a case like that, I think "weirdo". Its just not normal.

 

I would argue the capitalist system has a much simpler motivation. He who dies with the most toys wins! Again that is gathering resources for self. Doesnt mean those resources are useful for everyday survival but they are the beads and shells traded for incense and salt in times past.

[charles brough]

The post 18 link mentioned above--- Rapid acceleration in human evolution described | Health | Reuters

 

is typical of the many I have examined. What happens is that slight genetic or epigenetic change occurs in some populations resulting in changes in immune response to certain diseases and, perhaps, to make some small segments of the human race "smarter." In other words, what I am saying is that there is a desperate need to explain history and how we built up our cultural heritage so that its technology has enabled us to populate the globe. So, we get this intense competition to show biological change because no one is making any progress on explaining it the meme-cultural evolution way. But even the above link states that the changes only cause small segments of the human race to become increasingly different.

 

I have stated before that the terminology used in the social sciences is filled with multiple meaning key words---unlike the physical sciences. This is because ideological subjectivity influences social scientists. I start with one single-meaning use for the two most important terms in my theory. In it, "society" is the maximum territory and number of people bonded into it by a mainstream "religion." "Mainstream" is the larger groups and their larger territories." I use terms this way because I propose that since we evolved in hunting-gathering size groups, we are unable to function in larger size groups without being bonded into them by a common world-view and way-of-thinking system, one which is loosely termed "religion." If any of you can understand and accept that, then, I can explain, for example, how civilizations rise and fall. This use of terms has not before been exploited because it has unappealing implications to the world's present religious and secular beliefs.

 

And please, some here quibble over minor things. It is not necessary to get into long "you say this: I say that" written dialogues filled with "you give bad examples," or "you give tired ideas," etc. etc. etc.

 

charles

[Cedars]

The post 18 link mentioned above--- Rapid acceleration in human evolution described | Health | Reuters

 

is typical of the many I have examined. What happens is that slight genetic or epigenetic change occurs in some populations resulting in changes in immune response to certain diseases and, perhaps, to make some small segments of the human race "smarter." In other words, what I am saying is that there is a desperate need to explain history and how we built up our cultural heritage so that its technology has enabled us to populate the globe. So, we get this intense competition to show biological change because no one is making any progress on explaining it the meme-cultural evolution way. But even the above link states that the changes only cause small segments of the human race to become increasingly different.

 

And please, some here quibble over minor things. It is not necessary to get into long "you say this: I say that" written dialogues filled with "you give bad examples," or "you give tired ideas," etc. etc. etc.

 

charles

 

“The dogma has been these are cultural fluctuations, but almost any temperament trait you look at is under strong genetic influence.”

 

The changes are in 7% of the genes. Genes are hereditary.

 

"The genetic information in a genome is held within genes, and the complete set of this information in an organism is called its genotype. A gene is a unit of heredity and is a region of DNA that influences a particular characteristic in an organism."

 

Above quote from Wiki.

 

Carry on Charles!

[charles brough]

Cedars: I accept your definitions re. genes and have all along. My point is that my reason for defining "society" in terms of "religion" (world-view systems) is that we are evolved as small group primates and cannot exist in large societies without an ideological system able to bind us into an entity able to substitute for the small hunting-gathering group. If and when that seems reasonable to someone in this thread, I will then show how it enables us to understand what causes history and the rise and fall of civilizations.

 

If it does not make sense to you, let me know why. I would be happy to discuss that too.

 

charles

[Cedars]

My point is that my reason for defining "society" in terms of "religion" (world-view systems) is that we are evolved as small group primates and cannot exist in large societies without an ideological system able to bind us into an entity able to substitute for the small hunting-gathering group. If and when that seems reasonable to someone in this thread, I will then show how it enables us to understand what causes history and the rise and fall of civilizations.

 

If it does not make sense to you, let me know why. I would be happy to discuss that too.

 

charles

 

As Questor pointed out in Post #6 we do exist in large societies without adherence to this binding entity of religion/world view. What allows this to occur is individuals deciding for themselves whether the reward or punishment is worth risking their ability to gather resources for self. Thinking about large cities and any citizen walking on any street is taking a risk (of varied degree) from an alternative view of how things work, meaning there are territory markers, alpha males, warring tribes, etc within each of these societies/cultures that have grown into such large expanses.

 

Another example. Legal marijuana use. There is a significant number of people in the USA who dont think marijuana should be illegal. Some of them continue to use this product (rebel), others decide the risk to self (penalty) is greater than the benefit. The majority of people will not notify the authorities if their neighbor smokes a joint.

 

So at a minimum, you would need to describe this 'social religion' as polytheism in practice, with some adherents participating via a knife held to their throat.

 

Is this more along the lines of your thoughts?

 

Substitute the word city for hive and war with wasps hunting and you have a civilization of bees defending its queen from the barbarian horde.

 

Did you know in Minnesota, bullsnakes hibernate with other types of snakes and even toads? Fair game when its warm, they all eat each other (or the young) when the weathers nice. Just thought I would throw that in for the symbolism.

[charles brough]

As Questor pointed out in Post #6 we do exist in large societies without adherence to this binding entity of religion/world view. What allows this to occur is individuals deciding for themselves whether the reward or punishment is worth risking their ability to gather resources for self.

 

Evidently you think we can live without common beliefs. Do you consider our secular belief system ("rights," "democracy," free-enterprise system," "individualism," "pursuit of happiness," etc.) an ideological system or world-view and way of thinking, or do you just consider it "Truth?" What about Christianity, do you consider that we in the West don't consider ourselves as a group apart from and to some extent antagonistic to Islam---as they are to us? Have you ever experienced "cultural shock?"

 

And since you consider your cultural "evolution" example as the explanation, how does it explain why the Muslim Near East and the Chinese Far East examples weakened during the last 500 years while that of the West grew stronger?

[Cedars]

Evidently you think we can live without common beliefs. Do you consider our secular belief system ("rights," "democracy," free-enterprise system," "individualism," "pursuit of happiness," etc.) an ideological system or world-view and way of thinking, or do you just consider it "Truth?"

Lets begin here:

 

"rights," (is it good for SELF and the pursuit of Resources?) "democracy," (is it good for SELF? Think French revolution) free-enterprise system, (The dangling carrot of SELF and the pursuit...)" "individualism, (SELF)" "pursuit of happiness, (SELF)" etc.

 

What about Christianity, do you consider that we in the West don't consider ourselves as a group apart from and to some extent antagonistic to Islam---as they are to us?

Again, these examples all dangle the carrot/stick of reward and punishment wrapped around the basic Alpha male/female of the social pack.

Have you ever experienced "cultural shock?"

Yes, when I moved from minnesota to wisconsin. I adapted to their culture by developing a taste for beer and not wearing Vikings memorabilia. Sheesh those people (generalization) Drink a Whole Bunch of Beer! Socially of course.

 

The ability to adapt to an environment is a key feature of species success.

 

And since you consider your cultural "evolution" example as the explanation, how does it explain why the Muslim Near East and the Chinese Far East examples weakened during the last 500 years while that of the West grew stronger?

 

Could you clarify what exactly you mean by a weakening vs stronger.

 

Now back to my previous post:

 

Thinking about large cities and any citizen walking on any street is taking a risk (of varied degree) from an alternative view of how things work, meaning there are territory markers, alpha males, warring tribes, etc within each of these societies/cultures that have grown into such large expanses.

 

Another example. Legal marijuana use. (snipped)

 

So at a minimum, you would need to describe this 'social religion' as polytheism in practice, with some adherents participating via a knife held to their throat.

 

Is this more along the lines of your thoughts?

If this isnt along the lines you were proposing, please clarify.

[charles brough]

Assuming you are serious about all that, then all I can say is that you do not see the world about you except as a meme process. We have no real means to communicate.

 

It seems no one will take up my proposal or challenge. May be I'll see you in another thread . . .