4 ms·

Kroeber was ultimately wrong in the sense that culture is in fact intimately tied to evolution. Natural selection happens at the biological level and at the ma

Kroeber was ultimately wrong in the sense that culture is in fact intimately tied to evolution. Natural selection happens at the biological level and at the macro level. Have you ever thought why ecological systems are so in equilibrium with the environment? Because any system that wasn't in equilibrium was ultimately destroyed by natural selection. Macro level systems with reproductive qualities like culture or ecology are subject to evolution.

danharaj 7y ago
Ecosystems are far from equilibrium. Evolution couldn't happen if they were. Come on, spit it out, what are you trying to get at?
- crimsonalucard 7y ago
  http://ai.berkeley.edu/~cs10/labs/cur/programming/simulation/ecosystem-simulation.html?topic=berkeley_bjc%2Fapps%2Fsimulation-in-science.topic http://ai.berkeley.edu/~cs10/labs/cur/programming/simulation... There is nothing left to spit out. I can address some of your points but overall I will just be reiterating my original points over again from a different angle with more examples so you and others can understand. First based off of the link above ecosystems are indeed in equilibrium. Second even at an equilibrium things can still evolve. There is a concept called genetic drift where genes and culture changes within the bounds of natural selection. So imagine a local optima that involves a multitude of solutions that are equally optimum. Ecosystems and biological creatures who have hit this equilibrium can still evolve by oscillating among all the solutions in that local optima. The term is called genetic drift but the concept applies to topics outside of biology. Third, natural selection is not strictly a biological concept. It has broader applications that most people are aware about on some level. Genetic programming is a popular example where the primitive s are not genes but computer instructions. What people aren't aware about is how natural selection can apply to macro concepts and systems where the primitives aren't clear. Things like culture, civilizations and large systems and Anything that can reproduce and mutate are candidates. There are multitudes of cultures and economies and systems of government that go through reproduction, death and mutation across huge timescales. Cultures that you see today are ones that survived from the past because they are the fittest. Easter island involved a tribe and culture that overloaded. The culture was centered around status and over exploitation of resources resulted in that culture dying out and not being present today. All we have of that culture today is a "fossil record". Many cultures in the past have self imploded like a cancer and were naturally selected out. In the natural world you should see ecosystems that are in equilibrium because the systems in equilibrium are the only ones that can survive. Evolution at the macro scale can also have effects on the evolution of lower level biological systems as well. Take for example the evolution of an efficient predator. Biological creatures tend towards greater efficiency but if a carnivore that is too efficient exists in an ecosystem it may kill everything and overload system. Hence most ecosystems have creatures that aren't necessarily the pinnacle of efficiency. Ecosystems where creatures are imperfect and just good enough to maintain equilibrium within the system are what you tend to see. For humanity in my personal opinion we are currently on our way to overloading the world. Aspects of what we are culturally and biologically will eventually be culled in a selection process that will arrive in the far future. I'm also not talking out of my ass. This stuff is really studied in academia. See below. https://www.pnas.org/content/114/30/7782 https://www.pnas.org/content/114/30/7782 Fourth. Do not tell me to "spit it out." It is rude and if you do it again you will face consequences to the extent that the rules on this site allow.
  - danharaj 7y ago
    > Fourth. Do not tell me to "spit it out." It is rude and if you do it again you will face consequences to the extent that the rules on this site allow. Do it. You won't.
    - crimsonalucard 7y ago
      Telling me to spit it out is rude. It violates the rules. I've flagged you because you decided to challenge me on it. "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine." "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." If your post doesn't die I will consider not commenting on this site because this is just a flagrant violation and is highly unfair. Either you have some insider connection or there's bias.
Hitton 7y ago
I don't know why are you downvoted, it's pretty much settled science. There are multiple papers on culture-gene co-evolution of individualism-collectivism and the serotonin transporter gene. And individualism/collectivism is big part of any culture. It's hard to imagine something like Confucianism developing in highly individualistic western Europe.
- rsynnott 7y ago
  _Communism_ developed in highly individualistic Western Europe... As did fascism. I'm not convinced there's a magic Europe-individualistic gene.
  - Hitton 7y ago
    Developed wasn't probably right word, spread would be better. European fascism wasn't particularly collectivist. And of course there is no magic individualistic gene, it's science. Nevertheless there is sizable evidence that greater or lesser prevalence of some genes (encoding serotonin and opioid transporters) influences both tendencies of individuals and culture among the population. I have posted enough to point you at the right resources in my last post, but if you want to actually educate yourself you can start with: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842692/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842692/
    - rsynnott 7y ago
      The only real common factor in Communist states (excluding those in Eastern Europe outside the former Russian Empire, which is a special case) is that the states which preceded them were very weak, and usually very geographically large, so that attempts by neighbors to stop it fell apart. There were multiple attempts at communist revolutions in Western Europe, but they were suppressed by strong states. And I don't think I buy that Western Europe _is_ highly individualistic anyway. Who would describe Germany or the Nordics in those terms? The UK and to some extend the Netherlands were very individualistic before it was cool, but both countries had extremely special geopolitical (and religious) conditions. Occam's razor suggests that those are more likely than genetic predeterminism.

danharaj 7y ago

Ecosystems are far from equilibrium. Evolution couldn't happen if they were. Come on, spit it out, what are you trying to get at?

crimsonalucard 7y ago
http://ai.berkeley.edu/~cs10/labs/cur/programming/simulation/ecosystem-simulation.html?topic=berkeley_bjc%2Fapps%2Fsimulation-in-science.topic http://ai.berkeley.edu/~cs10/labs/cur/programming/simulation... There is nothing left to spit out. I can address some of your points but overall I will just be reiterating my original points over again from a different angle with more examples so you and others can understand. First based off of the link above ecosystems are indeed in equilibrium. Second even at an equilibrium things can still evolve. There is a concept called genetic drift where genes and culture changes within the bounds of natural selection. So imagine a local optima that involves a multitude of solutions that are equally optimum. Ecosystems and biological creatures who have hit this equilibrium can still evolve by oscillating among all the solutions in that local optima. The term is called genetic drift but the concept applies to topics outside of biology. Third, natural selection is not strictly a biological concept. It has broader applications that most people are aware about on some level. Genetic programming is a popular example where the primitive s are not genes but computer instructions. What people aren't aware about is how natural selection can apply to macro concepts and systems where the primitives aren't clear. Things like culture, civilizations and large systems and Anything that can reproduce and mutate are candidates. There are multitudes of cultures and economies and systems of government that go through reproduction, death and mutation across huge timescales. Cultures that you see today are ones that survived from the past because they are the fittest. Easter island involved a tribe and culture that overloaded. The culture was centered around status and over exploitation of resources resulted in that culture dying out and not being present today. All we have of that culture today is a "fossil record". Many cultures in the past have self imploded like a cancer and were naturally selected out. In the natural world you should see ecosystems that are in equilibrium because the systems in equilibrium are the only ones that can survive. Evolution at the macro scale can also have effects on the evolution of lower level biological systems as well. Take for example the evolution of an efficient predator. Biological creatures tend towards greater efficiency but if a carnivore that is too efficient exists in an ecosystem it may kill everything and overload system. Hence most ecosystems have creatures that aren't necessarily the pinnacle of efficiency. Ecosystems where creatures are imperfect and just good enough to maintain equilibrium within the system are what you tend to see. For humanity in my personal opinion we are currently on our way to overloading the world. Aspects of what we are culturally and biologically will eventually be culled in a selection process that will arrive in the far future. I'm also not talking out of my ass. This stuff is really studied in academia. See below. https://www.pnas.org/content/114/30/7782 https://www.pnas.org/content/114/30/7782 Fourth. Do not tell me to "spit it out." It is rude and if you do it again you will face consequences to the extent that the rules on this site allow.
- danharaj 7y ago
  > Fourth. Do not tell me to "spit it out." It is rude and if you do it again you will face consequences to the extent that the rules on this site allow. Do it. You won't.
  - crimsonalucard 7y ago
    Telling me to spit it out is rude. It violates the rules. I've flagged you because you decided to challenge me on it. "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine." "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." If your post doesn't die I will consider not commenting on this site because this is just a flagrant violation and is highly unfair. Either you have some insider connection or there's bias.

Hitton 7y ago

I don't know why are you downvoted, it's pretty much settled science. There are multiple papers on culture-gene co-evolution of individualism-collectivism and the serotonin transporter gene. And individualism/collectivism is big part of any culture. It's hard to imagine something like Confucianism developing in highly individualistic western Europe.

rsynnott 7y ago
_Communism_ developed in highly individualistic Western Europe... As did fascism. I'm not convinced there's a magic Europe-individualistic gene.
- Hitton 7y ago
  Developed wasn't probably right word, spread would be better. European fascism wasn't particularly collectivist. And of course there is no magic individualistic gene, it's science. Nevertheless there is sizable evidence that greater or lesser prevalence of some genes (encoding serotonin and opioid transporters) influences both tendencies of individuals and culture among the population. I have posted enough to point you at the right resources in my last post, but if you want to actually educate yourself you can start with: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842692/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842692/
  - rsynnott 7y ago
    The only real common factor in Communist states (excluding those in Eastern Europe outside the former Russian Empire, which is a special case) is that the states which preceded them were very weak, and usually very geographically large, so that attempts by neighbors to stop it fell apart. There were multiple attempts at communist revolutions in Western Europe, but they were suppressed by strong states. And I don't think I buy that Western Europe _is_ highly individualistic anyway. Who would describe Germany or the Nordics in those terms? The UK and to some extend the Netherlands were very individualistic before it was cool, but both countries had extremely special geopolitical (and religious) conditions. Occam's razor suggests that those are more likely than genetic predeterminism.