4 ms·

Could there be value in cultural diversity analogous to value of biodiversity? I think of Andrian Berry’s warnings about a world state. I fear a world monocult

Could there be value in cultural diversity analogous to value of biodiversity? I think of Andrian Berry’s warnings about a world state. I fear a world monoculture is one step in that direction. (Just googled him, seems time has been unkind to his books and reputation. Still, his Next 10,000 Years was so inspiring to me, not so much for the specifics but for the vision and the first-principles thinking around how we may get stuck.)

fluoridation 3y ago
Biodiversity is important because a diverse population is less likely to get wiped out by an event that kills all individuals matching some criteria. For cultural diversity to have value analogously there would need to be some threat to cultures that is separate from biology (because we're still all human). I can't imagine what that could be.
- ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
  As a theoretical example, if the internet eroded attention spans in first-world-liberal-democracy type cultures to a degree that eventually lead to their extinction, the Amish would be immune and our species would survive.
  - crazydoggers 3y ago
    As Michael Burnham from Star Trek so wisely put it “It would be unwise to confuse race with culture.” Culture, unlike genetics, is fluid and easily changed (compared to genes) For something like what your suggesting to occur, the loss of attention, or the inability for loss of attention span would have to become heritable. At the moment, assuming the internet does erode attention span, those whose attention spans were most eroded would have to be heavily selected against. That means, their loss of attention span or their propensity to lose attention span with internet use would have to pass through gamete into the next generation. If it’s not heritable, then the Amish are not “immune” because as soon as the Amish moves across cultural lines which is inevitable (many of which do, they routinely leave that culture) they’d be faced with the same issues. On the flip side, many within the non Amish community who choose not to use the internet would flourish without being Amish. (Since internet usage and its loss of attention span would be cultural and easily changed) Natural selection only works on the level of the genes. Unless aspects of culture can be attributed to genetic diversity, then they are simply fluid, and not something that can aid in their reproductive advantage. One could argue that the Amish do hold some genetic differences that make them seek out the culture they hold, and be as fertile as they are, but that’s definitely not clear to be the case. If such cases were true, then perhaps one might argue for cultural diversity as a proxy for genetic diversity. But I don’t know that there has been any support to show cultures are genetically heritable. In fact I believe the opposite has been shown, when taking or moving populations out, they easily assimilate, showing that those cultures are definitely not heritable.

fluoridation 3y ago

Biodiversity is important because a diverse population is less likely to get wiped out by an event that kills all individuals matching some criteria. For cultural diversity to have value analogously there would need to be some threat to cultures that is separate from biology (because we're still all human). I can't imagine what that could be.

ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
As a theoretical example, if the internet eroded attention spans in first-world-liberal-democracy type cultures to a degree that eventually lead to their extinction, the Amish would be immune and our species would survive.
- crazydoggers 3y ago
  As Michael Burnham from Star Trek so wisely put it “It would be unwise to confuse race with culture.” Culture, unlike genetics, is fluid and easily changed (compared to genes) For something like what your suggesting to occur, the loss of attention, or the inability for loss of attention span would have to become heritable. At the moment, assuming the internet does erode attention span, those whose attention spans were most eroded would have to be heavily selected against. That means, their loss of attention span or their propensity to lose attention span with internet use would have to pass through gamete into the next generation. If it’s not heritable, then the Amish are not “immune” because as soon as the Amish moves across cultural lines which is inevitable (many of which do, they routinely leave that culture) they’d be faced with the same issues. On the flip side, many within the non Amish community who choose not to use the internet would flourish without being Amish. (Since internet usage and its loss of attention span would be cultural and easily changed) Natural selection only works on the level of the genes. Unless aspects of culture can be attributed to genetic diversity, then they are simply fluid, and not something that can aid in their reproductive advantage. One could argue that the Amish do hold some genetic differences that make them seek out the culture they hold, and be as fertile as they are, but that’s definitely not clear to be the case. If such cases were true, then perhaps one might argue for cultural diversity as a proxy for genetic diversity. But I don’t know that there has been any support to show cultures are genetically heritable. In fact I believe the opposite has been shown, when taking or moving populations out, they easily assimilate, showing that those cultures are definitely not heritable.