Cultural Evolution--real, or an insulting fiction?

[Zarathustra]

I'm rereading one of my favorite books, NONZERO, by Robert Wright. You may have seen me reference it in the Tank. Anyway, it is a book which argues for a directionality in history. The main argument is that the logic of nonzero sum game theory (John von Neumann) can be used to explain how humans have linked themselves up into increasingly complex societies.

Looking at our modern, technological society, it seems obvious that we have "evolved" into a more complex civilization compared to neolithic times, for instance. And at the end of the 19th century (a couple decades after Darwin), the idea of cultural evolution was thought of as an obvious, noncontroversial fact. However, during the 20th century, this view fell out of favor and was looked down upon as a type of racism or xenophobia. People like Hitler talked about a "cultural destiny," and made clear distinctions between his own culture and others (to put it mildly) in these terms. Margaret Mead once summarized the Boasian credo: "We have stood out against any grading of cultures in hierarchical systems which would place our own culture at the top and place the other cultures of the world in a descending scale according to the extent that they differ from ours. . . . We have stood out for a sort of democracy of cultures, a concept which would naturally take its place beside the other great democratic beliefs." [p. 14]

In our present era, dominated by such ideas as multiculturalism and "diversity," this tendency to avoid hierarchal ranking and description sounds very familiar. Even rational and enlightened. However, does it accurately describe our history?

Mankind, in general, has seen a steady progression of increasing freedom, prosperity, modes of travel, modes of communication, access to resources, access to healthcare, increased leisure time, etc. Sure there are exceptions and temporary setbacks. But look at the long range view of history, on the scale of 10s of 1000s of years, and this is plainly true. (One might argue that in the absence of governments, mankind was more free than it is today. But freedom isn't a concept you can define in the absence of government--that is more like anarchy or barbarism. That's lawless freedom.)

Wright goes on to argue that our present society was in a sense, "inevitable." He even throws around the word, "destiny," though not without qualification. He describes it more like the destiny of a poppy seed to produce a poppy. It doesn't always end up as a poppy. Sometimes it ends up on a muffin. But barring some catastrophe which interrupts its natural tendency, it will produce a poppy. That's how he views human civilization. Given a certain amount of growth, the kind of growth we will undertake has a definite direction. And the increasing complexity is managed by the logic of nonzero sum game theory. Humans keep developing relationships in which their fates become mutually dependent. It doesn't matter if you're talking about capitalism, or communism, fates become interlinked so that a win for one is a win for another, and a loss for one is a loss for another. It's not a political theory, but an anthropological theory. (He even applies it to biological evolution--molecules developing symbiotic relationships.)

However, this type of thinking can be distorted so that we begin to think of some cultures as "superior" to others. So there is some dangers here. But those dangers lie in distorting or misinterpreting the fundamental logic.

[I'm Murrin]

I myself hold with memetics, wherein the unit of cultural information--the meme--is treated in a similar fashion to the gene in biology and can, when introduced in a population, be shown to follow similar mechanisms of transmission, mutation, and natural selection. It is natural in this theory that memes which are beneficial--technology, medicine, laws--are more likely to survive and perpetuate in a society than those which are harmful. So, as in genetics, you see a general trend--when taken across all societies--of "improvement" (for lack of a better term); it also removes the need for predestination to explain this "advancement".

[Zarathustra]

But why do you have to put scare quotes around "advancement?" Why isn't it a clear-cut case that our societies, modes of production, modes of transportation, modes of communication, etc. have indeed advanced?

The comparison to genetic evolution misses an important difference. No animal is better than another animal. It is simply more suited to its environment than others in different environments. But we can't say this about societies. Clearly, some societies offer their inhabitants more freedom, comfort, prosperity, education, etc. than other societies. There is a clear direction and hierarchal development in societies such that we can say one is better than another. It's not better in an absolute sense, but it's better for humans.

Otherwise, there would be no point in voting. We could just let the politicians do what they want, because no policy is any better than any other.

[I'm Murrin]

I would say that wehre in genetics we can say "better suited to their environment/ecological niche", in memetics we can say "better for the society's survival"--essentially the same thing. You're right, however, that there is a major difference between them, in that in a society, there are active participants with wants and capable of acting in the pursuit of those wants, and as such there is a drive towards certain things absent in the passive process of genetic evolution. Because of it, improved conditions for the populace becomes just as important a factor as the society's survival alone, and we have a combination of the two acting on the direction evolution takes.

[The Dreaming]

Is ours the only "right" way to live? Maybe it is on this planet, but when circumstances change (like for example running out of am important resource. There is historical precedent, at the end of the Bronze age, there was almost no tin left in Europe. All of the sudden, we have steel) Society has to adapt or die. Perhaps a society that "evolved" in a different environment (planet) would differ in fascinating, unpredictable, and amazing ways...

We really need to give NASA more money...