From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 12:48 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Atheist
I agree to an extent, but this sort of argument tends to drift towards
tautology. Whatever survives survives, and hence has survival value in some
sense. But a meme that turns someone into a suicide bomber or celibate monk
probably doesn't have much survival value for that person. My feeling is that
memes favour their own survival, as Richard Dawkins suggested.
It is important to be clear about the locus of the entity that is undergoing an
evolutionary process in order to avoid confusion. Cultural evolution effects
cultures. A meme may have no discernable evolutionary value for individuals per
se – as you point out a celibate monk is not (as far as we know) spreading
their genes. In many cases ideas however do have arguably beneficial effects
for the individuals.
However you bring up a valid point, which I think points to the dual level of
action of cultural evolution. On the one hand it acts on the individuals who
are adopting it, but it also has another dimension of action and that is upon
the culture itself. Cultures – I would argue undergo a kind of Darwinian
evolution, with more survivable cultures prevailing over less survivable
cultures.
To make my case consider pure altruism, which confers no survival advantage to
the individual (and as has been demonstrated in game theory is in fact a
measurable handicap) Geneticists have asked themselves why this behavioral
trait has survived in our species. The explanation I have seen that makes most
sense to me is that cultures that have high degrees of altruism (within their
culture) have a far lower transactional cost than societies that have a much
lower degree of altruistic behavior. In a society where everyone is for
themselves even simple transactions become expensive as the individuals
involved must invest energy in order to safeguard their interests. Whereas in
the altruistic culture transactions can happen much more easily with a simple
hand shake.
When speaking of cultural evolution it is important to keep in mind that we are
speaking mostly about the cultures themselves and less about the individual
members of that culture.
So to go back to those suicide bombers or celibate monks – agreed not very good
for the individuals involved, but the culture to which these individuals belong
may derive some benefit from their culturally driven behavior. The suicide
bomber is a weapon for that culture; a celibate monk removes excess males
(female nuns do for excess females) from competition for agricultural
properties being handed down to first born sons (or dowries given to first born
daughters)
Not advocating for this medieval cultural model – far from it I much prefer
modern scientific (experimental verification) humanism -- rather am trying to
remain abstract and removed and look at human culture as any other evolving
self-learning system.
Do you think cultures can evolve? Not the individual members, but the culture
as an entity.
Chris
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
