Culture is Artificial Selection

[jabowery]

Culture cultivates.  What does it cultivate?

 

Proximately, we can say culture cultivates that which is valued by the people from whom the culture arose, be it songs or smart phones.  But these are phenotypes -- not replicators as are memes and genes.  It is a popular cowardice to deny responsibility for the evolutionary consequences of our cultural choices -- to, in effect, declare all that happens is "natural" selection.

 

This puerile denial of responsibility for consequences of our cultural choices results in phenomena such as "Being on the right side of history." when all that is promoted is the entropic indulgence of high time preference.  They may as well say, "Being on the right side of entropy."

 

But every choice we make that impacts the evolutionary viability of people in society is a consequence for which we bear moral responsibility.

 

So what does culture ultimately cultivate?

 

A race of people.

 

It is in this sense that the cultural determinists are correct but for the wrong reasons and on the wrong time scale.

 

Moreover, it is in this sense that cultural determinists lay claim to the moral high ground that belongs, not to them, but to the morally responsible adults in the room they accuse of being evil.

[DonThorntonJr]

"when I hear the word culture..."

[RichardY]

A Darwinian self-aware form of Truth. As opposed to a systematic internally consistent mathematical or individualistic form of truth. You can have a culture of bacteria. Smartphone is not a value but a technique/technology.

[jabowery]

A Darwinian self-aware form of Truth. As opposed to a systematic internally consistent mathematical or individualistic form of truth. 

 

How does "systematic internally consistent individualistic form of truth" incorporate the individual's death, or birth for that matter, without, also, incorporating so-called "Darwinian Truth"?  

[RichardY]

How does "systematic internally consistent individualistic form of truth" incorporate the individual's death, or birth for that matter, without, also, incorporating so-called "Darwinian Truth"?  

It doesn't. I guess death is a cultural phenomenon, which is accepted as true by the majority of individuals. Perhaps it is related to the feeling and concept of pride, perhaps there is a particular section of the brain that keeps track of hierarchical information associated with pride(there is in lobsters apparently). That combined with envy, I think may allow for the conceptualisation of death.  All speculation.

 

I think Stefan has done the best job (but not entirely correct), I've seen so far in expressing truth & ethics in his UPB book. There is a podcast done fairly recently between Sam Harris(Systematic Truth) and Jordan Peterson (Darwinian Truth), basically they failed to reach a consensus on truth.   

[jabowery]

I think Stefan has done the best job (but not entirely correct), I've seen so far in expressing truth & ethics in his UPB book. There is a podcast done fairly recently between Sam Harris(Systematic Truth) and Jordan Peterson (Darwinian Truth), basically they failed to reach a consensus on truth.   

 

How does Stefan avoid incorporating "Darwinian Truth" in his, "Systematic Truth" when he says, in UPB:

 

The idea that nature was a self-generating and self-sustaining system was almost unimaginable. The Darwinian revolution, the idea that life was not created, but rather evolved, brought this idea from the material to the biological world. Before science, at the centre of every complex system lay a virtuous consciousness – without which this system would fly into chaos, and cease to be. Unfortunately, this “virtuous consciousness” was merely an illusion, to put it most charitably. No such gods existed – all that did exist were the pronouncements of priests. Thus what really lay at the centre was the bias of irrational individuals, who had no idea how mad they really were. We have yet to apply this same illumination to our conceptions of society – but it is now essential that we do so. 

 

?

 

Why is one not justified in asserting that Stefan's UPB axiomatically incorporates Darwinian truth?

[RichardY]

How does Stefan avoid incorporating "Darwinian Truth" in his, "Systematic Truth" when he says, in UPB:

 

The idea that nature was a self-generating and self-sustaining system was almost unimaginable. The Darwinian revolution, the idea that life was not created, but rather evolved, brought this idea from the material to the biological world. Before science, at the centre of every complex system lay a virtuous consciousness – without which this system would fly into chaos, and cease to be. Unfortunately, this “virtuous consciousness” was merely an illusion, to put it most charitably. No such gods existed – all that did exist were the pronouncements of priests. Thus what really lay at the centre was the bias of irrational individuals, who had no idea how mad they really were. We have yet to apply this same illumination to our conceptions of society – but it is now essential that we do so. 

 

?

 

Why is one not justified in asserting that Stefan's UPB axiomatically incorporates Darwinian truth?

 --------------------------------------

We can examine the question biologically as well as syllogistically.

For instance, all matter is subject to physical rules – and everything that lives is in addition subject to

certain requirements, and thus, if it is alive, must have followed universally preferred behaviours.

--------------------------------------

 

I think it does to a large degree. Where I think it falls short, is where as lower lifeforms operate on instinct. To grasp the concept of preferred, is to be cognisant of what is preferred.

 

Well as you pointed out, culture is a form of selection. So perhaps the question should be, what is it about culture that selects for survival and enables its spread. 

 

"This virtuous consciousness was merely an illusion". If so, then why has Christianity survived as long as it has done. I think Rand got Consciousness wrong when she rejected the unconscious, in favour of the subconscious mind(Tabula rasa). Unconscious mind potentially destructive impulses.

 

--------------------

"2. Ethics cannot be objectively defined as “that which is good for man’s survival.” Certain

individuals can survive very well by preying on others, so this definition of ethics does not

overcome the problem of subjectivism. In biological terms, this would be analogous to describing

evolutionary tendencies as “that which is good for life’s survival” – this would make no sense.

Human society is an ecosystem of competing interests, just as the rainforest is, and what is

“good” for one man so often comes at the expense of another."

----------------------

On a micro-level I agree. On a macro-level, I think there is more that can be expressed. I think psychologically, if a scientist is working on potentially lethal technology, without the element of compassion, there is something wrong somewhere.

 

 

-----------------------------

If I buy a soldier’s costume at a second hand store, and put it on, clearly I have not created an alternative

universe wherein opposite moral rules can be valid. The moment before I put the costume on, it was

wrong for me to murder – when does it become right for me to murder? When I put on the trousers?

What if I have the trousers on, but not the vest? What if I have only one boot on? What about if both

boots are on, but only one is laced? What if my hat is on backwards? What if I have put on a uniform that

- 102 -

is not recognized by the first person I come across? Did the Beatles suddenly possess the right to murder

when they shot the cover for “Sergeant Peppers”? Did they lose that right when they took off their

jackets?

I ask these rhetorical questions because they are in fact deadly serious. Clearly, a military costume does

not change the nature of a human being, any more than a haircut turns him into a duck, a concept, or a

god.

---------------------------------------

I disagree with Stefan here, he crosses uniform with costume. The whole biodiversity IQ and personality differences make some small military essential for compassionate reasons (Libya), maybe they could be more of a militia in certain areas. 

 

As Stefan said. "Opinions do not change reality." No they don't change reality, but they do form reality for many.  

 

---------------------------------------

If you and I are both standing at the top of a cliff, and I turn to you and say, “Stand in front of me, so I can

push you off the cliff,” what would your response be? If you do voluntarily stand in front of me, and I

then push you off the cliff, this would more likely be considered a form of suicide on your part, rather

than murder on my part. The reason for this is that you can very easily avoid being pushed off the cliff,

simply by refusing to stand in front of me.

--------------------------------------

Kind of sounds like American Psycho here. Whole backstory, but if they were climbing together maybe they were just being an ass.

 

Maybe someone has a more refined book on truth and ethics, not necessarily better but different? Perhaps more along the psychological, Archetypal line.

[jabowery]

 

Well as you pointed out, culture is a form of selection. So perhaps the question should be, what is it about culture that selects for survival and enables its spread. 

This elides my primary thesis:

 

To the extent that we can say culture is artificial and that culture affects evolution, we can say culture is artificial selection.

 

You are saying I "pointed out":

 

Culture is subject to natural selection.

 

I didn't point that out because it is "old news" and doesn't bear on any notion of moral agency.  I am saying something that is a bit more novel and, indeed, radical:

 

That the stigma attached to "eugenics" and, indeed, "race" is, to a much larger measure than is acknowledged by moral philosophers, an inescapble aspect of moral action.

[RichardY]

This elides my primary thesis:

 

To the extent that we can say culture is artificial and that culture affects evolution, we can say culture is artificial selection.

 

That would depend on what you mean by artificial. Perhaps by artificial; forward thinking is implied. In the big picture everything can be said to be natural. Ersatz coffee and oil are natural.

 

You are saying I "pointed out":

 

Culture is subject to natural selection.

 

I didn't point that out because it is "old news" and doesn't bear on any notion of moral agency.  I am saying something that is a bit more novel and, indeed, radical:

So what does culture ultimately cultivate?

 

A race of people.

 

Culture is a form of selection. How it is subject to, and what is natural about it, I have no idea. Perhaps by propagating various advantageous behaviours, various religious cultures such as the Jews and Egyptians were able to spread more widely. 

 

That the stigma attached to "eugenics" and, indeed, "race" is, to a much larger measure than is acknowledged by moral philosophers, an inescapble aspect of moral action.

 

In what way do you mean by stigma, how does it play a role? Do you mean the idea of a will to power?

[Jsbrads]

Culture is a collection of practices that survive.

Washing hands, being polite and greeting your neighbor, etc.

Some are between man and himself, others are between man and his neighbor.

[jabowery]

Denial of moral agency as influencing which "practices that survive" is denial of moral responsibility for consequences.

Moral responsibility for culture must place priority on prior causes such as genetics:  Without the genetic capacity for culture there is no culture.

 

Not only is it possible to construct a culture that degrades the genetic capacity for culture; I would submit that our current culture is, in fact, degrading the genetic capacity for culture.

That's why this topic should be given priority by moral philosophers.

[Jsbrads]

Society isn't moral, people are moral.

Culture isn't responsible, people are responsible.

It may be possible to construct a culture at times, but usually it isn't an option, most cultures evolve over time, even constructed cultures.

The United States is a constructed culture at an opportune moment in history, the smartest 1% of human history was ready and able to create something that lasted for centuries. FDR was able to deconstructed our culture significantly.

I am not aware of any culture that has survived long enough to impact genetics in any real way.

[RichardY]

Denial of moral agency as influencing which "practices that survive" is denial of moral responsibility for consequences.

 

Moral responsibility for culture must place priority on prior causes such as genetics:  Without the genetic capacity for culture there is no culture.

 

Not only is it possible to construct a culture that degrades the genetic capacity for culture; I would submit that our current culture is, in fact, degrading the genetic capacity for culture.

 

That's why this topic should be given priority by moral philosophers.

Yes I agree, without fundamentally understanding.

[jabowery]

Society isn't moral, people are moral.

Who said society is or isn't moral?

Culture isn't responsible, people are responsible.

Who said society is or isn't responsible?

It may be possible to construct a culture at times, but usually it isn't an option, most cultures evolve over time, even constructed cultures.

They evolve out of the statistics of the exercise of individual agency -- and, since you apparently missed this fundamental point in what I said -- that is the locus of the "moral".

The United States is a constructed culture at an opportune moment in history, the smartest 1% of human history was ready and able to create something that lasted for centuries. FDR was able to deconstructed our culture significantly.

FDR had a lot of "help" -- Marx and his minions for instance. So did the framers of the US Constitution -- Guttenberg, Luther, Bacon, etc.

I am not aware of any culture that has survived long enough to impact genetics in any real way.

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/10/001-economics-as-eugenics

http://web.mit.edu/fustflum/documents/papers/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

 

And then there is the current bidding war for young women between the economy and the family that selects out of the next generation the very qualities demanded by the economy -- whether you want to say they are genetic or learned they will have an impact on population genetics and do so in a short period of time because the so-called "demographic transition" which is occurring world wide is based on just such a bidding war.

[RichardY]

The movie "Forbidden Planet" comes to mind.

[Jsbrads]

"It may be possible to construct a culture at times, but usually it isn't an option, most cultures evolve over time, even constructed cultures." -Jsbrads

"They evolve out of the statistics of the exercise of individual agency -- and, since you apparently missed this fundamental point in what I said -- that is the locus of the "moral"." -Jabowery

No, they evolve out of the successful statistics. Unsuccessful practices don't pass their code forward. Morality doesn't choose who passes. Moral people can fail to pass their ideas forward, especially if the cost is high. A kind of Natural Selection, could have made Germans murderers, and all the peaceful and innocent majority would be weeded out over time in a barbaric time and place.

[jabowery]

Saying, in effect, "Successive generations are comprised of those characters that were successful in prior generations." is a "fit" target for the accusation of tautology.

Defining the consequences of human volition as "natural" leaves the word "artificial" stranded.

 

[Blake Carrington]

Taking into consideration that before culture we only had purely biological/darwinian selection, culture can only be a result of such selection, and it is hence wrong to consider cultural selection artificial.

 

Which may have been OP's point to begin with, in case my definition of the term "artificial" is wrong.

[jabowery]

Taking into consideration that before culture we only had purely biological/darwinian selection, culture can only be a result of such selection, and it is hence wrong to consider cultural selection artificial.

 

Which may have been OP's point to begin with, in case my definition of the term "artificial" is wrong.

Distinguish between the genetic capacity for culture and the consequences of the exercise of that capacity.  In this context, it may be helpful to think about the genetic capacity for "morality".  The genetic capacity for "morality" and an explosion in the genetic capacity for "culture" arose together.  There are those who argue for a naturalistic definition of "culture" as the result of mimicry (the "meme" being the quasi "unit of selection").  One may accept for the sake of argument that in, say, birds songs evolve as a result of mimicry and still accept that in humans the presence of moral agency requires a definition of "artificial" that incorporates moral agency.  In other words, if we accept that everything "artificial" is also "natural", then we must either abandon the concept of "artificial" or accept that "artificial" things have a property that distinguishes them as a subclass of "natural" phenomena.  That distinguishing property has been proposed by some as any phenomena "caused by humans".  This would include phenomena over which humans bear no moral responsibility.  This begs the original question:  What phenomena "caused by humans" involve no moral responsibility?

[RichardY]

In the book "Man and his Symbols" Carl Jung. Towards the end of the book he brings up the question of evolution and the selection of different alleles over a fairly rapid period. I've heard J.Peterson say that some of C.Jung is similar to R.Dawkins in respect to memes. No moral responsibility, could that involve a potential for "brainwashing"? Perhaps somebody has read some of R.Dawkins, C.Jungs or someone else's work related to meme like content. I wonder how hypnotism works.