Proposed developing of social evolution theory

[charles brough]

Here proposed are the following points . . .

1.Human biological evolution in the last 40,000 years has been too
minute to explain even in part the immense growth of human population
and cultural heritage since then. Since all change in nature is the
result of some form of natural selection (evolution), the explaining
of what process has caused the cultural growth and enabled our growth
in numbers must belong to a field we can call “social or cultural
evolution.”

2.The term “social” (or “society”) is more appropriate than
“culture” (despite consensus the social science theorist's preference
for it since the 1950s) because “cultures” can only be adequately
defined as being a product of some entity---of a “large
group“ (“society?”).

3.It is proposed that “society” be defined as “any mass of people
occupying territory and bonded together by a world-view and way-of-
thinking belief system that is in “the mainstream.” The "mainstream"
is where the largest and most culturally/technologically-developed
societies exist and where social evolution is centered (somewhat
comparable to an animal "breeding ground").

4.Belief-system bonded “societies” are proposed as the evolutionary
unit because, like all other primates and most mammals, we humans
evolved as small group social beings through millions of years of
evolution. It became possible for us to organize into larger groups
than the small ones we evolved in only because language-speech enabled
us to adopt ideological systems that could expand our group size.
Thus, both society and civilization are dependent upon a tight
ideological bond. When it grows old, divides and weakens, it becomes
increasingly difficult to find ways of patching it back together.
Social problems multiply and, eventually, the secular “patching”
itself divides and society disintegrates as the public is forced to
turn back to the fundamentals of their by now ancient faith.

5.The result is that societies experience a sort-of life cycle. This
process is not biological but rather a social evolutionary process in
which the presence of competing societies cause them to adopt secular
ideologies in order to survive longer. Also, any new ideological
system that is adopted has to be competitive, that is, it needs to
function in a way that enables it to grow at the expense of the others
if necessary.

6.This is a process that assumes we are all of one race, the human
race, and that the only thing that separates us is our ideological
systems and thus, the distinct culture and technology they foster.

7.The main benefit of this proposed approach is that it enables us to
figure out what stage we are in the society life-cycle, to understand
the role of the secular system, and understand why world affairs are
now heading our over-populated, nuclear-armed world in a troubling
direction.

I develop the points further and into a general theory which can be
accessed on my web page link posed next to my name in the
membership list . . .

Charles,

[Essay]

Neat perspective Charles. This isn't just sociology, is it.
...be back later....
~

[charles brough]

Originally Posted by Essay

Neat perspective Charles. This isn't just sociology, is it.
...be back later....
~

No, I think it could best be classified as social science theory. It is worked on from the perspective of some ten to twelve different social and natural sciences. After all, there is no getting around it; the rise and fall of human societies and civilizations is complex. The work of the experts needs to be pulled together so we can know where humanity is now and what can and should be done from here . . .

charles

[Galapagos]

Originally Posted by charles brough

4.Belief-system bonded “societies” are proposed as the evolutionary
unit

In order for this to work the unit of selection has to differentially reproduce(groups must spawn other entire groups, and then those groups must differentially reproduce other entire groups), copy itself with a reliable degree of fidelity(the traits being copied for must be blindly selected and increase the fitness of the groups inheriting them), and migration/group mixing rates have to be low/slow while extinction rates of entire groups occurs more rapidly. The traits being selected for in the entire group must be more strong/rapid than countervailing selection on traits of the individuals within the group.
I seriously doubt what you are proposing meets the above requirements.

Can you give any more specific examples of your group selection as it has acted throughout history?

[charles brough]

Originally Posted by Galapagos

In order for this to work the unit of selection has to differentially reproduce(groups must spawn other entire groups, and then those groups must differentially reproduce other entire groups), copy itself with a reliable degree of fidelity(the traits being copied for must be blindly selected and increase the fitness of the groups inheriting them), and migration/group mixing rates have to be low/slow while extinction rates of entire groups occurs more rapidly. The traits being selected for in the entire group must be more strong/rapid than countervailing selection on traits of the individuals within the group.
I seriously doubt what you are proposing meets the above requirements.

Can you give any more specific examples of your group selection as it has acted throughout history?

You describe the process of biological evolution very well, but a form of natural selection can occur between societies as entities even though they are not biological entities. In my work I find natural selection processes going on between social entities that differ from biological evolutionary processes. I conclude that social evolution operates similarly to but not the same as biological evolution.

As you are aware, societies have no genetic system. However, mainstream ideological systems that are able to bind masses of people into a single social entity (such as "the West" and Islam) and endure for thousands of years can be reasonably be treated as social entities. In a sense, they even reproduce.
For example, Christianity was an ideology that grew from a base of Babylonian mythology, Zoroastrian monotheism, Babylonian moral codes, etc. It spread and formed the society of Christendom---later termed "The West." In social evolutionary terms, this was "reproduction." The new society obtained its "genetic" material from advanced concepts of other, older societies. Because mainstream ideological systems are able to bond people into social entities that last thousands of years, they have a genetic-like feature. They are able to adopt new ideas to merge with their own and to, in turn, unwillingly pass on to other societies their own advanced technology and ideals. This process involves competition if not outright survival of the fittest. Certainly, it is a process of natural selection. Societies that are too small (hence unsuccessful) are left out of the mainstream and, like nearly all surviving hunting-gathering troops, destined to be totally replaced.

Social evolutionary processes are many and complex. It is hard to put them down in a single paragraph, but so are biological ones. The main difference is that social evolution is not subject to experimentation as are some biological evolutionary processes. But all science has to perform as best it can to the limitations it faces. And since the consensus social theory is what is put in all our school systems from grade one to Ph.D---and, hence, shapes public opinion---its importance can hardly be minimized.

charles

[questor]

The social cultures of the USA provide ample fodder to study social evolution. We have no national idealogical sameness. We have wealthy, we have poor, we have black,white, indian, Muslim, Jew, Christian, atheist. We don't have consensus on what makes a good citizen, or a good leader, or a good economic system. Since we are free, we can all pursue the things that please us. Some love rap music, pornographic literature, shapeless masses on canvas passing for art, absence of religion, political correctness. Others think some of these things demeans society and cheapens our culture. Since we have so many cultural differences, with our differences widening and coarsening, perhaps we are devolving rather than evolving.

[Galapagos]

Originally Posted by charles brough

You describe the process of biological evolution very well, but a form of natural selection can occur between societies as entities even though they are not biological entities. In my work I find natural selection processes going on between social entities that differ from biological evolutionary processes. I conclude that social evolution operates similarly to but not the same as biological evolution.

Natural selection will operate on any replicators that meet the requirements(variation, heritability, differential survival/reporduction). I'm saying that it is very unlikely that it shaped groups in the way you are saying, and if it has, the effects would be negligible compared to selection at the level of the individual unit of culture.

Originally Posted by charles brough

As you are aware, societies have no genetic system. However, mainstream ideological systems that are able to bind masses of people into a single social entity (such as "the West" and Islam) and endure for thousands of years can be reasonably be treated as social entities. In a sense, they even reproduce.
For example, Christianity was an ideology that grew from a base of Babylonian mythology, Zoroastrian monotheism, Babylonian moral codes, etc. It spread and formed the society of Christendom---later termed "The West." In social evolutionary terms, this was "reproduction." The new society obtained its "genetic" material from advanced concepts of other, older societies. Because mainstream ideological systems are able to bond people into social entities that last thousands of years, they have a genetic-like feature. They are able to adopt new ideas to merge with their own and to, in turn, unwillingly pass on to other societies their own advanced technology and ideals. This process involves competition if not outright survival of the fittest. Certainly, it is a process of natural selection. Societies that are too small (hence unsuccessful) are left out of the mainstream and, like nearly all surviving hunting-gathering troops, destined to be totally replaced.

Social evolutionary processes are many and complex. It is hard to put them down in a single paragraph, but so are biological ones. The main difference is that social evolution is not subject to experimentation as are some biological evolutionary processes. But all science has to perform as best it can to the limitations it faces. And since the consensus social theory is what is put in all our school systems from grade one to Ph.D---and, hence, shapes public opinion---its importance can hardly be minimized.

charles

Your example is incredibly vague. Can you give a specific example of an iterative replication process occurring, and describe what traits(traits inherited from the original group) resulted in increased fitness for the groups.
You must also take into account contact with other groups, imitation, and mutation of cultures and customs. Selection at the level of individual units of culture, such as memes, would also be occurring much more rapidly and have a much larger effect than selection at the level of the group as you suggest.

Are you familiar with the work of Jared Diamond? I think his work explains the rise and fall of societies much better than any group selection model does.

[charles brough]

Originally Posted by Galapagos

Natural selection will operate on any replicators that meet the requirements(variation, heritability, differential survival/reporduction). I'm saying that it is very unlikely that it shaped groups in the way you are saying, and if it has, the effects would be negligible compared to selection at the level of the individual unit of culture.


Your example is incredibly vague. Can you give a specific example of an iterative replication process occurring, and describe what traits(traits inherited from the original group) resulted in increased fitness for the groups.
You must also take into account contact with other groups, imitation, and mutation of cultures and customs. Selection at the level of individual units of culture, such as memes, would also be occurring much more rapidly and have a much larger effect than selection at the level of the group as you suggest.

Are you familiar with the work of Jared Diamond? I think his work explains the rise and fall of societies much better than any group selection model does.

For the most part, the social evolutionary process is not an iterative replication process. I have made no effort to confine it to biological terms. I have gone over the historical process and describe what it is whether it fits the biological pattern you and others are used to or not. It is a new and separate process. There is no genetics involved, so how could it be the same? All we are dealing with is huge mainstream social units that follow a pattern that is similar to a biological life cycle. These big units successfully crowd out lesser units which gradually die out. You wanted an example; I gave you one (Babylon, etc.). You say it is vague; I agree when it is compared to the biological process. It is as clear and simple as it can be made, however, and not too "vague" to explain how evolutionary processes account for human history and for the growth of our cultural heritage and its technology---and, thus, our mounting population numbers.

I have read several books by J Diamond and was not so impressed as to read any more of them.

charles

[charles brough]

Originally Posted by questor

The social cultures of the USA provide ample fodder to study social evolution. We have no national idealogical sameness. We have wealthy, we have poor, we have black,white, indian, Muslim, Jew, Christian, atheist. We don't have consensus on what makes a good citizen, or a good leader, or a good economic system. Since we are free, we can all pursue the things that please us. Some love rap music, pornographic literature, shapeless masses on canvas passing for art, absence of religion, political correctness. Others think some of these things demeans society and cheapens our culture. Since we have so many cultural differences, with our differences widening and coarsening, perhaps we are devolving rather than evolving.

You have a good description of our modern secular society---especially in the US! It is so divided that we had to come up with strange new ideals such as "diversity is good" and that it is good to have "an open mind" (meaning one that never manages to sort out what is ingested into a self-consistent whole). Diversity means division and division causes weakness.

[Galapagos]

Originally Posted by charles brough

For the most part, the social evolutionary process is not an iterative replication process. I have made no effort to confine it to biological terms. I have gone over the historical process and describe what it is whether it fits the biological pattern you and others are used to or not. It is a new and separate process. There is no genetics involved, so how could it be the same?

You are very, very mistaken here. Selection will work on any replicators that meet the requirements of copying, changing, and competing, and this includes individual replicating units of culture. The process will indeed be different for some reasons I outlined in the previous post(imitation, rapid mutation), but it will still be the same natural selection(perhaps with a bit of a more Lamarckian look).

Originally Posted by charles brough

All we are dealing with is huge mainstream social units that follow a pattern that is similar to a biological life cycle. These big units successfully crowd out lesser units which gradually die out. You wanted an example; I gave you one (Babylon, etc.). You say it is vague; I agree when it is compared to the biological process. It is as clear and simple as it can be made, however, and not too "vague" to explain how evolutionary processes account for human history and for the growth of our cultural heritage and its technology---and, thus, our mounting population numbers.

No, it is incredibly vague and a poor example, and I have read of at least one better example put forward by Sober & Wilson, which I also did not find very convincing.

Originally Posted by charles brough

I have read several books by J Diamond and was not so impressed as to read any more of them.
charles

That's a shame, because "Guns, Germs, and Steel" explains arbitrary factors like biogeography and agriculture lead to the success of certain societies, and it won much acclaim and a Pulitzer prize for doing so.



Here is an example of natural selection working on individual units of culture:

Human Culture Subject To Natural Selection, Study Shows
Natural selection and cultural rates of change ? PNAS

Even if something like what you are suggesting is true(you have so far put forth very bad explanations and examples for a tired idea), the selection at the level of the group would be nil compared to the rapid selection occurring at the level of the individual unit of culture. In the above study(done at Stanford, co-authored by famed scientist P. Ehrlich), it is shown that symbols and decoration evolve(by natural selection) at a rate much more rapidly than cultural units needed for survival in the environment(in this case, canoe designs). This would be going on both within and between competing groups in most cases, and would easily swamp out any group selection forces as you have outlined them.