Cultural Darwinism
One of the things I most enjoy about AppleOutsider the forum is that the threads wander across so many different ideas. Every once in a while, I will try to see if any broad conclusions can be drawn out of the many different ideas and debates here. I sort of try to whack myself on the side of the head figuratively speaking and see if there is something that hasn't been caught here before idea-wise from all the many different sources and type of information we all spew forth.
Just to give you a little background on this rather odd idea that wandered into my brain we had a debate about the future validity of Europe because of the war. We had a debate on tolerances due to Mr. Satorum. I tossed out a little thread about tolerances in general. Lastly we had a debate about evolutionary criticism. Scientist will do meta-studies to draw conclusions. I was just doing some meta-thinking out loud to see what I could come up with.
In evolution, we are told that survival of this fittest insures that positive traits created by genetic drift, mutation, etc are passed on. The group that survives is considered the fittest.
I thought to myself that with regard to humans, our traits are not just passed on genetically, but also culturally and pondered this with regard to what should be passed on and also its effect on birthrate.
In the threads about Europe, I mentioned the diminishing populations of Europe. The birthrates have been well below maintenance levels for quite a while. Likewise Japan has the oldest in terms of median age population on the planet. The U.S. really isn't better off because while our population growth rate manages to reach 2.1, the native population's rate is 1.8. The extra growth is due to immigration and we cannot insure that they share the same values as the native population. In fact with multiculturalism being taught, they are more likely to hold on to their cultural attributes than ever before.
With the war with Iraq and terrorism in general occuring, there has been alot of comparisons between American culture and Islamic culture. There have been comparisons between Western cultures in general as well. The general conclusion and threads that were brought forth is that to be more tolerant and permissive shows greater enlightenment. Repressing women, homosexuals, or other groups is to be frowned upon when truly enlightened.
However I took all these cultural ideas and thought about them from a Darwinian perspective. The more permissive and enlightened cultures are literally not reproducing. It would seem that the natural evolutionary consequence for social democracy appears to be death.
Less progressive and perhaps even more oppressive cultures seem to have much better chances of being "fittest" because they have much higher birth rates than us.
I haven't drawn any judgements from this, but just thought I would share this little bit of thinking out of the box and see what you all thought. Are social Democracies literally plotting their own demise? Will it matter who won the war on terrorism when the Islamic world is a few billion and the populations of Europe and the U.S. are inconsequencial compared to the world at large? If social Democracies and tolerant cultures don't "survive" are they really the "fittest" of ideas?
Hmmmmmmmm.......
Nick
Just to give you a little background on this rather odd idea that wandered into my brain we had a debate about the future validity of Europe because of the war. We had a debate on tolerances due to Mr. Satorum. I tossed out a little thread about tolerances in general. Lastly we had a debate about evolutionary criticism. Scientist will do meta-studies to draw conclusions. I was just doing some meta-thinking out loud to see what I could come up with.
In evolution, we are told that survival of this fittest insures that positive traits created by genetic drift, mutation, etc are passed on. The group that survives is considered the fittest.
I thought to myself that with regard to humans, our traits are not just passed on genetically, but also culturally and pondered this with regard to what should be passed on and also its effect on birthrate.
In the threads about Europe, I mentioned the diminishing populations of Europe. The birthrates have been well below maintenance levels for quite a while. Likewise Japan has the oldest in terms of median age population on the planet. The U.S. really isn't better off because while our population growth rate manages to reach 2.1, the native population's rate is 1.8. The extra growth is due to immigration and we cannot insure that they share the same values as the native population. In fact with multiculturalism being taught, they are more likely to hold on to their cultural attributes than ever before.
With the war with Iraq and terrorism in general occuring, there has been alot of comparisons between American culture and Islamic culture. There have been comparisons between Western cultures in general as well. The general conclusion and threads that were brought forth is that to be more tolerant and permissive shows greater enlightenment. Repressing women, homosexuals, or other groups is to be frowned upon when truly enlightened.
However I took all these cultural ideas and thought about them from a Darwinian perspective. The more permissive and enlightened cultures are literally not reproducing. It would seem that the natural evolutionary consequence for social democracy appears to be death.
Less progressive and perhaps even more oppressive cultures seem to have much better chances of being "fittest" because they have much higher birth rates than us.
I haven't drawn any judgements from this, but just thought I would share this little bit of thinking out of the box and see what you all thought. Are social Democracies literally plotting their own demise? Will it matter who won the war on terrorism when the Islamic world is a few billion and the populations of Europe and the U.S. are inconsequencial compared to the world at large? If social Democracies and tolerant cultures don't "survive" are they really the "fittest" of ideas?
Hmmmmmmmm.......
Nick
Comments
The question I think is how permeated is the idea that cultural plurality is a good thing. This is not one that I care to speculate on because, I have no way to gauge it...
On the other hand, the US is capable of absorbing many, many more people without experiencing the problems of overcrowing that those other nations face. A half-billion Americans in a hundred years will surely be out-producing a billion and change Chinese or Indians. And I have an optimistic view of the temperature of the melting pot. America will always be America. People have been raising the same questions about immigrants since the first wave of Catholic Germans and Irish in the 1830's, and it's always done nothing but strengthen our nation. Nations without immigration stagnate and decline. Fresh blood revitalizes a nation.
Here's an interesting related observation, though. You talk about natural selection among cultures, but what about among people? Birth rates in the modern world correlate inversely with income, intelligence, education, etc. I wonder if, in a few thousand years, this might start to have an effect on us as a race. SciFi folks like to talk about the human race "evolving" to a higher plane in the future, but given the mechanics of selection on the ground, it seems like we have just a good a chance of "de-evolving".
Birth rates in the modern world correlate inversely with income, intelligence, education, etc.
oh jesus, here it comes....
income? yes.
education? yes.
intelligence? decidedly no.
Are Catholics who have a disproportionately high reproduction rate who are wealthy and educated, less intelligent? Its tempting to say yeah they are... but no, no they're not. There is no reasonable measure of intelligence that can be applied worldwide let alone from one neighborhood to another....
Until about 1850, China is considered to have been the most technologically advanced country on Earth. Culture isnt technology, not now anyway...
Originally posted by billybobsky
oh jesus, here it comes....
Oy. Do I need to use the more politically correct "academic achievement" instead of "intelligence"? And do I need to specify that if you control for race, class, family income, neighborhood, etc etc etc, then academic acheivement correlates inversely with birth rate? And do I need to point out that correlations make no assumptions about causality and that all but the most perfect correlations have outliers and exceptions? Having said that, I happily concede that as a particularly fecund group of outliers, Irish Catholics are surely destined to inherit the earth. As long as they keep ahead of those peskily prolific Mormons.
Another thing to remember with Europe, U.S. and Japan, no nation [culture] has EVER survived the loss of it's religion. There may be an angle there as well.
Originally posted by ena
Another thing to remember with Europe, U.S. and Japan, no nation has EVER survived the loss of it's religion. There may be an angle there as well.
Rome didn't survive the acquisition of its religion.
There are many factors to consider, but the two main ones I think are the happiness of the people and the ability of the people to influence change. Geographical wealth directly correlates to this because it enables the population at large to be independent of the State for survival and enables the wealth necessary to develop technology. If a cultural system sits on top of such geography and makes the people happy, I think it'll last. If the geography isn't there but a good cultural system, I don't think it'll be very powerful.
So, if a cultural system isn't in non-desert high lattitudes, its going to be "weak" versus the world at large regardless of the political system. Right now, with one exception, all powerful "cultures" exist in high lattitudes in geographically fertile areas. With the demise of the USSR and the slow evolution of China, it looks like social democracies are it because State-run economic systems seem to be untenable.
All those Muslim nations are simply in the wrong geography. Maybe the nature of Islam is the reason it is in the wrong part of the map, but if they stay where they are now, I don't think they can ascend unless gengineered agriculture can give the lands food and cheap air conditioning can give them cool air. If the wealth of a nation can't support technological development, it won't be much of a power.
I'm am reminded of the science fiction book Dune though. If it wasn't for Paul Atriedes being able to destroy all the spice, his desert power would never have risen to be an empire. Fortunately, Saddam Hussein couldn't do the same or Iraq could have been like Arrakis. [Ok, I wrote this paragraph just so I can put Iraq and Arrakis in the same sentence. Phonetic sameness and all... and the similarities could have been uncanny!
Originally posted by Towel
Oy. Do I need to use the more politically correct "academic achievement" instead of "intelligence"? And do I need to specify that if you control for race, class, family income, neighborhood, etc etc etc, then academic acheivement correlates inversely with birth rate? And do I need to point out that correlations make no assumptions about causality and that all but the most perfect correlations have outliers and exceptions? Having said that, I happily concede that as a particularly fecund group of outliers, Irish Catholics are surely destined to inherit the earth. As long as they keep ahead of those peskily prolific Mormons.
its not a question of PC versus not PC.
its a realization that no such correlation, be it intelligence or academic achievement has been made with reproductivity...
Originally posted by billybobsky
its not a question of PC versus not PC.
its a realization that no such correlation, be it intelligence or academic achievement has been made with reproductivity...
Yes there has. Example: Udry, R. J., 1978. Differential fertility by intelligence: the role of birth planning. Social Biology.
The study isn't on the internet, but it argues that women of lower IQ scores tend to screw up their birth control more frequently.
You can get into all sorts of criticims of this study's conclusions, as you can with any study, but why say "no such correlation, be it intelligence or academic achievement has been made with reproductivity" when you really don't know if that's true or not?
Originally posted by Towel
Oy. Do I need to use the more politically correct "academic achievement" instead of "intelligence"?
The two terms aren't even remotely connected or 'politically correct' as you put it.
Originally posted by billybobsky
its not a question of PC versus not PC.
its a realization that no such correlation, be it intelligence or academic achievement has been made with reproductivity...
Wrong.
I quote: People respond to incentives. Bearing a child, like any decision, has an opportunity cost. When the opportunity cost rises, people will choose to have smaller families. In particular, women with the opportunity to receive good education and desirable employment tend to want fewer children than those with fewer opportunities outside the house. . . . Mankiw, Principles of Economics, 3e p. 555.
The level of a woman's education is highly correlated to the number of children she bears. It's why I stopped at 4.
Originally posted by Fangorn
Wrong.
I quote: People respond to incentives. Bearing a child, like any decision, has an opportunity cost. When the opportunity cost rises, people will choose to have smaller families. In particular, women with the opportunity to receive good education and desirable employment tend to want fewer children than those with fewer opportunities outside the house. . . . Mankiw, Principles of Economics, 3e p. 555.
The level of a woman's education is highly correlated to the number of children she bears. It's why I stopped at 4.
dude, didnt i say education is correlated. academic achievement is not education, intelligence is not education.
so no i am not wrong. thanks for the quote though.
jerk.
Originally posted by bunge
The two terms aren't even remotely connected or 'politically correct' as you put it.
exactly.
Originally posted by BRussell
Yes there has. Example: Udry, R. J., 1978. Differential fertility by intelligence: the role of birth planning. Social Biology.
The study isn't on the internet, but it argues that women of lower IQ scores tend to screw up their birth control more frequently.
You can get into all sorts of criticims of this study's conclusions, as you can with any study, but why say "no such correlation, be it intelligence or academic achievement has been made with reproductivity" when you really don't know if that's true or not?
i know its true because there is no accepted scale of intelligence.
no scale of intelligence = no correlation of intelligence to anything, unless the study is incredibly questionable.
Originally posted by billybobsky
i know its true because there is no accepted scale of intelligence.
no scale of intelligence = no correlation of intelligence to anything, unless the study is incredibly questionable.
1. That's a little different from saying no correlation has ever been found.
2. Of course there are accepted measures of intelligence. How IQ/academic testing is used in society is controversial, especially the adverse impact they have on blacks in college admissions, but to say "there is no accepted scale of intelligence" is just wrong. There are a number of widely accepted and validated tests.
3. You also said that no relation of birth rates has been found with academic achievement. Is there no accepted scale of academic achievement either?
Originally posted by billybobsky
dude, didnt i say education is correlated. academic achievement is not education, intelligence is not education.
so no i am not wrong. thanks for the quote though.
jerk.
First, I am not a dude.
Second, how do define "academic achievement" except via education? If you are trying to say that there is no correlation between innate intelligence and reproductivity versus "years of college" and productivity, then I would tend to agree with you.
Third, I was blunt but not rude. Unlike other people.
Neiss M, Rowe DC, Rodgers JL. J. Biosoc Sci 2002 Apr;34(2):259-75 Does education mediate the relationship between IQ and age of first birth? A behavioural genetic analysis.
Excerpt: "Analyses investigated the mediational role of education in explaining the relationship between intelligence and age of first birth at both the phenotypic and behavioural genetic level. [...] This pattern of results suggests that the apparent mediational role of education at the phenotypic level is in fact the result of underlying genetic and shared environmental influences that affect education, IQ and age of first birth in common."
Vining Drj. Intelligence 1982;6:241-64 On the possibility of the reemergence of a dysgenic trend with respect to intelligence in American fertility differentials.
Excerpt: "It is hypothesized that persons with higher intelligence tend to have fertility equal to, if not exceeding, that of the population as a whole in periods of rising birth rates and that the opposite is true in periods of falling birth rates. This hypothesis is generally supported by the data set described above." [We living in a time of falling birth rates...]
Belmont L, Marolla FA. Science. 1973 Dec 14;182(117):1096-101. Birth order, family size, and intelligence.
Excerpt (via jstor.org): "...as family size increased, level of ability declined. [...] Our findings on family size and intellectual performance are in accord with those of others." [They suggest that there may be a common genetic component, contributing to both large family size and lower intelligence.]
I'll leave it others more intelligent than me to argue the definition of "intelligent". But note that there's a difference between those smart enough to do well in school (and on standardized and IQ tests) and those dumb enough to stay in school long enough to get lots of letters after their name (erm, like me).
Originally posted by trumptman
If social Democracies and tolerant cultures don't "survive" are they really the "fittest" of ideas?
A rather fuzzy grasp of evolution makes most of your musing nonsensical as you've become lost in a tautology. Surviving + breeding === fitness--there is no moral dimension or teleology.
So to rephrase the quote above: if they don't survive does that mean they didn't survive?
My take on the broader meme of cultural extinction by being out-bred (by "the lower orders" or whatever) is that if these "tolerant" cultures had actually raised the standard of living around the globe rather than exploiting the differential for their own short-term material gain then the birthrates would have equalized and there would be no problem.
Originally posted by Fangorn
First, I am not a dude.
Second, how do define "academic achievement" except via education? If you are trying to say that there is no correlation between innate intelligence and reproductivity versus "years of college" and productivity, then I would tend to agree with you.
Third, I was blunt but not rude. Unlike other people.
I often mistake bluntness for rudeness... language problems i guess. and you will always be a dudette to me
As for accepted intelligence tests, I would argue pretty well that measures of intelligence cannot be considered standard world wide if they are not standardized across county lines. Since there is no world wide standard, there is no accepted world wide standard. Thats all I meant. As for academic acheivement. Show me the study that shows the correlation, and I will wear a donkey head for a day... High grades is I believe a good measure of academic achievement within the context of the education that an individual acquires. I have never heard of a negative correlation between this and birth rate and this is one thing I would keep track of as my mother is an educator and a measurer of IQs for special needs students... I have heard the studies for education level and income but not for academic sucess. One reason may be that people generally dont keep track of academic sucess...