| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - cultural evolution vs. social evolution
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


cultural evolution vs. social evolution

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Mar 2011 at 21:40
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

 The words "can be one way" and "if" still leaves plenty room for interpretation! Not least wether there is a predictable or deterministic proces (evolution) going on or not!
 
Evolution is a function of natural laws, but it can still be rather unpredictable in its details since a few simple rules/laws create extremely complex results.
for me it seems there is more to it than "a few simple rules/laws". Of course the "genes" can give individuals advantages or disadvantages, but that is still more about differences in probabilities for leaving offspring than about any certainty.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Mar 2011 at 21:43
My personal regards for Woodrow Wilson, are less than "Zero!"
 
He probably kept the USA out of nothing?
 
Ron
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Mar 2011 at 21:58
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

My personal regards for Woodrow Wilson, are less than "Zero!"
 
He probably kept the USA out of nothing?
 
Ron
 
What in the blue blazes does that insufferable lout that suffered from presbyteritis febrilis, and forever stands as a symbol of just how dismal a Princeton education really is, have to do with biodiversity and other tail waggins of the Wilson under discussion?
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Mar 2011 at 22:10
Oh!  Exuse me!  Are we discussing another Wilson?
 
My mistake!
 
Regards,
 
Ron
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Mar 2011 at 22:12
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Well, Wilson is a renowned biologist that has studied both behaviours and evolutionary processes among animals, especially insects (as ants). If you read the book Biodiversity yourself instead of just repeating some critic against some suggestion of him from another book, you could perhaps learn something about species formation (which he gives some interesting examples of), adaptation and other evolutionary and biological mechanisms.
 
About the only interesting words Wilson ever wrote come at his very beginnings:
 
"The evolutionary epic is probably the best myth we will ever have."
 
He should have stopped there or else stuck to ants since for some reason ants have remained unchanged for millions of years! Some epic!Wink
 
For one last time Carcharadon the notion that the precepts of the physical sciences and the methodology employed therein are also applicable to and explanatory of the human experience has no other name than scientism, which despite all of your blusterings still remains a fallacy.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
charles darso View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Location: florida USA
Status: Offline
Points: 12
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote charles darso Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2011 at 14:11
If we can escape "evolutionary mechanisms" a minute, allow me to get back to the main subject again.
 
My very brief explanation of what I conceive of social evolution was:

", , , when we recognize that we evolved through millions of years as small-group primates, it follows that every one of us has to feel apart of the group (as we did as hunter/gatherers) in order to feel secure and feel compassion for the others.  Our ability to speak has enabled us, for the last some 40,000 years, to adjust to living in much larger groups and still feel secure and compassion for others.  Language enabled us to develop ideologies that bonded us into these much larger groups.  We can exist in no other way; we have to have uniting ideologies to do it.  The largest of these form what I define in my glossary as "a society." A society is what a mainstream "religion" (ideological system) has bonded."

It was dismissed by:

"Nothing against that except to poitn out that if you redefine 'society' like that people are going to have a hard time understanding you, and will probably misinterpret you. At least the 'meme' people invented a new word."

Should a method of explaining history be ignored without real examination simply because people would have a hard time adjusting to a single functional definition of "society?" It seems to me that when people are loosing faith in their secular ideals and the majority feel our civilization is in decline, perhaps it is only a matter of time before they would be willing to be objective enough to give the world "society" a definite, definable meaning. What kind of a science ARE the social sciences when the word can stand for hundreds of millions of people, or just "more than one person"? 
 
Once "society" is defined functionally, it is possible to deal with societies as single, semi-social organisms. That is, entities that are subject to competition with each other over space and environmental resources.
We can examine the whole course of human history and find what each "civilizations" has been based upon a single "religion" (world-view system). When a new ideology/religion/world-view was adopted and the old one replaced, a new civilization arose.  Would anyone deny that our Western civilization grew out of Christianity and that it is still its basic component? Certainly, our secular ideology has not replaced it.
 
I know that showing "religions" (world-view systems) to be serving a vital role in world affairs and to form evolutionary "organisms" is offensive to both the faithful and the non-faithful. That could well be the reason the concept is avoided and ignored, but conditions are such now that it could anyway be time to take a severely, objective look at what is happening with civilization so, perhaps, something can be done. It might be nice to know what lies ahead. . .
 
 
Brough
civilization-overview dot com
Back to Top
charles darso View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Location: florida USA
Status: Offline
Points: 12
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote charles darso Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2011 at 14:14
I've replaced my web page address from my signature, but I now find it is still there!! Please accept my apologies. I am going right back and see if I can find out why . .
Brough
civilization-overview dot com
Back to Top
charles darso View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Location: florida USA
Status: Offline
Points: 12
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote charles darso Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2011 at 14:17
I had failed to press the change button!
Brough
civilization-overview dot com
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2011 at 14:28
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 
About the only interesting words Wilson ever wrote come at his very beginnings:
 
"The evolutionary epic is probably the best myth we will ever have."
 
Well, he obviously meant that in a figuratively way. He is ofcourse very well aware about the scientific research about evolution, firmly rooted in reality, and its results. But ofcourse, one can see those results as a great narrative (based in reality in contrast to all those religious fairy tales that still confuse so many people).
 
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2011 at 14:31
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

for me it seems there is more to it than "a few simple rules/laws". Of course the "genes" can give individuals advantages or disadvantages, but that is still more about differences in probabilities for leaving offspring than about any certainty.
 
Well, the laws in itself does not have to be very complex to get complex results. But as you say, in the end it comes down to probabilities as so many other things in our world.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2011 at 21:48
I do think that I see spam above?
Would one of our moderators also see it?

Thanks,

Edited by opuslola - 14 May 2011 at 11:29
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 May 2011 at 01:42
Spam removed!
Back to Top
eventhorizon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 432
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eventhorizon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 May 2011 at 14:00
Let me first provide a link to the website in question:

http://civilization-overview.com/

I have skimmed through most of it.

What it is saying is that the global human population, because of the peculiar history of development of human society in different regions, are divided in different human civilizations, which is the cause for much conflict and competition, it will be better to replace all these obsolete civilizations with something new, a world civilization that includes all humanity.

Well, the idea is admirable, so was Karl Marx's International Marxism that would transform the world, but after much disruption in subject socieities and some effective change (all systems are not totally bad or totally good), it was found that it has some fatal flaws and sure enough it became discredited in a matter of less than a century, but older civilization memes and ideologies like Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity, Shintoism, Islam etc. are still going strong with significant human following.

It may also help to remind us of the geographical spread of major current world civlizations as defined by Huntington:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Clash_of_Civilizations_map.png


So there are strong and working Meme's and there are the aspiring and the also runs, obviously there are very big differences between them. One major difference seems to be the spiritual and non material aspect of most of the major established Meme's.

Marxism did leave behind Democratic Socialism, in contrast with Totalitarian Socialism, as part of newer Social Democracy or Democratic socialist experiments, such as the ones in Nordic Model etc., which are positive, in my personal opinion, and are probably a much needed antidote for the ailing global capitalist economic model. So credit should be given to Marx where its due.

I think it is premature to talk about replacement of existing civilization Memes as they simply have not run their courses yet. In my personal opinion, it is more appropriate, at this point of time in history, to talk about how each can continue to evolve properly bringing positive influence for the societies involved, improve their HDI (Human Development Index) and thus enlighten the population from the dismal states many or most of them are in, so they can cooperate and solve common global threats such as poverty, malnutrition, extremism, environmental degradation etc.

Did the author have the opportunity to live among multiple civilizations for some significant time, if not, if I may point out, it is easy to fall into civilization-centric trap and not appreciate the length and breadth or the full scope of foreign civilizations.

There is a sub-forum:

http://www.allempires.net/forum/theories-of-society-economics_forum78.html


which might be a more appropriate place for these discussions. In this sub-forum you may want to take a look at:

http://www.allempires.net/forum/historical-continuity-large-systems-and-future_topic125023.html

Finally, welcome to this forum and good thoughts as a starting discussion.



Edited by eventhorizon - 15 May 2011 at 14:41
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 May 2011 at 19:12
Originally posted by eventhorizon eventhorizon wrote:

Let me first provide a link to the website in question:

http://civilization-overview.com/

I have skimmed through most of it.

What it is saying is that the global human population, because of the peculiar history of development of human society in different regions, are divided in different human civilizations, which is the cause for much conflict and competition, it will be better to replace all these obsolete civilizations with something new, a world civilization that includes all humanity.

Well, the idea is admirable, so was Karl Marx's International Marxism that would transform the world, but after much disruption in subject socieities and some effective change (all systems are not totally bad or totally good), it was found that it has some fatal flaws and sure enough it became discredited in a matter of less than a century, but older civilization memes and ideologies like Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity, Shintoism, Islam etc. are still going strong with significant human following.

It may also help to remind us of the geographical spread of major current world civlizations as defined by Huntington:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Clash_of_Civilizations_map.png


So there are strong and working Meme's and there are the aspiring and the also runs, obviously there are very big differences between them. One major difference seems to be the spiritual and non material aspect of most of the major established Meme's.

Marxism did leave behind Democratic Socialism, in contrast with Totalitarian Socialism, as part of newer Social Democracy or Democratic socialist experiments, such as the ones in Nordic Model etc., which are positive, in my personal opinion, and are probably a much needed antidote for the ailing global capitalist economic model. So credit should be given to Marx where its due.

I think it is premature to talk about replacement of existing civilization Memes as they simply have not run their courses yet. In my personal opinion, it is more appropriate, at this point of time in history, to talk about how each can continue to evolve properly bringing positive influence for the societies involved, improve their HDI (Human Development Index) and thus enlighten the population from the dismal states many or most of them are in, so they can cooperate and solve common global threats such as poverty, malnutrition, extremism, environmental degradation etc.

Did the author have the opportunity to live among multiple civilizations for some significant time, if not, if I may point out, it is easy to fall into civilization-centric trap and not appreciate the length and breadth or the full scope of foreign civilizations.

There is a sub-forum:

http://www.allempires.net/forum/theories-of-society-economics_forum78.html


which might be a more appropriate place for these discussions. In this sub-forum you may want to take a look at:

http://www.allempires.net/forum/historical-continuity-large-systems-and-future_topic125023.html

Finally, welcome to this forum and good thoughts as a starting discussion.

Your wish to have a discussion with a number of participants seems sincere, but then be prepared for the consequence - one may be that not everybody accept or even understand Your points of view and way of thinking (an example is right here, me , though of course others may think it is my fault!) 1: I do no completely reject any possibility of a sensible discussion of "civilisations", but admit I find i problematic (or perhaps more) to discuss the topic without caution or as if they were in some sense "objective entities", or even "things" resembling "physical objects".
2: I will say the same about "memes", and I am not sure wether we discuss them as some "metaphors" or "real entities" (I doubt the later makes much sense).
If we accept a discussion of "civilisations" at all we at least should be aware 1: it is difficult to say anything very simple and clear about them (at least if not false). 2: They are hard to define in  territorial terms, 3. thery are hard to define in "human" terms 4: they change very much over time.
About any discussion of far goals like "global" Civilisation or not and what is desirable:perhaps a discussion of "means" are as relevant, how to react to disagreement. Are we to continue a long and "honoured"  tradition of disagreement leading to violent conflict, or is there other ways?
 
Back to Top
eventhorizon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 432
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eventhorizon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 May 2011 at 20:43
Dialogue and communication is always better, resorting to Ladenism never helps, but reducing interference of the strong on affairs of the weak remains an ongoing concern. There should be more appreciation for indigenous reform efforts and evolutionary changes, Arab spring is just one example. Hugo Chavez and Morales is probably another imperfect example in Latin America, but I will hear vehement objections from the experts of that region for that comment I guess.

Creative nonviolent ways of conflict management is always preferable to violent means.

As for the difficulty of understanding between civilizations, we need people who actually have lived and experienced multiple civilizations, without that kind of background, it cannot easily be explained with words, which means different things to different people, depending on their cultural conditioning.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.098 seconds.