Very thoughtful. Your discussion of cultural evolution is solid and articulate. Your discussion of the barriers to change present in the US of the shift from SC primacy to SP primacy is spot on. Love the graphs. Especially the one on top tax rates and executive pay, something I've railed on about for years.
While initially you talk about cultural evolution as something that moves far more quickly than biological evolution, and allows rapid adaptation. Your detailed analysis of the shift from SC to SP shows you also show that there are barriers that can exist to cultural evolution.
Anthropological/archeological data tells us that humans have always resisted cultural evolution from one one form of subsistence to another. While foragers may be quick to adapt cultural changes that enhance foraging, the record tells us that foragers resisted becoming horticulturalists, and that it took massive disruptions of famine and conflict to make that shift. The archeological record shows us that humans had the knowledge and skills to cultivate crops for thousands of years before they were willing to make farming their basic means of subsistence. Moreover, we know that any groups that could continue engaging in foraging successfully did so, even though clearly having the knowledge and exposure to horticultural people. Foraging in the right environment takes far less time and human energy than farming does.
The same is true of the transition from horticulture (hand tool, low intensity farming to agriculture, plow, irrigation and high intensity farming) generally only took place due to violence and force. Again, agriculture takes farm more time and human energy for those doing it (even if it frees some members of society, i.e., those doing the forcing from subsistence labor) than horticulture does.
Modern history tells us that masses of farmers did not voluntarily become industrial workers either. That they were generally forced off their lands (by the enclosure movement in Britain, by war, by persecution, and by poverty), and became refugees whose only option was the cities and industrial work.
Moreover, both history and the archeological record are replete with many examples of societies that died out rather than adapt to major challenges (whether from invaders or climate change). Two popular books of recent decades: Brian Fagan's Floods, Famines and Emperors and Jared Diamond's Collapse collect some of that data in entertain and enlightening books.
My point is that humans are capable of rapid cultural change and adaption to changing environments and threats, but we are by no means guaranteed to do so. Especially when either powerful small groups or large influential groups have much to gain by digging in and something to lose by changing.
Very thoughtful. Your discussion of cultural evolution is solid and articulate. Your discussion of the barriers to change present in the US of the shift from SC primacy to SP primacy is spot on. Love the graphs. Especially the one on top tax rates and executive pay, something I've railed on about for years.
While initially you talk about cultural evolution as something that moves far more quickly than biological evolution, and allows rapid adaptation. Your detailed analysis of the shift from SC to SP shows you also show that there are barriers that can exist to cultural evolution.
Anthropological/archeological data tells us that humans have always resisted cultural evolution from one one form of subsistence to another. While foragers may be quick to adapt cultural changes that enhance foraging, the record tells us that foragers resisted becoming horticulturalists, and that it took massive disruptions of famine and conflict to make that shift. The archeological record shows us that humans had the knowledge and skills to cultivate crops for thousands of years before they were willing to make farming their basic means of subsistence. Moreover, we know that any groups that could continue engaging in foraging successfully did so, even though clearly having the knowledge and exposure to horticultural people. Foraging in the right environment takes far less time and human energy than farming does.
The same is true of the transition from horticulture (hand tool, low intensity farming to agriculture, plow, irrigation and high intensity farming) generally only took place due to violence and force. Again, agriculture takes farm more time and human energy for those doing it (even if it frees some members of society, i.e., those doing the forcing from subsistence labor) than horticulture does.
Modern history tells us that masses of farmers did not voluntarily become industrial workers either. That they were generally forced off their lands (by the enclosure movement in Britain, by war, by persecution, and by poverty), and became refugees whose only option was the cities and industrial work.
Moreover, both history and the archeological record are replete with many examples of societies that died out rather than adapt to major challenges (whether from invaders or climate change). Two popular books of recent decades: Brian Fagan's Floods, Famines and Emperors and Jared Diamond's Collapse collect some of that data in entertain and enlightening books.
My point is that humans are capable of rapid cultural change and adaption to changing environments and threats, but we are by no means guaranteed to do so. Especially when either powerful small groups or large influential groups have much to gain by digging in and something to lose by changing.