The Evolution of Culture - Paul Ehrlich

[fossilman2]

One thing to consider in cultural evolution is the uniqueness of our current position. We are at a global turning point for our species. Like any plague species we are at the cusp of a major die off. How will our various cultures respond ? How will the relatively new and constantly in flux advanced techno-culture change when it's expansion must of needs (lack of high quality energy) begin a contraction.

[procommenter]

Trillions of dollars of oil have been discovered in the Caspian Sea Basin; there's a 1,000 years' worth of low sulfur/high-compliance coal in Utah, that Clinton {through presidential edict} has declared off-limits. Alberta Province has more oil {it's within the tar sand} than the Arabian Peninsula. Paul Ehrlich in "The Population Bomb" & in "The End of Affluence" warned us that the sky was following in the '70's and that: starvation would be widespread in the States by the mid-'80's.

[fossilman2]

You not only cannot prove any of those claims about nearly unlimited fossil fuels, but are doing everyone a disservice by spewing your fantasies on a public forum. We all wish it were so, but it is not. The only thing worse than peaking and declining fossil fuels is it's opposite...a perpetual abundance, which given our past behavior would allow us to completely destroy the living arrangements for us and every other species larger than protozoans.

[procommenter]

You'll have to read more.

[rozmarija]

Much of Africa has "run out of food" though much of the cause is 'free market' pressures. Since 1970, there have been GM crops, but his predictions still stand, even if postoponed a bit by technology. The oceans ARE already devoid of the big 'food fish'. Cattle are adding to global warming by gas resultng from digestive processes.Cattle FEED will be prohibitively costly. Crops may be threatend by new insects moving north. Fertilizer cost rise as the cost of petroleum increases...

[EvanChaim]

Is over fishing a problem? Absolutely. But there is a huge difference between saying that it is a problem and saying that there will be no fish in the oceans and that England will be uninhabitable.

Pointing to the problems in Africa as vindication for his predictions is rather spurious... being that except for the Aids epidemic, the problems in Africa are EXACTLY the same as they were 30 years ago.

Are there problems? Yes. Did they prove to be anyewhere as dire as predicted. Certainly Not

[justindr660]

He doesn't make predictions. But you seem like an idiot so I won't bother to explain his work for you.

[EvanChaim]

You are so enlightened...

[meadowfabricsdotcom]

@justindr660 - Really? I have an essay written in 1970 by Ehrlich where he says "I predict that within 30 years, more than 100 million people will be starving to death every year".

[Ceadem]

what happened 50,000 years ago? we found the shroom! boom!

[TETSUno1]

I don't get it. Even if we call changes in cultures evolution... they're really not evolution, the mechanisms just aren't similar. And as for artifacts... they're not really in no way similar to fossils or other biological remains... Unless the USSR was actually right and learned traits are hereditary?

[studio7manga]

In this case "evolution" would be defined as 'change over time' not the natural phenomena modeled by the theory of evolution.

[TETSUno1]

Hmm... I still don't quite get it. I gotta get a copy of the lecture, because based on this clip, he's wrong.

[studio7manga]

"because based on this clip, he's wrong."

You do know you can just click the link in the video description and watch the whole lecture right?

Also, you're splitting hairs over definitions. He's talking about 2a and your talking about 4a or b, this is Merriam Webster's line up of common usage by the way.

[neotoy]

Culture can only evolve if it's headed towards some perceivable goal, otherwise it's just meandering aimlessly, potentially devolving.

[Ralajer]

I'm not sure I understand why it must have a goal. Evolution in a biological sense has no goal it is reacting to pressure of the environment but the speaker stated that the mechanism for cultural evolution is yet unknown.

The goal you mentioned seems to suggest that there would be an ideal culture that we are heading towards. I can't think of reason why that would be the case. It's possible that the driver is the aspiration for a better future that allows us to learn from the past and improve.

[neotoy]

It's simple, evolution is a subjective human concept, therefore it has no meaning outside of the goals we assign it. But there's no reason for those goals to be ideal, because we can't see into the future, we have no idea what "ideal" is and never will.

[Ralajer]

Why would cultural evolution require meaning to exist? It may not be useful to our ends but that doesn't mean that it is not happening. This may semantics but evolution doesn't mean progress it just change due to stimuli. It's not merely a subjective human concept, it existed before we had a concept to understand it and will occur if we never think of it again.

Labeling a position as simple is a rhetorical device to make the others feel that they are lacking. Likely not your intent.

[neotoy]

I used the word simple because it is so obvious that it is a critical point often missed, even by those with brilliant analytical minds.

However, without our minds and the perceptions they entertain, nothing would exist because we would not be aware of anything.. this probably sounds absurd to you though, given the statement above. I on the other hand see it as a stronger metaphysical observation.

[annveal5353]

you're talking out of your ass, congratulations.

[neotoy]

It's just normal logic.. or if you want to get technical, it's the Heisenberg uncertainty principle applied to metaphysical existentialism. But it's always easier to type some BS like "talking out your ass" so carry on.

[studio7manga]

"it's the Heisenberg uncertainty principle applied to metaphysical existentialism"

That's your problem right there.

[neotoy]

LOL!

[studio7manga]

Yes, the ideas you posit are laughable.

[neotoy]

Oh, please.. Just because you disagree doesn't mean I'm wrong.

[studio7manga]

Correct, the fact that your assertions fly in the face of objective reality suggests that you are wrong. Of course objectivity is something that is approached asymptotically so I'll give you a more than infinitesimal possibility of being correct.

[studio7manga]

To parody your prior statement.

'It's the pitch of B# applied to the color blue! :D'

...

[studio7manga]

"evolution is a subjective human concept"

Not right, evolution is a natural phenomenon, it is no more subjective than the formation of the earth due to gravitational forces.

Cultural evolution as a natural phenomenon is the same way the only thing a meme needs to survive is a means of propagation and a use(real or imagined) by the animals spreading it.

These things don't go away once people stop thinking about them, they have a substrate in objective reality, unlike, truth, justice, god, etc.

[neotoy]

That's a perfectly acceptable statement given the preexistence of human consciousness, but not without it. That is where we disagree.

[studio7manga]

It's not contingent upon an intelligent observer, the fossil record backs that up. Minds don't create the physical world, only imaginary ones.

Enough with the postmodern nonsense...

[neotoy]

None of which would exist without your consciousness.. nice try, but still again you fail to prove me wrong.

[studio7manga]

No, you apparently have a very poor understanding of quantum mechanics, and are actually verging into the woo-woo category of armchair philosophers. If you watched "What the bleep do we know anyway" and thought it was legit, don't.

Also you've made a positive claim which flies in the face of objective reality, care to back that up with anything other than blind certainty? Care to explain how a group of intelligent humans imagined the world into existence? What came first the chicken or the egg?

[neotoy]

I never suggested that humans imagined the world into existence. My view is that consciousness changes the equation on a quantum level, this introduces objective uncertainty. Maybe you missed that point entirely.

[studio7manga]

Yes you did,

"None of which would exist without your consciousness"

"My view is that consciousness changes the equation on a quantum level"

Where is your evidence? What can be posited without evidence can be dismissed just as easily. And no, quantum mechanics does not back you up on this. What you are suggesting is woo-woo plain and simple.

[neotoy]

If you were unconscious right now, would you be reading this comment? No. Would it still exist? That is uncertain on a quantum level, and yes quantum mechanics does back me up on this.. but whatever, I'm done with this pointless dialog. It's just a point of view, no one is forcing you to agree with it.

[studio7manga]

"would you be reading this comment? No. Would it still exist? That is uncertain on a quantum level"

I'm not even going to say anything about this comment, I think it stands up on it's own as a rather poignant indictment of your mental state.

[studio7manga]

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that the momentum or the position of a particle can be known but not both at the same time. There is nothing in there about imagining fossils into existence. Please get educated.

[neotoy]

Big words from someone who doesn't even know what they're talking about. The principle is also about quantum uncertainty, which is exactly what I was talking about, maybe you should read the rest of the wiki entry?

[studio7manga]

"Big words from someone who doesn't even know what they're talking about."

Oh the irony...

Again HUP is momentum/position but not both, Observer effect is just the fact that photons are close in size to other SAPs similar to shooting bowling balls at a car to define it's dimensions.

Amazing ignorance, it's YOU that don't know what you're talking about, class over, you fail.

I'm pretty sure you mean quantum indeterminacy, which isn't the HUP, but who knows. You're lost.

[studio7manga]

To quote myself...

'"because based on this clip, he's wrong."

You do know you can just click the link in the video description and watch the whole lecture right?'

Or maybe you could just imagine yourself watching the whole video, it would cut down on the wrist strain.

[Plutonwolf]

To evolve means to improve. To change meaninglessly means to mutate. If a culture is evolving, it is improving its ability to compete and to survive. In the enviroment we face today, the paradigm is rapidly shifting from competing to surviving. Soon to be gone will be the days of consequenceless invasion of other nations and the ousting or murder of the inhabitants for profit, the world community is changing....evolving?

[Ralajer]

Plutonwolf my reasoning is that until we know the mechanism of cultural evolution, if the term does have meaning, it's hard forecast the course it will take. I would hope that it follows the course that you suggest it is taking. Humanity seems to be divided into different cultures and the survival of one may come as a result of increased militarism. Improvement in terms of survival may not mean creating a better world as we envision it. It is in that sense I used change in lieu of improvement.

[MrMan428]

I agree, Ralajer. "Change" is more accurate than "improve" in this case. Of the vast array of cultures that we have now, each one has their own idea of "improvement". The problem that we run into is that most cultures try to make all the others conform to them. If this continues we may be left with one culture as a result of militarism. But I think this is ultimately a disservice to mankind. If we have 1000 different cultures, we have 1000 different ideas of "improvement" - much better than 1.