Human Culture Subject To Natural Selection, Stanford Study Shows

Eureka Alert ^ | 2-19-2008 | Deborah S. Rogers - Stanford

[blam]

Contact: Deborah S. Rogers
dsrogers@stanford.edu
650-630-7760
Stanford University

Human culture subject to natural selection, Stanford study shows

The process of natural selection can act on human culture as well as on genes, a new study finds.

Scientists at Stanford University have shown for the first time that cultural traits affecting survival and reproduction evolve at a different rate than other cultural attributes. Speeded or slowed rates of evolution typically indicate the action of natural selection in analyses of the human genome.

This study of cultural evolution, which compares the rates of change for structural and decorative Polynesian canoe-design traits, is scheduled to appear Tuesday, Feb. 19, in the online Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"Biological evolution of inherited traits is the essential organizing principle of biology, but does evolution play a corresponding role in human culture"" said Jared Diamond, a professor of geography at the University of California-Los Angeles and author of Guns, Germs and Steel. "This paper makes a decisive advance in this controversial field."

The Stanford team studied reports of canoe designs from 11 Oceanic island cultures. They evaluated 96 functional features (such as how the hull was constructed or the way outriggers were attached) that could contribute to the seaworthiness of the canoes and thus have a bearing on fishing success or survival during migration or warfare. They also evaluated 38 decorative or symbolic features (such as the typeae design traits from island group to island group. Statistical test results showed clearly that the functional canoe design elements changed more slowly over time, indicating that natural selection could be weeding out inferior new designs. This cultural analysis is similar to analyses of the human genome that have been successful in finding which genes are under selection.

The field of cultural evolution is controversial because not all historians, social scientists or even biologists agree that cultural change can be understood in an evolutionary context. Some say that human beliefs and behaviors are too unpredictable.

But Nina Jablonski, chair of the Anthropology Department at Pennsylvania State University, said she is sold on the research. "This paper is revolutionary in its approach ... one of the most significant papers to be written in anthropology in the last 20 years," she said.

Authors of the study said their results speak directly to urgent social and environmental problems.

"People studying climate change, population growth, poverty, racism and the threat of plagues all know what the problems are and what we should be doing to solve them," said Paul Ehrlich, the Bing Professor of Population Studies at Stanford.

Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb and other books on dilemmas facing contemporary human society, said he does not understand why more effort is not going into urgently needed solutions. "What we don't know, and need to learn, is how cultures change and how we can ethically influence that process," he said.

Deborah S. Rogers, a research fellow at Stanford, said their findings demonstrate that "some cultural choices work while others clearly do not."

"Unfortunately, people have learned how to avoid natural selection in the short term through unsustainable approaches such as inequity and excess consumption. But this is not going to work in the long term," she said. "We need to begin aligning our culture with the powerful forces of nature and natural selection instead of against them."

Examples of cultural approaches that are putting humans at risk include "everything from the economic incentives, industrial technologies and growth mentality that cause climate change, pollution and loss of biodiversity, to the religious polarization and political ideologies that generate devastating conflict around the globe," Rogers said. "If the leadership necessary to undertake critically needed cultural evolution in these areas can't be found, our civilization may find itself weeded out by natural selection, just like a bad canoe design."

### Deborah S. Rogers and Paul R. Ehrlich are affiliated with the Center for Conservation Biology.

[blam]

GGG Ping.

[Dilbert San Diego]

Our civilization is more likely to be weeded out by outside forces such as Islamo-fascism, rather than by failure to take a leadership role with global warming.

[cripplecreek]

You said the “N” word. Better batten down the hatches.

[pabianice]

[beefree]

“If the leadership necessary to undertake critically needed cultural evolution in these areas can’t be found, our civilization may find itself weeded out by natural selection, just like a bad canoe design.”

Evolution by design...good one

[paudio]

I agree with their findings, but not with their suggestions. Let the market works to see which cultures would survive. Power, money, military force, etc., are part of culture, so cultures that hold those advantages should use them, rather than feeling shameful for having them.

[scory]

Paul Ehrlich? The Population Bomb?

No doubt this study is fully as accurate and informative as was The Population Bomb.

[Greg F]

In a follow up study, important liberal Professors have discovered that canoe designs that sink are weeded out more quickly than those that float and can be directed from point A to point B. The tentative hypothesis offered by Dr. Shill is that the natives recognized that a canoe that floats and is manueverable offers a greater survival benefit than one that sinks or drifts randomly. This supports the conclusion of the study that global warming threatens human survival.

[Dilbert San Diego]

Natural selection and survival of culture is tied in with reproduction.

So, considering that reproduction is important, how does that tie in with modern cultural norms such as homosexuality? How does it tie in with modern cultural norms such as birth control, delayed marriage, record numbers of people never marrying and having children?

Gee, this whole subject can open a can of worms.

[MrB]

Funny -

when “natural selection” is applied to cultures, implying that those that are successful are

BETTER

than the less successful ones - the left goes NUTS.

[ModelBreaker]

But Nina Jablonski, chair of the Anthropology Department at Pennsylvania State University, said she is sold on the research. "This paper is revolutionary in its approach ... one of the most significant papers to be written in anthropology in the last 20 years," she said.

Evidence for the premise in The Fatal Conceit, by Frederick Hayeck.

[TruthConquers]

“Authors of the study said their results speak directly to urgent social and environmental problems.”

“Unfortunately, people have learned how to avoid natural selection in the short term through unsustainable approaches such as inequity and excess consumption.”

The authors have an agenda and it is socialism. Period.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I presume the researches realize that these Indians “designed” canoes, and do not assume that the canoes developed spontaneously in response to physical forces in nature. Am I correct in noting that these reserchers therefore conflate intelligent design with natural selection?

[Dilbert San Diego]

Do you mean they are using an allegedly scientific study to push a liberal agenda? I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked!

[GovernmentShrinker]

"Unfortunately, people have learned how to avoid natural selection in the short term through unsustainable approaches such as inequity and excess consumption socialist government programs. But this is not going to work in the long term,"

Why am I not surprised that an ivory tower leftist misses the obvious implications of her own research results? We're hardly going to get any NATURAL selection in human culture with government programs driving people's decision-making and obliterating the natural links between bad choices and misery-inducing results.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Oh! You mean it turns out that if you don't have babies, your civilization dies?

Check out that link. It is way cool. After it goes through its intro, click on "trailers and clips."

[Reeses]

Deborah S. Rogers, "Unfortunately, people have learned how to avoid natural selection in the short term through unsustainable approaches such as inequity and excess consumption."

She should apply for a refund on her education. Human genetics, culture, and technology do not evolve naturally over thousands of years, they evolve over a few years on the battlefield. Human means war maker. Most human traits are optimizations for tribal warfare. Wars and murder are inspired by envy, going all the way back to Cain and Able. Her leftist comments about inequity and consumption are envy driven. Leftism is what kills and destroys and is the cultural defect we should be researching how to eliminate.

[oblomov]

Ah, you see... cognitive dissonance does not exist in academics, just in “people”.

[Claud]

So, considering that reproduction is important, how does that tie in with modern cultural norms such as homosexuality? How does it tie in with modern cultural norms such as birth control, delayed marriage, record numbers of people never marrying and having children? Gee, this whole subject can open a can of worms.

Indeed! And those worms will be pointedly ignored by the folks who do these kinds of studies, because they are not...well..they are not the right KIND of worms.

Frankly, we don't need a study on canoes to tell ua what history sayd loud and clear...an immoral nation is putting itself on the fast track of collapse.