Is eco-civilisation compatible with democracy?

[UndercoverElephant]

Evolution works fastest during times of great stress and die-off.

Punctuated Equilibrium. Yes, that is quite so. However, biological evolution operates on biological forms (including innate behaviors, of course), not learned cultural ones. Or, at least, it may be argued to indirectly operate on learned cultural forms at a push, I guess, if we include the heritable capacity to learn itself. But, we have a very, very long way to go down the cultural evolution route of civilizational degradation/simplification before we start to push up against the hard constraints of biological evolution.

I believe that is an illusion. In some parts of the world humans are already beginning to hit those constraints, and I am not sure it would take very long for the western world to find itself in a similar situation. Things can deteriorate quite rapidly, especially for those on the bottom of the wealth pyramid.

The problem, here, is in order to get the eco-civilization you are promoting, we would need cultural forms to be available for cultural selection that don't exist in sufficient quantity and, crucially, cant exist in sufficient quantity without further biological evolution of the capacity to be less selfish, less stupid and less cowardly.

Well, this is where I don't agree with you. I believe there is a cultural leap forwards waiting to happen. I am writing a book about it. I think we are on the verge of an important paradigm shift. Maybe even as important as the scientific revolution.

But, such capacities don't tend to exist in nature because they have either no effect (nature can't think ahead) or have a detrimental effect (nice guys finish last) on biological reproductive success. In other words, they are rarely selected for and are often selected against. We humans evolved our current levels of intelligence, courage and selfishness because of their evolutionary fitness relative to the demands of the environment of our Neolithic and (lower to middle) Paleolithic ancestors. But, as you have said, that evolutionary pressure has since been suspended. We are still middle to upper Paleolithic humans. And it shows, don't you think.

I agree with all this. Our disagreement, I suspect, is that you do not see any potentially game-changing cultural paradigm shift happening any time soon.

It was effectively suspended at some point in the upper Paleolithic for an ever growing majority of humans. However, the amount of consequent genetic drift that will undoubtedly have occurred in the last, say, eight thousand years is not likely to be significant.

I don't agree with this. I think we probably continued to evolve biologically right up until the start of the 20th century. The change happened when people stopped expecting half their children to die before reaching adulthood.

[UndercoverElephant]

It would be an interesting thought experiment to imagine how long literacy would hang on post collapse. Perhaps it may be needed to 'get things to work' but may not be considered useful in, for instance, a hunter gatherer society.

We are not going back to hunter-gathering! There is no historical example of a society going back to hunter gathering after civilisation collapses. Back to agricultural villages rather than cities, yes. There aren't any examples of a society abandoning agriculture. The neolithic revolution was irreversible.

[UndercoverElephant]

Right up until universal compulsory education, most people could barely read or write even though written materials

The majority of citizens in the Roman Republic/Empire were literate from about the 2nd century BC. It fell drastically after the fall of the western empire, and did not begin to recover until the invention of the printing press. Not much point in learning to read if you have no access to books. In future this would be different, because there will be billions of books in circulation. There are about 25,000 copies of my mushroom foraging book currently in existence. They are unlikely to be thrown away until they fall apart, because they are very useful.


https://laurelhillcemetery.blog/how-lit ... rope-5392/

In the late 1400s 10% of men were literate, climbing to 20% in the 1500s, 30% by 1650, 45% by 1714, and 60% by 1754. For women the picture was similar but on a smaller scale: 10% by 1600, 25% by 1714, and 40% in 1754.

[northernmonkey]

Firstly, I just need to point out a factual error on my part. I've mixed up Paleolithic and Neolithic in some of my previous posts when describing the agricultural revolution. Anyway, not to worry. I think you'll have got the gist.

There is one thing that Id take issue with you one (Undercover Elephant) on the evolutionary front.

You make mention of some people in the world right now coming up against the hard constraints of biological evolution. I think that needs unpacking because I think you are misunderstanding what I mean by hard constraints.

Let's just walk through this:

Let's say a population has certain cultural practices (lack of crop rotation, say). Eventually half of the population die in a famine caused by diseased crops. Following this famine, the surviving population's culture evolves and future farming practice allows for crop rotation.

The above is cultural evolution. Sure, it is linked to reproductive success. But is is still cultural evolution.

Biological evolution is where actual, biological, non-learned characteristics are selected for over time on the basis of their environmental fittedness. It is functionally equivalent to cultural evolution. But, operates on a vastly longer timescale and it does not select for cultural forms. It selects for genes based on their phenotypic expression

[northernmonkey]

The majority of citizens in the Roman Republic/Empire were literate from about the 2nd century BC. It fell drastically after the fall of the western empire, and did not begin to recover until the invention of the printing press. Not much point in learning to read if you have no access to books. In future this would be different, because there will be billions of books in circulation. There are about 25,000 copies of my mushroom foraging book currently in existence. They are unlikely to be thrown away until they fall apart, because they are very useful.

So, humans can indeed forget and books eventually perish.


https://laurelhillcemetery.blog/how-lit ... rope-5392/

In the late 1400s 10% of men were literate, climbing to 20% in the 1500s, 30% by 1650, 45% by 1714, and 60% by 1754. For women the picture was similar but on a smaller scale: 10% by 1600, 25% by 1714, and 40% in 1754.

And how do those numbers map onto compulsory education?

[UndercoverElephant]

The majority of citizens in the Roman Republic/Empire were literate from about the 2nd century BC. It fell drastically after the fall of the western empire, and did not begin to recover until the invention of the printing press. Not much point in learning to read if you have no access to books. In future this would be different, because there will be billions of books in circulation. There are about 25,000 copies of my mushroom foraging book currently in existence. They are unlikely to be thrown away until they fall apart, because they are very useful.

So, humans can indeed forget and books eventually perish.

As long as there are books, people will remember how important books are.

And how do those numbers map onto compulsory education?

They don't have much to do with compulsory education. As soon as books became cheap enough for most people to afford, the demand for them was ravenous. Literacy was the key to opening up options in life. Everybody knew this.

[UndercoverElephant]

You make mention of some people in the world right now coming up against the hard constraints of biological evolution. I think that needs unpacking because I think you are misunderstanding what I mean by hard constraints.

Let's just walk through this:

Let's say a population has certain cultural practices (lack of crop rotation, say). Eventually half of the population die in a famine caused by diseased crops. Following this famine, the surviving population's culture evolves and future farming practice allows for crop rotation.

The above is cultural evolution. Sure, it is linked to reproductive success. But is is still cultural evolution.

Biological evolution is where actual, biological, non-learned characteristics are selected for over time on the basis of their environmental fittedness. It is functionally equivalent to cultural evolution. But, operates on a vastly longer timescale and it does not select for cultural forms. It selects for genes based on their phenotypic expression

Biological evolution is certainly not functionally equivalent to cultural evolution. Cultural evolution is at least partially reversible. Biological evolution (despite what I said earlier) is not reversible. A species can degenerate, but it can't actually go back to a previous state.

Biological evolution continued until people chose to stop having large families. Before that natural selection must have been operating, because the death rate before reproduction was very significant. If half the babies born never make it to adulthood then it is very unlikely that no biological selection is taking place. You might argue that the sort of selection involved was mainly not concerned with intelligence (eg resistance to the diseases that came with civilisation, ability to digest milk in adulthood) but there's a strong argument against that too. Being stupid is rarely a reproductive advantage. It has only become so in the last 150 years.

[northernmonkey]

Ok, one at a time:

Biological evolution is certainly not functionally equivalent to cultural evolution

.
There are cultural units of replication that exist in physical form (neuronal patterns)
They exist in an environment that has competing forms in it (human central nervous systems
There is a means of transmission (language, most notably, amongst other non verbal means)
"Errors" in transmission can and do occur leading to variation of forms
Selection occurs based on how well fitted those forms are to their environment
Forms can go extinct

It is functionally equivalent. Probably a lot less stable. Certainly vastly quicker in process. The physical substrate is different. But, functionally equivalent.

Cultural evolution is at least partially reversible. Biological evolution (despite what I said earlier) is not reversible. A species can degenerate, but it can't actually go back to a previous state.

You may be assured it can
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... r=b324c618

Biological evolution continued until people chose to stop having large families. Before that natural selection must have been operating, because the death rate before reproduction was very significant. If half the babies born never make it to adulthood then it is very unlikely that no biological selection is taking place.

I'm not entirely sure of your point here. Large number of offspring are, in evolutionary terms, a response to strong selection pressures. However, it's also true to say that the above pressures would be equally evident if there are two offspring or ten. Indeed, this is the reason for large numbers of offspring being the typical response to strong selection pressures. It's the "throw enough mud against the wall on the basis that at least some of will stick" strategy. If that's what you are trying to say, in what respect of your argument are you making this point?

If its

You might argue that the sort of selection involved was mainly not concerned with intelligence (eg resistance to the diseases that came with civilisation, ability to digest milk in adulthood) but there's a strong argument against that too. Being stupid is rarely a reproductive advantage. It has only become so in the last 150 years

.

Okay, so again I need to unpack this. Due to a misunderstanding of my use of the term "stupid". Which I take responsibility for. Humans are indeed stupid in terms of the need to maintain a global, sustainable, civilization beyond this point and they have already demonstrated, over and again, that they are incapable of doing so in any civilization prior to this global one, However, human intelligence did not evolve to exist in large complex civilizations. It evolved to exist in the heads of Neolithic barbarians. And for that, human intelligence is exquisitely well fitted.

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm not entirely sure of your point here. Large number of offspring are, in evolutionary terms, a response to strong selection pressures.

They are also a necessary condition for natural selection to happen at all. If there is no selection, then there is no natural selection.

Natural selection stopped when people expected most of their children to reach adulthood, so didn't feel the need to produce "spares".

So long as the situation is that the average family is, say, 8 children, but typically only 4 of them reach adulthood then there is almost certainly selection taking place. The only way it could not be is if the selection is completely random. But it surely was not random -- those who were most intelligent, physically fit, resistant to disease, etc... stood a better chance of surviving. Those with inherited weaknesses were the most likely to die.

If that's what you are trying to say, in what respect of your argument are you making this point?

If we fail to create ecocivilisation as a cultural adaptation, we will enter a period of sharp population reduction. This won't be entirely random either. Selection will take place, not just on the level of individuals but also at the level of various groups.

Humans are indeed stupid in terms of the need to maintain a global, sustainable, civilization beyond this point and they have already demonstrated, over and again, that they are incapable of doing so in any civilization prior to this global one, However, human intelligence did not evolve to exist in large complex civilizations. It evolved to exist in the heads of Neolithic barbarians. And for that, human intelligence is exquisitely well fitted.

Humans evolved very generalised abilities. We evolved the capacity for speech, but we invented the cultural development of written language. Your brain did not evolve to allow you to read this.

I do not believe our problems existing in large complex civilisations are due to our intelligence levels (or lack thereof). I believe they are to do with the way human societies are organised: ideologies, economic systems, etc... This is central to my whole point. I am also saying that if I am wrong -- if the problem is fundamentally biological -- then biological evolution is likely to sort it out. The options are that or extinction. You say there is a third option of returning to pre-civilisation. I just don't buy it, for reasons already explained.

[northernmonkey]

Why do you suppose they are organized in the way you have correctly described? That is to say, why are stories required for their validation? Stories, we both know, are often not quite, how shall I put it, exactly mapped onto the truth?

It's almost as if without such stories, civilizations could hardly be held together isn't it. Let's face it, it's not as if they are too good at holding themselves together with such stories.

Indeed, it's almost as if civilization itself is not the natural state of man don't you think?

[UndercoverElephant]

It's almost as if civilization itself is not the natural state of man isn't it.

Living in vast colonies wasn't the natural state for the ancestors of honey bees...until it was. Civilisation is an evolutionary adaptation which is currently incomplete. My argument is that we are committed to the adaptation -- we cannot go back to the our pre-civilised state (tribal hunter-gathering). Therefore we must continue to attempt to make the adaptation work. This itself is an evolutionary process.

Why do you suppose they are organized in the way you have correctly described? That is to say, why are stories required for their validation? Stories, we both know, are usually not quite, how shall I put it, exactly mapping onto the truth?

It's almost as if without such stories, civilizations could hardly be held together isn't it. Let's face it, it's not as if they are too good at holding together with such stories.

Humans need a cosmology (in the anthropological sense). We need a belief system. We need it both as individuals, and naturally we needed it as part of our tribal identity. Tribes no longer exist, so we now replace that cosmology with various ideologies, mostly religious but sometimes political and in some cases metaphysical materialism plays a role.

The question is as complicated as a question can get, and in order to understand the answer we need to have a decent grasp of the history of western civilisation, and especially the history of western philosophy. The first person to truly understand and communicate this was GWF Hegel. It was Hegel who historicised philosophy and produced the first philosophy of history (these two things are inter-dependent). But Hegel did not get the final word. He did not anticipate Darwin, and obviously had no inkling about either quantum mechanics or ecological breakdown on the scale it is now happening. Hegel idealistic version of this process was followed by Marx's materialistic version. History tells us that Marx was wrong too. Both of them tried to define an end point of of human socio-political development (aka "the end of history"), and both were wrong. When the USSR broke up, Francis Fukuyama gleefully declared that with the proof that Marx was wrong, what he called "western liberal democracy" was the end of history instead. But Fukuyama was playing a sly word game. When he said "liberal", what he meant was specifically economic liberalism (ie consumerist capitalism). This isn't going to be the end of history either. However, if we take "liberal" to mean philosophical liberalism then maybe he was right. Hence the question in the title of this thread: can western philosophically-liberal democracy produce eco-civilisation? If so, it might well be the end of history. If not then it is back to cauldron of evolution for us, either culturally or biologically.

[northernmonkey]

oh my goodness me where to start:

Living in vast colonies wasn't the natural state for the ancestors of honey bees...until it was.

Indeed so. It took biological evolution for that to occur.

Civilisation is an evolutionary adaptation which is currently incomplete.

Unless I really have misunderstood you, I am sorry to say, really is arrant nonsense. I wish there was an easier way to say that but there isn't. In what way, precisely, can civilization be said to be an "evolutionary adaptation". Please explain the precise biological route by which this occurred. In what way is this "evolutionary adaptation" "incomplete"? Please explain how evolution "decides" what is "complete" and "incomplete". I really am all ears.

My argument is that we are committed to the adaptation -- we cannot go back to the our pre-civilised state (tribal hunter-gathering). Therefore we must continue to attempt to make the adaptation work. This itself is an evolutionary process.

Who is this "we" and in what way are "we" "committed" to this "adaptation"? Do you mean "evolutionarily committed"? Please, for the love of God, don't tell me you meant that.

Humans need a cosmology (in the anthropological sense). We need a belief system. We need it both as individuals, and naturally we needed it as part of our tribal identity. Tribes no longer exist, so we now replace that cosmology with various ideologies, mostly religious but sometimes political and in some cases metaphysical materialism plays a role.

The question is as complicated as a question can get, and in order to understand the answer we need to have a decent grasp of the history of western civilisation, and especially the history of western philosophy. The first person to truly understand and communicate this was GWF Hegel. It was Hegel who historicised philosophy and produced the first philosophy of history (these two things are inter-dependent). But Hegel did not get the final word. He did not anticipate Darwin, and obviously had no inkling about either quantum mechanics or ecological breakdown on the scale it is now happening. Hegel idealistic version of this process was followed by Marx's materialistic version. History tells us that Marx was wrong too. Both of them tried to define an end point of of human socio-political development (aka "the end of history"), and both were wrong. When the USSR broke up, Francis Fukuyama gleefully declared that with the proof that Marx was wrong, what he called "western liberal democracy" was the end of history instead. But Fukuyama was playing a sly word game. When he said "liberal", what he meant was specifically economic liberalism (ie consumerist capitalism). This isn't going to be the end of history either. However, if we take "liberal" to mean philosophical liberalism then maybe he was right. Hence the question in the title of this thread: can western philosophically-liberal democracy produce eco-civilisation? If so, it might well be the end of history. If not then it is back to cauldron of evolution for us, either culturally or biologically.

Righto

Unless all of your references to evolution, above, were references to cultural evolution alone, I'm sorry to say, you have your understanding of the difference between cultural evolution and biological evolution horribly mixed up both in terms of timescales involved and the process by which they occur. Also, you don't appear to understand that biological evolution is blind. a debate may be had on that with regards to cultural evolution. for myself, I lean more towards it being blind as well, despite superficial appearances to the contrary.

[UndercoverElephant]

oh my goodness me where to start:

Living in vast colonies wasn't the natural state for the ancestors of honey bees...until it was.

Indeed so. It took biological evolution for that to occur.

Yes. And it may or may not require further biological evolution for humans to complete the adaptation to eco-civilisation as an organisational structure. That is why I said it is an incomplete adaptation. The process is sufficiently advanced that it cannot be reversed, but it may not yet be biologically complete.

Civilisation is an evolutionary adaptation which is currently incomplete.

Unless I really have misunderstood you, I am sorry to say, really is arrant nonsense. I wish there was an easier way to say that but there isn't. In what way, precisely, can civilization be said to be an "evolutionary adaptation". Please explain the precise biological route by which this occurred. In what way is this "evolutionary adaptation" "incomplete"? Please explain how evolution "decides" what is "complete" and "incomplete". I really am all ears.

Sometimes a species evolves a different sort of social organisation to its ancestral species. It has happened multiple times in the hymenoptera and termites, but has also happened in lesser degrees in other social animals of one sort or another. Homo sapiens is now doing the same thing, but doing it in a way that has never previously happened in the history of evolution. Humans were already an evolutionary novelty by becoming the first creature to make brainpower its primary survival strategy, and now -- after 2 million years of evolution down that novel path -- it is doing something even more unprecedented. Humans have evolved a new sort of mass social system. And it is incredibly powerful -- as an adaptation it makes us, as a species, into something so much more powerful than any other species that we have become our own worst enemies. This in turn is going to force the entire global ecosystem to re-arrange itself around us, just as the entire pre-cambrian ecosystem had to re-arrange itself when the first highly mobile animals appeared.

The reason the adaptation is incomplete is because the feedback effect of the ecosystem changes we're forcing are yet to be felt. Until now the evolution of civilisation as a social structure has been driven by our own internal cultural advances while battling to survive against a hostile natural world. We have now become so successful at that that it is now the rest of the ecosystem that is suffering from our power and hostility. This situation is unsustainable. And it can only end in one of two ways -- either the ecosystem becomes so hostile to humans that we go extinct, or, one way or another, a new balance is arrived at between a much-changed eco-system and a much-changed human race. The question I am interested in is what this new balance might look like, and how we might get from here to there.

This may all sound crazy, but it is absolutely not. It is, however, extremely difficult to explain to people, unless they have a pretty good background in both science and philosophy.

My argument is that we are committed to the adaptation -- we cannot go back to the our pre-civilised state (tribal hunter-gathering). Therefore we must continue to attempt to make the adaptation work. This itself is an evolutionary process.

Who is this "we" and in what way are "we" "committed" to this "adaptation"? Do you mean "evolutionarily committed"? Please, for the love of God, don't tell me you meant that.

Yes, I mean evolutionarily committed. There is no evolutionary/ecological pathway back to hunter-gathering. Even if we could unlearn all of the cultural developments that have driven western history since the collapse of bronze age civilisation, the pleistocene-holocene ecosystem in which we evolved is long gone. This is the anthropocene. Or rather the anthropozoic...but let's not go there now.

Unless all of your references to evolution, above, were references to cultural evolution alone, I'm sorry to say, you have your understanding of the difference between cultural evolution and biological evolution horribly mixed up both in terms of timescales involved and the process by which they occur.

There is nothing wrong with my understanding of these things. Biological evolution goes at different rates depending on circumstances, and so does human cultural evolution. All sorts of crucial advances were made in ancient Greece in the space of about 40 years. Less progress was made in the entire 1000 years while Christianity held power over the western world. In the 16th and 17th centuries cultural evolution went into overdrive and the result was modern western civilisation.

Also, you don't appear to understand that biological evolution is blind. a debate may be had on that with regards to cultural evolution. for myself, I lean more towards it being blind as well, despite superficial appearances to the contrary.

Biological evolution may well have a teleological component, especially with respect to consciousness. Apart from that it is blind.

Please do not estimate what I do and do not understand. Ask questions instead, and I will try to answer them. It has taken me a long time to arrive at the position I am defending, and I have attempted on multiple occasions to write a book about it. Each time, until now, I ran into some sort of show-stopping problem and had to deepen my understanding of some elements in order to sort the problem out. Only now have I figured out a way of explaining it coherently to a wide enough audience is to present an entire history of western civilisation and philosophy, aimed at the target of a person who knows nothing about philosophy but who has accepted that civilisation as we know it is not going to survive.

The crucial thing to understand is this: western philosophy has gone wrong. It has gone down a blind alley and that is why civilisation as we know it cannot (apparently) be fixed. In fact it needs radical surgery, but this cannot happen until the nature of the philosophical blind alley has become widely understood. Academic philosophy is a central part of the problem: it mainly talks to itself, and where it is influencing wider culture it is doing so in the form of Critical Theory -- which denies reality and deliberately confuses people. This is what has created the "culture wars", but instead of reforming society, it has crippled it.

Four myths need to be busted: that metaphysical materialism is true, that reality is subjective, that Christianity's history of itself is true and that growth-based economics can be sustained. Those four myths support civilisation as we know it. Blow them up and a viable route to ecocivilisation may well open up.

[BritDownUnder]

In the late 1400s 10% of men were literate, climbing to 20% in the 1500s, 30% by 1650, 45% by 1714, and 60% by 1754. For women the picture was similar but on a smaller scale: 10% by 1600, 25% by 1714, and 40% in 1754.

I am surprised that it was 20% for men in the 1500s. Certainly not just the elite there. Perhaps they were clerks, estate managers, storesmen, monks etc. I am wondering how people were taught to read. I suppose the church must be there either directly or the schools. Would there be a church like organisation nowadays that could take up the mantle after a collapse event?

I think the UK also had one of the highest literary rates around that time.

People might also take up reading for entertainment again. When the iPads stop working.

[UndercoverElephant]

I am surprised that it was 20% for men in the 1500s. Certainly not just the elite there. Perhaps they were clerks, estate managers, storesmen, monks etc. I am wondering how people were taught to read.

People were taught to read by other people who could read. As soon as the printing press was invented, so not just books but large amounts of pamphlets became available. Written material was highly desirable. Everybody wanted it, and everybody wanted to learn how to read.

Would there be a church like organisation nowadays that could take up the mantle after a collapse event?

That is a good question. The future of Christianity and the church is another big issue. Maybe too much to get into in this thread though.

I think the UK also had one of the highest literary rates around that time.

It wasn't the UK at that time, but England certainly had the highest literary rate at that time.