Sure, but there's an equally powerful just-so story about a forager group that listens to the elders, ignores tastier herds, and pursues an ever-dwindling old herd until it is hunted to extinction, and the entire forager group dies out because they did not explore obvious and self-evidently good opportunities for improvement out of a fear of the unknown. Context *always* changes, whether we change it or not. Volcanoes erupt. Bird viruses mutate. There may not *be* anything to safely return *to*.
You are right. Which is why you need both the high openness novelty seeking liberals and the high conscientiousness tradition maintaining conservatives if you wish to survive. Most new ideas are terrible and will get you killed but every once in a while a new idea is the only thing that saves you from extinction.
I think this is one reason for the title of the piece. There is no single safe choice but letting different groups make a diversity of decisions whose success or failure is uncorrelated might be a useful strategy.
I like this lesson, and another lesson might be that successful groups don’t just switch herds, they diversify. They test the new path while keeping the old one, and they build backups. When the new herd moves on, they still have rivers, berry meadows, and old trails to fall back on. Adaptation isn’t about clinging to the past or abandoning it, its about keeping enough of it alive to bridge the future.
Fun example of Chesterton's Fence in real life (kind of?): the closest I've ever been to death was when I was doing geology work in a place called Dead Goat's Bluff
Well described! I can be critical of some things you write, but the exploring cultural space framing is a really helpful way to think about the world. To view the lack of cultural diversity as having fewer explorers, also that we have both quicker evolution and much less feedback all are really good observations. I really think this is your best set of ideas since the great filter.
I’m curious how to square your defense of “conservatism” here with the fairly transparent disdain you have for religion exhibited in many of your other writings.
I think I know how Tyler Cowen squares it, and I think I know how I square it to myself.
Perhaps you’ve covered this elsewhere, but while I’ve read much of what you have written here on Substack I can’t claim to have done so exhaustively.
The impulse to follow the AI herd is an interesting and disquieting example. On the one hand, AI promises--and has already delivered--some impressive benefits. But unlike the parable above, we do see many of the dangers of the new direction, ones that are here now and ones that lie just ahead. We boldly go nonetheless, without knowing how to avoid the dangers. And the individual forager does not seem to have much choice in whether or not to follow. @colin362053's point in the comments about the opposite parable is a good one, but the logic of technology seems to be that racing ahead is always the right choice. Maybe it is. But I'm grateful for @centerforhumanetechnology and Daniel Schmachtenberger's @theconsilienceproject for grappling with this conundrum.
If there's only one forager group, then it exploring dangerous surroundings could risk everyone's lives. However if there are many forager groups doing the exploring, it is more likely that some of them will make it through. That's how our ancestors have made it this far.
What about culture? There may be a case that cultural evolution is a bit more prone to forming monocultures - and so doing less exploring. However, at the moment, we still have plenty of languages, religions, companies, and so on.
Note that monocultures have disadvantages: parasites, poor exploration of space - but also advantages: support, research and maintenance costs are lower. It is a different spot on the exploration/exploitation surface. More monoculture is not necessarily a bad thing.
Agree with Colin, you could just as easily have a parable where not changing culture was a disaster. Anyway, practically speaking what are you recommending here Robin?
I'd say the social function of ideology / religion is to force adherents into long-term paths regardless of short-term results. Natural selection eventually leaves the correct once standing.
I enjoyed this and in some ways it understates the severity of the problem. In the parable some portion of the foragers remained with the first herd and presumably survive even if the breakaways die off. The greater tribe survives.
In a densely connected monoculture the small groups tend to get absorbed over time. So precisely when the dominant group has trouble and those small groups are needed – they no longer exist.
In a ecological analogy it's as if the little ecological niches that supported different species become flattened into one giant connected system, and the subscale species can't compete. A similar process has happened with firms in the (now) globalized economy – a merging of geographically-defined competitive niches and the emergence of international mega-corporations. I wonder if anyone has studied the downsides of this loss of firm diversity.
Maybe you have already addressed this in another post, but to what degree is it desirable to have an "adaptive" culture in the purely evolutionary sense? Or is it that's it's not intrinsically desirable rather that "we like our culture and if we don't make it adaptive we'll lose it"?
Sure, but there's an equally powerful just-so story about a forager group that listens to the elders, ignores tastier herds, and pursues an ever-dwindling old herd until it is hunted to extinction, and the entire forager group dies out because they did not explore obvious and self-evidently good opportunities for improvement out of a fear of the unknown. Context *always* changes, whether we change it or not. Volcanoes erupt. Bird viruses mutate. There may not *be* anything to safely return *to*.
You are right. Which is why you need both the high openness novelty seeking liberals and the high conscientiousness tradition maintaining conservatives if you wish to survive. Most new ideas are terrible and will get you killed but every once in a while a new idea is the only thing that saves you from extinction.
I think this is one reason for the title of the piece. There is no single safe choice but letting different groups make a diversity of decisions whose success or failure is uncorrelated might be a useful strategy.
Sounds a lot like classical liberalism
I like this lesson, and another lesson might be that successful groups don’t just switch herds, they diversify. They test the new path while keeping the old one, and they build backups. When the new herd moves on, they still have rivers, berry meadows, and old trails to fall back on. Adaptation isn’t about clinging to the past or abandoning it, its about keeping enough of it alive to bridge the future.
Fun example of Chesterton's Fence in real life (kind of?): the closest I've ever been to death was when I was doing geology work in a place called Dead Goat's Bluff
I'm so glad I have a desk job now.
Well described! I can be critical of some things you write, but the exploring cultural space framing is a really helpful way to think about the world. To view the lack of cultural diversity as having fewer explorers, also that we have both quicker evolution and much less feedback all are really good observations. I really think this is your best set of ideas since the great filter.
A few typos in the email version, you might get it ai-checked quickly before sending
I’m curious how to square your defense of “conservatism” here with the fairly transparent disdain you have for religion exhibited in many of your other writings.
I think I know how Tyler Cowen squares it, and I think I know how I square it to myself.
Perhaps you’ve covered this elsewhere, but while I’ve read much of what you have written here on Substack I can’t claim to have done so exhaustively.
The impulse to follow the AI herd is an interesting and disquieting example. On the one hand, AI promises--and has already delivered--some impressive benefits. But unlike the parable above, we do see many of the dangers of the new direction, ones that are here now and ones that lie just ahead. We boldly go nonetheless, without knowing how to avoid the dangers. And the individual forager does not seem to have much choice in whether or not to follow. @colin362053's point in the comments about the opposite parable is a good one, but the logic of technology seems to be that racing ahead is always the right choice. Maybe it is. But I'm grateful for @centerforhumanetechnology and Daniel Schmachtenberger's @theconsilienceproject for grappling with this conundrum.
Reminds me of Chesterton’s Fence.
I think there are far too many counterfactuals for this to be a useful parable, including many, many subcultures.
If there's only one forager group, then it exploring dangerous surroundings could risk everyone's lives. However if there are many forager groups doing the exploring, it is more likely that some of them will make it through. That's how our ancestors have made it this far.
What about culture? There may be a case that cultural evolution is a bit more prone to forming monocultures - and so doing less exploring. However, at the moment, we still have plenty of languages, religions, companies, and so on.
Note that monocultures have disadvantages: parasites, poor exploration of space - but also advantages: support, research and maintenance costs are lower. It is a different spot on the exploration/exploitation surface. More monoculture is not necessarily a bad thing.
“More monoculture is not necessarily a bad thing.”
Perhaps.
But as Robin has noted repeatedly, it sure has been for TFR.
We will welcome you with open arms in neo reaction when you are ready Robin :)
Agree with Colin, you could just as easily have a parable where not changing culture was a disaster. Anyway, practically speaking what are you recommending here Robin?
I'd say the social function of ideology / religion is to force adherents into long-term paths regardless of short-term results. Natural selection eventually leaves the correct once standing.
This reminds me of the theme of "Ishmael" by David Quinn
I enjoyed this and in some ways it understates the severity of the problem. In the parable some portion of the foragers remained with the first herd and presumably survive even if the breakaways die off. The greater tribe survives.
In a densely connected monoculture the small groups tend to get absorbed over time. So precisely when the dominant group has trouble and those small groups are needed – they no longer exist.
In a ecological analogy it's as if the little ecological niches that supported different species become flattened into one giant connected system, and the subscale species can't compete. A similar process has happened with firms in the (now) globalized economy – a merging of geographically-defined competitive niches and the emergence of international mega-corporations. I wonder if anyone has studied the downsides of this loss of firm diversity.
Maybe you have already addressed this in another post, but to what degree is it desirable to have an "adaptive" culture in the purely evolutionary sense? Or is it that's it's not intrinsically desirable rather that "we like our culture and if we don't make it adaptive we'll lose it"?
I've tried to argue that whatever else you want, if you don't have an adaptive culture to push for it, it will likely go away in the long run.