The fifth awakening is when you leave behind the anthropocentric view and allow for Culture's own intentionality. Then you see that we are in symbiosis with the Culture, and because it has a faster rate of evolution, it domesticates us. We are not in control.
The underlying process by which culture changes is what it is. Not everyone likes it and some seek to influence it. For example, here is Dawkins (1976): "We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators."
But can we really change this process? A sufficiently successful culture becomes the monoculture. Drift and decay. Peripheral group arises and becomes dominant. It expands and is emulated until it becomes the monoculture. Repeat. How do we break the cycle?
Has the process of coming to meta-realizations about culture been subjected to individual or group selection? Does having it increase your reproductive fitness? No? In that case, it seems this idea about meta-realizations is just drift.
Unless there's some way of coming up with valid ideas by inference from other ideas, instead of direct individual/group selection... but that would call the whole drift narrative into question.
But if it's possible to come up with good ideas without group or individual selection, then we cannot infer that recent cultural changes are bad because they are not driven by group or individual selection.
Many recent cultural changes occurred because they seemed a good idea, inferring from previous ideas. This is memetic selection, not group or individual selection.
But recent changes have not been driven by trying to be adaptive. When values are maladaptive, clever ways to achieve them are also typically maladaptive.
Where to you "adaptive" means "maximizing individual reproductive success"?
Lots about tech, business, and science isn't doing that. Scientists don't have as many children as mechanics. If people really were doing that, they'd have as many children as they could financially support in the worst conditions, 10 or more per woman as in Victorian times, and the world would have a major overpopulation problem.
In biology, "adaptive" isn't a clear and rigorous notion. Is an elephant with its 1 calf per 4-5 years, more or less adaptive than a fruit fly with its 400 eggs every 50 days? How do you measure success? There isn't any objective way.
The most you can say is that some species have survived (so far) and others have gone extinct, and others have evolved into other species. But even this isn't an objective metric, because every species eventually goes extinct or evolves into something else. And it's on a species level, not on the level of individual competition.
If having more than a specified number of children on average leads to civilisation collapse, then it isn't adaptive. Same with having less than a specified number on average. The most adaptive number of children is one that leads to long term sustained growth. It's probably around 3, given today's life spans and medical abilities to keep people alive.
It sounds like you have an idea of "adaptive" that means something like "what is best for humanity as a whole." Whereas Robin has an idea of "adaptive" that means something like "what maximizes reproduction or winning competitions against other humans."
The problem is that "adaptive" is simply not a clearly defined term. To adapt means to optimize. But what is being optimized? That's ambiguous.
Another pricing problem when confronting the invisible hand. This model implies that not all moves are invisible - and some remain unknown to the unawakened, but it finally asks the same old question.
The fifth awakening is when you leave behind the anthropocentric view and allow for Culture's own intentionality. Then you see that we are in symbiosis with the Culture, and because it has a faster rate of evolution, it domesticates us. We are not in control.
I agree with what you portray but what of control? Why do we need control when trust and faith play a role for a time allowing emergence?
The underlying process by which culture changes is what it is. Not everyone likes it and some seek to influence it. For example, here is Dawkins (1976): "We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators."
To fix cultural drift, first we need a clear understanding of how and why existing drift occurs. I am not aware we have that.
But can we really change this process? A sufficiently successful culture becomes the monoculture. Drift and decay. Peripheral group arises and becomes dominant. It expands and is emulated until it becomes the monoculture. Repeat. How do we break the cycle?
Christians look forward to a 1000 year reign of Jesus Christ. I think that would do it, but what alternative can secular policy wonks offer?
Has the process of coming to meta-realizations about culture been subjected to individual or group selection? Does having it increase your reproductive fitness? No? In that case, it seems this idea about meta-realizations is just drift.
Unless there's some way of coming up with valid ideas by inference from other ideas, instead of direct individual/group selection... but that would call the whole drift narrative into question.
Of course its possible to reason and draw inferences. What's very hard is having those influence the overall course of a civilization.
But if it's possible to come up with good ideas without group or individual selection, then we cannot infer that recent cultural changes are bad because they are not driven by group or individual selection.
Many recent cultural changes occurred because they seemed a good idea, inferring from previous ideas. This is memetic selection, not group or individual selection.
But recent changes have not been driven by trying to be adaptive. When values are maladaptive, clever ways to achieve them are also typically maladaptive.
Where to you "adaptive" means "maximizing individual reproductive success"?
Lots about tech, business, and science isn't doing that. Scientists don't have as many children as mechanics. If people really were doing that, they'd have as many children as they could financially support in the worst conditions, 10 or more per woman as in Victorian times, and the world would have a major overpopulation problem.
I mean the usual biological concept of "adaptive"; I have no special variation in mind. Yes, most people aren't pursuing adaptive goals.
In biology, "adaptive" isn't a clear and rigorous notion. Is an elephant with its 1 calf per 4-5 years, more or less adaptive than a fruit fly with its 400 eggs every 50 days? How do you measure success? There isn't any objective way.
The most you can say is that some species have survived (so far) and others have gone extinct, and others have evolved into other species. But even this isn't an objective metric, because every species eventually goes extinct or evolves into something else. And it's on a species level, not on the level of individual competition.
If having more than a specified number of children on average leads to civilisation collapse, then it isn't adaptive. Same with having less than a specified number on average. The most adaptive number of children is one that leads to long term sustained growth. It's probably around 3, given today's life spans and medical abilities to keep people alive.
It sounds like you have an idea of "adaptive" that means something like "what is best for humanity as a whole." Whereas Robin has an idea of "adaptive" that means something like "what maximizes reproduction or winning competitions against other humans."
The problem is that "adaptive" is simply not a clearly defined term. To adapt means to optimize. But what is being optimized? That's ambiguous.
Another pricing problem when confronting the invisible hand. This model implies that not all moves are invisible - and some remain unknown to the unawakened, but it finally asks the same old question.