Societal Evolution vs. Biological Evolution

[Slapstick]

Is there any reason not to believe biological change happens over time vs. societal changes occurring over time and are not accepted, much like biological changes?

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm little confused about your question. Can you please clarify a tad?

 

[brokensymmetry]

Is there any reason not to believe biological change happens over time vs. societal changes occurring over time and are not accepted, much like biological changes?

Some people think you can model 'societal change' in an evolutionary way, say, via memes. I suppose the only issue is in the past when people have talks about societal evolution t hey have couched it in terms of 'progress' and declared some people less than on some imaginary scale of human worth. I think so long as everyone understands that evolution is truly directionless this way you could try to model how societies evolve.

 

[metis]

Is there any reason not to believe biological change happens over time vs. societal changes occurring over time and are not accepted, much like biological changes?

When I see a post whereas someone says they don't accept evolution, there are a few conclusions that this leads me to: they don't put much value on science, that they've been brainwashed by their religion, that they aren't thinking logically, or some combination of the above. Here's briefly why.

One doesn't "believe in" evolution. Either they accept it or they don't.

Secondly, the only reason why some tend to not accept it is because they rather blindly believe what they've been told by their religious leaders.

Thirdly, since all things change over time, and since genes are material things, why in the world wouldn't this rather obviously lead to evolutionary change? And for someone to somehow believe that evolution supposedly magically short of "macro-evolution" is complete nonsense as any geneticist would tell us. Even though d.n.a. itself doesn't change, its various combinations do.

Like with material things, societies change as well so, yes, there is sort of a relationship between the two.

 

[brokensymmetry]

When I see a post whereas someone says they don't accept evolution, there are a few conclusions that this leads me to: they don't put much value on science, that they've been brainwashed by their religion, that they aren't thinking logically, or some combination of the above. Here's briefly why.

One doesn't "believe in" evolution. Either they accept it or they don't.

Secondly, the only reason why some tend to not accept it is because they rather blindly believe what they've been told by their religious leaders.

That is because the public rhetoric in the US has made evolution into a 'faith' that you choose to accept or don't based on how you feel about it that day.

 

[metis]

That is because the public rhetoric in the US has made evolution into a 'faith' that you choose to accept or don't based on how you feel about it that day.

I wish you were wrong.

 

[Slapstick]

I'm little confused about your question. Can you please clarify a tad?

I doubt I can rephrase it without totally obliterating my original post.

 

[Slapstick]

Some people think you can model 'societal change' in an evolutionary way, say, via memes. I suppose the only issue is in the past when people have talks about societal evolution t hey have couched it in terms of 'progress' and declared some people less than on some imaginary scale of human worth. I think so long as everyone understands that evolution is truly directionless this way you could try to model how societies evolve.

I think you made a very good point, but it made me think of a different conclusion. “I think so long as everyone understands that evolution is truly directionless this way,” no one can possibly try to model how societies would evolve over time. As in – human progress has just as much to do with societal evolution as biological evolution has to do with societal - Which is or would be, little to nothing. In retrospect however, is everything, including chemical reactions truly directionless? Elements have certain properties that do not change. So if you know enough about one element you can predict another by knowing the properties required to make a new chemical compound.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

What do you mean model societal change? We have writings of the rise and fall of empires that can map out the changes that have occurred.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I doubt I can rephrase it without totally obliterating my original post.

The point being made is that you've done a fair job accomplishing that all on your own.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I put little faith in social and psychological evolution: there are studies that show something is going on, but so much of it is so highly speculative that sometimes it sounds plausible (such as psychosomatic disorders arising from ancient times so a member of a tribe being invaded could covey to the invading force she is ill and to stay away) and some times it just sounds really dumb (depression evolving as a defensive mechanism to get lonely guys laid). The more I learn of the soft sciences, the more I am convinced that they quickly over-compensate for things they do not know.

 

[Slapstick]

The point being made is that you've done a fair job accomplishing that all on your own.

That is funny. No one else had a hard time understanding it. I quit responding to troll posts on this forum, but if this isn’t a troll post and a sincere attempt to better understand the OP then I will further explain if it seems convoluted.

It is somewhat of a multi-part question and making the assumption that most people, generally speaking agree with evolution, but asking if there is any reason to disagree with certain parts of biological evolution based on societal evolution, since a lot of people do not accept many “social or anthropological” changes. Evolution can thus be biological or societal. Biological would be how a species came about or descended from a common ancestor to form a species or its origin of descent, i.e. how it evolved biologically.

Social would involve how a species interacts socially, sometimes with others of that same species (or group) for the betterment of society so to speak. However, in societal evolution you have many different cultures, with different views, beliefs, cultural practices, norms, too basically distinguish what would be expected of that society as a whole. The sources of those norms may come from different sources. So the other part of my OP was stating even though societal changes occur over time and are not always accepted, much like biological evolution. Leading to the very first part of the statement, which asks “is there any reason not to believe in biological change” in regards to societal change. There could be several reasons for this. Maybe those who disagree with biological evolution have conflicting beliefs because they don't relate with the progression of societal evolution or among those beliefs held within a specific culture. Some rely on religion; others government, some may have their own ideologies, etc. Maybe it is simply due to lack of education.

The below points are from Social Evolutionism - Anthropological Theories - Department of Anthropology - The University of Alabama and can be used to better understand what societal evolution is or what I am referring to when I use the word.

• unilinear social evolution - the notion that culture generally develops (or evolves) in a uniform and progressive manner. It was thought that most societies pass through the same series of stages, to arrive ultimately at a common end. The scheme originally included just three parts, savagery, barbarism, and civilization, but was later subdivided into several to account for a greater cultural diversity.
• psychic unity of mankind - the belief that the human mind was everywhere essentially similar. "Some form of psychic unity is …implied whenever there is an emphasis on parallel evolution, for if the different peoples of the world advanced through similar sequences, it must be assumed that they all began with essentially similar psychological potentials (Harris 1968:137)."
• survivals - traces of earlier customs that survive in present-day cultures. Tylor formulated the doctrine of survivals in analyzing the symbolic meaning of certain social customs. "Meaningless customs must be survivals, they had a practical or at least a ceremonial intention when and where they first arose, but are now fallen into absurdity from having been carried on into a new state in society where the original sense has been discarded” (Hays 1965: 64).
• primitive promiscuity - the theory that the original state of human society was characterized by the lack of incest taboos, or rules regarding sexual relations or marriage. Early anthropologists such as Morgan, McLellan, Bachofen and Frazer held this view. It was opposed on the other hand by those who, like Freud, argued that the original form of society was the primal patriarchal horde or, like Westermark and Maine, that it was the paternal monogamous family (Seymour-Smith 1986:234).
• stages of development - favored by early theorists was a tripartite scheme of social evolution from savagery to barbarianism to civilization. This scheme was originally proposed by Montesquieu, and was carried into the thinking of the social evolutionists, and in particular Tylor and Morgan.

 

[Tiapan]

I would have said societal evolution is a subset of biological evolution.

Bees, ants, termites and wasps are examples of cooperative biological societies that have evolved because when working together and sharing the chores, the survival rate is higher than if they tried to survive independently. (Biological Cooperative Society)

Alternately Bumble Bees are solitary and far less numerous and must provide everything it needs itself (higher work load). So we have at least 2 examples analogous to the more complex human societies. (Individual solo survivor)

For evolution to be noticeable in a short time span, a catastrophic event must occur to the population. If we have a bacteria and apply a new antibiotic it may kill 99% of the population, but due to minor differences in DNA 1% may survive. This 1% had a trait that defended it against the antibiotic somehow and therefore it survived. The result is now that the rest of the population is dead, all new bacteria are only produced from the survivors and therefore they are all resistant to the antibiotic.

A pond dries out in the summer drought as the water level falls trapped fish splash about trying to escape the hot pond. A small number of fish have slightly longer front fins than the rest of the population. These few are able to use this slightly increased leverage to move over the mud into a larger cooler pond. The remainder of the original population are trapped and die. All future fish will have the slightly longer fins.

Humans are ingenious as a result of the evolutionary benefit of a larger cerebrum where intelligence is an evolutionary advantage. This has led, in humans, to a significant increase in health and longevity well beyond the biological imperative to breed then die. We have developed the evolutionary trait of cooperative biological society we protect ourselves from many catastrophic events. Any advantageous genes are continually diluted with the general gene pool producing what we have today the diverse Human Race. This is why we appear to have always remained the same and unchanged for the past several millennia. Many useful genes are not concentrated and expressed because of the dilution principle. It also indicates that any individual new trait is not as significantly effective at improving the gene pool at a rate greater than the current status quo.

What I am about to say may seem controversial even racist, but bear with me as I think it shows the point.

The Irony of Hitler

In the 1930's in Russia and Germany had strong antisemitic policies which led to concentration camps. In the 1940s Hitlers Germany undertook an extermination program to rid the earth of Jews. (Environmental pressure on the phenotype)

In society I work on the analogy 20 sheep to 1 wolf. cf Boss/Workers, King/peasants, religious leader/followers, officer/soldiers etc etc. During Hitlers extermination operation the Jewish "sheep" were rounded up and killed. But the wolves, the rich, the smart, the lucky, the risk taker, the sneaky escaped. (Those with genes of advantage allow survival)

These then became the breeding pool for the new Israel. Now it may be just me but as an outside observer, but I see the Israel of today as a new intelligent highly advanced society capable of defending itself easily against its overwhelmingly hostile neighbors, fighting well above its weight. (genes of advantage concentrated and expressed)

So the irony is when Hitler tried to wipe the Jews from the earth what he actually achieved was the opposite, the foundation of one of the most kickass, bang per buck societies on the planet.

The jokes on you Mr Hitler.

I see this as direct evidence that societal evolution is just a subset of biological evolution.

The view I have expressed is rather cold and clinical like an observer in space watching the biology of earth, devoid of emotion and feeling. Yet it is emotion, empathy and feeling that are some of the key evolutionary genes that bind our successful cooperative biological society. Naturally humans tend to breed within their own societal group concentrating their own gene/trait pool. However inter-societal marriages are growing against this norm allowing a cross pollination that may bring benefits of both to their offspring, such as disease immunity. The point is human evolution has slowed to snails pace, but i think that could actually be a good thing. Most people don't like rapid change.

PS I have used the term trait and gene very loosely. since complex human behavior is a combination of genetic and environmental effects trait is probably the better term.

Cheers

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I put little faith in social and psychological evolution: there are studies that show something is going on, but so much of it is so highly speculative that sometimes it sounds plausible (such as psychosomatic disorders arising from ancient times so a member of a tribe being invaded could covey to the invading force she is ill and to stay away) and some times it just sounds really dumb (depression evolving as a defensive mechanism to get lonely guys laid). The more I learn of the soft sciences, the more I am convinced that they quickly over-compensate for things they do not know.

There is also the idea that societal evolution is typically associated with Western society and how we have developed as a society, with that development being the ideal or goal for all societies to work towards.

 

[chlotilde]

There is also the idea that societal evolution is typically associated with Western society and how we have developed as a society, with that development being the ideal or goal for all societies to work towards.

This is what I thought the OP was kind of asking about...like how some early american religious thought they could build a great society (or even how politics today plays out in thinking one's ideas will create some greater good.)

here are a few of my thoughts on societal evolution as I don't think it evolves in the same sense that biology does, mainly cuz at its basest, it doesn't change even though it stems from biology, that base being our response to fight or flight. We either choose to compete or cooperate, and we define that cooperating as society. I don't believe in some Dawkins-like meme (which would be an agent for societal change) but rather because we can communicate with eachother, we just share and build on those thoughts and events and it is our words actually evolving (*see example below)...and then what happens is we end up either cooperating or fighting over words.

Questions like...is society becoming more moral, says more about what you think moral means than whether there is any truth to the statement because it is a self-fullfiling definition for an idea or word. that's why so many online fights turn to people pulling out their dictionaries, cuz they want their word to be the "right" word, and one either fights or takes flight.

* people are ever trying to define why we cooperate and get along. Today the catch phrase is empathy which evolved from sympathy, which described charity or compassion and so now we have 4 words that may or may not mean the same thing. At a deeper level we use these terms to try to differentiate how humans cooperate from how the rest of nature cooperates because we think we are somehow different then them (or not and rather we are just good at inventing words).