10. Selection in cultural evolution

              In biological evolution, each species, occupying a certain territory (area), is represented on it by a system of populations. Population (from Lat.populus - people, population). Evolution is possible only in populations with their inherent species variability. The variability of a species in populations, noticed by Charles Darwin, is the cornerstone of evolutionary theory.
               Population is a group of individuals within a species, within which the probability of crossing is many times greater than the probability of crossing with representatives of other similar groups. The population has similarities with the organism as a biosystem, as it has a certain structure, integrity, the ability to autoregulate and adapt. The population's adaptive capabilities are significantly higher than that of its constituent individuals.
                The population structure is formed, on the one hand, on the basis of the general biological properties of the species, and on the other, under the influence of environmental factors and populations of other species. The structure of populations has, therefore, an adaptive character and is formed under the influence of a number of factors.
                Selection is the main species-forming factor in biological evolution. The selection is usually individual. In cultural (social evolution), selection is predominantly group.

              Driving natural selection causes the entire species to change in a certain direction. Species changes at the genetic level represent changes in the frequency of some alleles of genes in the gene pool in the historical sequence of populations.

                Sometimes the adaptation of a population to external conditions divides it into two parts, in which some property in these parts has changed in opposite directions. The allele frequencies of some genes became different in both parts of the split population. For example, for better adaptation, it turns out to be beneficial to change the color of individuals to the dark or light side. This type of selection is called disruptive.
                Sometimes stabilizing selection takes place, as opposed to disruptive selection, which consists in a decrease in the variability of a species for some trait.

In addition to selection, there are genetic factors of biological evolution, which consist in changing the composition of the gene pool of a population due to mutations, gene flow and drift.
                Mutations (random changes) of genes, which are rare (about 1 case per million), but occur and manifest themselves during the formation of germ cells from somatic ones. By selection, most mutations are discarded, but some mutations remain in the form of recessive gene alleles.
          
                A gene flow is a change in the frequencies of genes in the gene pool of a population under the influence of migration of individuals, migrations, flights, transfer of pollen and seeds by wind, insects. A population can acquire a new allele not as a result of mutation, but as a result of immigration - the introduction into this population from a neighboring carrier of a new gene.
                Gene drift is a shift in gene frequencies as the population declines. In a large population, once emerged as a result of mutation, the allele remains in it almost forever (Hardy-Weinberg's law). But when the size of the population decreases, then the loss of some alleles of genes is possible, the genetic diversity of the population decreases. This effect has been called the "bottleneck" filter.
                For the species Homo Sapiens, the habitat is the entire globe, connected by a communications system. Today we can talk about global cultural evolution. But it was not always so.
                For instance. Several thousand years ago, a large civilization, the Roman Empire, flourished, and numerous nomadic tribes were located around. The Roman Empire fell, having previously divided into 2 parts. It fell, as species disappear in nature, having exhausted their resources, unable to sufficiently adapt to changing social conditions.
                Civilization did not end there, a new attempt at revival was made, when numerous tribes in Europe gradually began to unite into cities and states. Many times in the history of mankind, civilizations of varying degrees of success have arisen in different places, but under the influence of external natural causes, as well as internal social causes, they fell into decay. But the trend towards the complication of the organization of these civilizations under the influence of scientific and technological advances is upward. This is how the civilizations of Europe, Asia and even America, which were re-populated only after Columbus, arose.


                PARALLEL  STRUCTURE  OF  TWO  EVOLUTIONS.

                It is clear that the structure of human societies is formed under the influence of factors similar to factors of biological evolution. From a comparison of 2 evolutions (biological and cultural), it can be concluded that they differ in replicators and inheritance mechanisms.
                A person in a social society is the basic structure from which all organs of states are built, just as a cell in biological evolution is the basic structure for building all organs of a multicellular organism.
                Therefore, the principles of biological evolution can be accurately applied to social evolution, bearing in mind that the models of the two evolutions have natural similarities. If this is taken into account, then there is no need to use philosophy and moral constructions to explain social issues of evolutionary development, since this always leads to ambiguous conclusions. And the ambiguity of the conclusions of the sciences based on such postulates does not allow them to be considered scientific theories.
                Below is a table of similar analogies, indicating that both biological and social evolution are built on similar principles.
                This table is not as trivial as it might seem at first glance. For instance. Biological evolution occurs only at the level of populations, and not inside a multicellular organism. It is impossible inside a multicellular organism, since natural selection within the organism is impossible due to the same genetic makeup of each cell.
                Identical genes in every cell of the body make selection impossible, it has nothing to cling to, all genetic sets are the same. Selection is ultimately always the selection of genes. All cells of the body are “linked by one chain”. And without selection, ontogeny turns into a kind of peaceful cooperative construction of the organism. It's good. Because all organs are important for the body. Selection would lead to the victory of the cells of some organs. And the organism would not have happened. Some freak would appear.
                MEMs (replicators of cultural evolution) are different for each person, and selection takes place in societies. It takes place in every social cell of the state. This is an individual selection.
But group selection is of greater importance for the development of social society.
                A developed society has a complex system of organs, which are arranged in hierarchical structures. The struggle between structures is in the nature of a group struggle, since many people are united in each structure. If we go one step higher, then we observe a struggle between states, here also group selection is at work. Marx wrote about the struggle between proletarians and capitalists. This is a variant of group selection, so Darwin's conclusions are not applicable to this type of selection. You need to use sociobiology to study social relationships.


                OLD  TIME  INTERSTATE  SELECTION.

                Even 500 years ago, the social structure was quite simple, people's interests were reduced to survival, which makes it possible to model the cultural evolution of the old world, using some selection rules and endowing the subjects with resources that ensure existence.
                It is no secret that the population of the globe until recently has been growing at an increasing pace. Civilizations began to appear 3-4 thousand years ago, although there were separate oases of civilized life earlier. For example, the Egyptian pyramids are more than 4.5 thousand years old. But the entire population of the globe was then about 20 million. man, and naturally then there could not be global civilizations.
                American researchers have attempted to computer simulate the origin of numerous civilizations in Eurasia. In their model, they believed that the process of cultural self-organization of this space occurred as a result of multilevel cultural selection. In those distant times, cultural selection was largely reduced to incessant brutal wars, and now it is difficult to call this process cultural.


                MODELING  THE  GLOBAL  SELECTION  OF  THE  WORLD.

                In 2013, P. Turchin and his comrades published an article in the journal of the American Academy of Sciences, which in translation sounds - "War, space and evolution of complex societies of the old world", in which, on the basis of a computer model, setting some initial conditions for development, taking into account climatic, geological and the natural conditions of each selected square with a side of 100 km., the researchers modeled the evolutionary path of development of states in the Eurasian space. A period of 3000 years was chosen: from -1500 years before the NE and up to 1500.
                It is noted that the simulation result coincided by 60% with what actually happened. The idea of “multilevel cultural selection” was used for modeling. She recognized that costly societal norms and institutions can be maintained and disseminated, even if at lower levels, for example, at the level of individuals or small communities, selection does not favor them.
                Note. (But they are called expensive because they do not arise in the course of natural evolution, but are imposed by elites from above).
                The stability of huge collectives (unlike small communities) cannot be based on personal relationships. It requires the creation of a complex hierarchy.
                At the same time, on the one hand, there is an increase in labor productivity in large communities according to A. Smith, on the other hand, there is an opportunity for parasitizing certain strata if appropriate measures are not taken. And this is almost always the case. There is no one to take these measures.
                In order for the formation of large political units to become possible, in the course of cultural evolution, special moral norms and social institutions must be developed and consolidated, which are called upon to introduce these moral norms into the minds.
                Note. More precisely, it should not be implanted into the minds, but made part of the mentality, i.e. fix in the subconscious. Reducing the pressure of social selection below, cooperation of efforts in building a civilized society and acceleration of progress lead to the emergence of altruism and the limitation of egoism.
                These institutions include a centralized government, a nationwide educational system that unites religions, and among the norms are the ideals of patriotism and mutual assistance, which apply to all citizens of the empire, and not just to their neighbors in the village. What is beneficial to the state, in terms of its unity, does not always coincide with the local interests of local rulers and residents. So it was then, so it is now.
                The states in which these institutions are better developed turn out to be better militarily, which means that in the conditions of incessant wars they have important preferences. But if wars stop or become not so violent that a real threat of cultural assimilation or destruction hangs over society, then expensive "ultra-social institutions" should gradually wither away. This, in turn, facilitates the disintegration of large empires into smaller political units.
                Note. During the time of M. Gorbachev, international tension was sharply reduced, which objectively contributed to the collapse of the USSR, which was largely based on violence justified by an external threat.
                In those distant times, the unifying role of trade and cultural interactions was not perceived as the most important. The unifying incentive was the threat from the neighbors. When neighbors are afraid of each other, then there is an incentive to team up with someone for mutual protection. Military blocks appear. And when fear disappears, then empires and blocs fall apart.
                Note. (Such past experience leads the rulers to believe that wars are a blessing for a strong state. Such a zigzag in the mind is formed. Peace is required inside the state, and outside the state must be aggressive to maintain internal unity. This situation is still relevant today, and the authorities use this ).
                Based on the available historical data, the authors compiled maps of the real distribution of empires for each of the three analyzed millennia and compared them with the simulation results. The similarity was surprisingly great. As in reality, in the model, the first large states emerged in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and North China. Then the process of empire formation spreads to India, South China and the Mediterranean, and then covers almost all of Europe, South Asia and North Africa.
                Note. (Modeling the early stages of the historical process can be quite successful. People have changed culturally insignificantly over these millennia. They can be considered as some stable entities and build a theory following the example of thermodynamics, when the gas in a vessel is characterized by two parameters - pressure and temperature. But if if molecules could suddenly change their behavior arbitrarily, for example, as a result of collusion, then theory would cease to coincide with practice, but molecules do not know how to come together.
                An indirect confirmation of this is the impossibility of identifying long-term trends on the exchange, where there are many players with varying degrees of awareness. Both technical analysis and fundamental analysis have been developed, which, however, can predict little with a high probability for a real player. A lot of money has been spent on the development of market prediction methods, but there is no result, and apparently it cannot be, because the behavior of people is analyzed here, which is little predictable.
                However, there are some firmly established postulates in economics, and if you deviate from these rules, then this, of course, leads to stagnation, degradation and then disintegration of the system. Those. in economics it is clear what should not be done, but this is often done under the pressure of circumstances not related to economics. It can be whims and parasitism of the elites, depicting violent activity.

Source: Peter Turchin, Thomas E. Currie, Edward A. L. Turner, and Sergey Gavrilets. War, space, and the evolution of Old World complex societies // PNAS. Published online before print September 23, 2013.


                INTERSTATE  SELECTION  OF  MODERN  TIMES,  GLOBALIZATION.

                Selection is the main factor in the evolutionary process. There are more than 200 states on our planet with different economic structures, different cultural codes, and different population sizes. Naturally, competition arises between them for development resources, which include not only fossil natural resources, but also sales markets and people who, in fact, are the source of wealth. As a result of competition, the selection of the structures most adapted for survival and prosperity occurs. Everything goes to the fact that a single civilization appears on the Planet, with local development centers, with their own organs. Therefore, we must not waste time in order to catch at least the last carriage. Those who did not have time were late. Evolution is cruel.
                It is wrong to represent globalization as the erasure of all distinctions between states, the erasure of the cultural identifiers of nations. After all, a multicellular organism is not an accumulation of identical cells. There was a differentiation of cells and their integration into organs that perform certain functions of the whole organism. On the contrary, I foresee the complication of existing structures in order to be interesting to each other, in order to occupy free economic and cultural niches.
                The development of new technologies requires simultaneously competition, altruism and solidarity, so that the increase in prosperity occurs due to the acquired knowledge, and not wars. Such a state of social societies will have to be created by overcoming the genetic egoism of individuals. After all, altruism and trust are necessary for the operation of a new high-tech economy, where work under the duress, without the availability of freedoms, is impossible, since it is ineffective.
It is not so difficult to overcome the manifestations of genetic selfishness if the generation grew up in the absence of wars and guaranteed satisfaction of primary human needs.
                During the entire historical period, disputes between states were resolved by military means, which led to 2 world wars of the 20th century. This way of regulating relations was considered natural. It happened approximately as it happens in biological evolution.
                Even 100 years ago, no one could have foreseen that great wars in a short, short time would be impossible, because weapons of mass destruction would be developed, which would make wars hopeless in terms of obtaining preferences.
                Note. Yes, wars are futile, and the escalation of tension (cold and hybrid wars) allows certain strata to receive some preferences from them, or to think that preferences are possible.
                The military in the headquarters still counted how many guns are needed per kilometer of the front in order to be guaranteed to win, and the physicists with the atomic bomb broke their calculations. They created such a weapon, in the presence of which it became meaningless to fight. This illustrates the unpredictability of evolution, because there are more factors in it than we are able to take into account.   
                Now, after the creation of weapons of mass destruction, wars as a form of struggle (selection) have become unacceptable for humanity, but have not yet become impossible. The presence of modern weapons has created a new direction of pressure on the evolution of civilization. Armed struggle between states is gradually turning into peaceful competition in various fields.
                International rules of conduct for states are being created, treaties are being concluded that regulate their behavior in competition in this world, which has become so limited. These rules, albeit fixed on paper, are created in an evolutionary way based on experience, and not at the discretion of officials.
                From an evolutionary point of view, these rules should be viewed as rules governing the selection of cultural evolution at the state level.
Large preferences in the process of globalization will be given to states that are more dynamic, capable of innovations, capable of integrating into the common economy, which have a greater share in the world economy.
                Interstate selection (globalization) creates pressure on intrastate selection, which each state must take into account, adapt to it, so as not to lag behind the departing ship of civilization. The participants in the integration process send signals to states that do not fully understand that certain things cannot be done. And the leaders of states do not always hear them or do not want to listen.
                Those leaders who say that “we don’t give a damn about pressure, we are sovereigns, we will play our notes in a large orchestra, as we see fit,” lead their state to a dead end, from which it will not be so easy to get out. Who will allow the orchestra to play according to their own notes? It is possible that their behavior will lead to a reformatting of the state, precisely what these politicians fear most. But they reassure themselves that it will be tomorrow, and we live today.


                INTRASTATE  SELECTION.

               
                The state is a complex hierarchical system, a network of separate social cells at different levels. The cell of society (ministry, State Duma, university, etc.) can be considered an analogue of a population in biology. A social cell contains people united by a common goal, which means people with mentalities close in a certain direction. When this is not the case, then the cell cannot function and develop successfully. It is quite logical to assume that selection rules work in a social cell, filtering out those who are less adapted to existence in this cell. As a first approximation, we can assume that individual selection dominates in a cell.
                Selection rules are different for different cells. For example, the rules in a theater group differ from those in the shop of a metallurgical plant, or rules in a trade enterprise. Selection rules are a factor that determines a person's advancement in society. Think of it as an analogy between a river and a swimmer. It is difficult to swim against the current. It is much easier to make a career, to quickly move up the career ladder, if you follow the rules established in the cell.
                The social cells themselves are linked by a multilevel hierarchy and, in turn, are subject to selection. This is a group selection. Some can be eliminated in the process of evolution, while others, on the contrary, arise. Some cells may disappear not even because they function poorly, but because the changed circumstances have made them unclaimed.
                The same is the case with their occurrence. But sometimes they can arise not even because they are required by the state, but because some members of the elite have the opportunity to create them for some reason or even for a holiday.
                In such systems, there is no additivity of properties, when the result from the addition of 2 + 2 can be more or less than four, therefore, it is difficult to model modern social systems.
                The selection rules in each cell are influenced by many circumstances, as is the case in biological evolution. But there all influencing factors are of an objective nature, i.e. influencing factors really exist.
                In cultural evolution, selection is also influenced by factors assessing circumstances by the brain of each person. This virtual influencer has greatly increased in recent times with the increasing complexity of the entire cultural infrastructure.
                For example, a mod creates specific selection rules. She does not justify her changes in any way. She postulates that we need to change, that today we need to wear jeans torn at the knees. Fashion captures us in different directions and we tend to imitate her trends. Well, Homo sapiens is not an intelligent automaton, but only one of the primates who looks at the world through the prism of their mentality.
               
                Although social selection in the state has a multi-level, multi-point nature, some conclusions can still be drawn by simplifying the situation by presenting the state hierarchy as a two-level system. The upper level is the elite, which runs the state and the lower level is all other people.
                The elite, creating these or those structures, should act in accordance with the situation not only within the state, but also with the external environment created by the surrounding states. External pressure imposes certain restrictions on the behavior of the elites, if they are sane, more precisely, if the system only supports sane structures covered by feedback from grassroots cells, self-government cells.
                An attempt to ignore the existence of other states, to ignore their signals, leads to adverse consequences. But the former Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Dvorkovich has a different opinion: “We must continue what we are already doing. Sanctions don't bother me. We just work. " But sanctions are signals from other states sent to us.
                He said this at the beginning of 2018, when the country was already in a major impasse. As a result of this "government work", energetic educated people are forced to leave the country. They will work, creating the well-being of other countries, and we export unskilled workers from the near abroad, where the economic situation is even worse than in Russia. Why doesn't the government care? There can be only one answer. Smart and energetic ones are not particularly needed for the elite if the interests of the elite are focused on pumping energy resources from the Earth. This is what brings income to some part of society here and now.
                And yet our famous, unsinkable reformer A. Chubais finally (January 2018) confessed: “Culture in general, and Russian culture in particular, should not be overcome, but rely on it. To our great regret, in a significant part of our own moves we overcame it, this is how history developed. And we, in general, are responsible for these mistakes. "