Free sex chatting messengers

The difference between the obvious Inuit form of cultural evolution and the non-obvious marriage form is that of within-culture versus between-cultures evolution.

Consider: one Inuit tries the red berries and discovers they make her sick.

This is sort of group selectionism, but in this case I’m okay with it. Becoming cancerous makes a cell much more likely to spread within its organism – the equivalent of positive intracultural selection – but also makes its organism at a severe disadvantage compared to other organisms – the equivalent of negative intercultural selection.

As a result, we expect organisms to evolve strong internal defenses against cancer – which in fact they have.

Presumably if these things really Weaken Moral Fabric in an important way, then those cultures that develop strong internal defenses against them – for example, a strong and well-enforced religious taboo against gay marriage – will be more likely succeed while other cultures die out.

It took about three hundred years for Christianity to replace paganism in Rome; Enlightenment values have been replacing Christianity for three hundred years already and aren’t nearly done.

Any sort of evolutionary process that involves waiting for Rome to fall is a process that will take way longer than human history to come to any sort of conclusion.

How much advantage can an individual cultural trait confer? Compare Judeo-Christian attitudes about sex to Greco-Roman attitudes about sex.

One might argue that the Judeo-Christian attitudes are superior, since Christianity did eventually take over Rome.

Leave a Reply