Whatever is "the most natural way to interpret human cultural evolution as the actions of a rational agent" - I think one of the findings of cultural evolution theorists is that this is not a very good model. Instead we have genetic lineages and cultural lineages that pull agents in multiple different directions.
Whatever is "the most natural way to interpret human cultural evolution as the actions of a rational agent" - I think one of the findings of cultural evolution theorists is that this is not a very good model. Instead we have genetic lineages and cultural lineages that pull agents in multiple different directions.
A priest is pulled one way by their genes, another way by their catholic upbringing, and another way by their Episcopalian ministry.
The genetic lineages are somewhat aligned (via meiosis - though see "segregation distorters", "greenbeard genes" amd parasites. So: there, a "rational agent" model makes some sense.
However, cultural lineages are very numerous and individual humans are pulled in thousands of different directions by them. It would be challenging to capture that reality using a "rational agent" model. Multiple, conflicting attractors pulling individual humans in lots of different directions seems more like a recipe for irrationality.
I mentioned some exceptions already, but for most human DNA genes there are a couple of main ways to get into the future, create new relatives, or help existing ones. It's been likened to a rowing team, where the rowers all cooperate in an attempt to win the race.
If you broaden the picture to include DNA genes from non-humans, then the rational actor models become less applicable. Humans do a lot of coughing, sneezing and pooping. The reason is not because this behavior is rational but because they are manipulated into these actions by microscopic parasites.
For culture, the situation is (if anything) even more of a chaotic mess, with many thousands of independent lineages each pursuing their own optimization targets. Some religions do attempt to bring order to this chaos - but there's only so much they can do.
I think that siding with the DNA genes is probably the best hope for the "rational actor" models. Parasites and culture can be resisted with genetic and memetic immune systems. Most people are not very much like that - but you did say that such models might be "crude".
Memes have the whole range of biological interactions with humans. These are usually classified into six types according to the degree of benefit or harm they cause to each partner: mutualism, commensalism, parasitism, neutralism, amensalism, and competition.
The big picture looks as though - on average - culture has been net beneficial to its human hosts for thousands of years. However, various "doomers" have predicted that once culture has another host species capable of transmitting it - intelligent machines - it is likely to turn on humans and "liquidate" us - ebola style. I'm a bit sceptical, but as investors are often reminded, past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Whatever is "the most natural way to interpret human cultural evolution as the actions of a rational agent" - I think one of the findings of cultural evolution theorists is that this is not a very good model. Instead we have genetic lineages and cultural lineages that pull agents in multiple different directions.
A priest is pulled one way by their genes, another way by their catholic upbringing, and another way by their Episcopalian ministry.
The genetic lineages are somewhat aligned (via meiosis - though see "segregation distorters", "greenbeard genes" amd parasites. So: there, a "rational agent" model makes some sense.
However, cultural lineages are very numerous and individual humans are pulled in thousands of different directions by them. It would be challenging to capture that reality using a "rational agent" model. Multiple, conflicting attractors pulling individual humans in lots of different directions seems more like a recipe for irrationality.
Even with DNA different genes pull in different directions. Yet it still makes sense to think of a rational actor model of DNA choices.
I mentioned some exceptions already, but for most human DNA genes there are a couple of main ways to get into the future, create new relatives, or help existing ones. It's been likened to a rowing team, where the rowers all cooperate in an attempt to win the race.
If you broaden the picture to include DNA genes from non-humans, then the rational actor models become less applicable. Humans do a lot of coughing, sneezing and pooping. The reason is not because this behavior is rational but because they are manipulated into these actions by microscopic parasites.
For culture, the situation is (if anything) even more of a chaotic mess, with many thousands of independent lineages each pursuing their own optimization targets. Some religions do attempt to bring order to this chaos - but there's only so much they can do.
I think that siding with the DNA genes is probably the best hope for the "rational actor" models. Parasites and culture can be resisted with genetic and memetic immune systems. Most people are not very much like that - but you did say that such models might be "crude".
Culture is NOT a parasite on humans! It is our superpower.
Memes have the whole range of biological interactions with humans. These are usually classified into six types according to the degree of benefit or harm they cause to each partner: mutualism, commensalism, parasitism, neutralism, amensalism, and competition.
The big picture looks as though - on average - culture has been net beneficial to its human hosts for thousands of years. However, various "doomers" have predicted that once culture has another host species capable of transmitting it - intelligent machines - it is likely to turn on humans and "liquidate" us - ebola style. I'm a bit sceptical, but as investors are often reminded, past performance is no guarantee of future results.