Sarah’s excellent essay on cultural evolution quotes philosopher John Gray arguing against social/cultural evolution. Gray wrote one of my favorite books, Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals (the cover photo of this book hangs on my wall). So it bothers me that he would argue that cultural evolution is a myth. I decided to see what he has to say about it in his latest book, The Silence of Animals: On Progress and Other Modern Myths.
In all of Gray’s books that I have read, he has one primary focus: destroying the myth that humans are a special kind of animal that can make moral progress. Quoting from The Silence of Animals (Ch 1):
Science and technology are cumulative, whereas ethics and politics deal with recurring dilemmas. Whatever they are called, torture and slavery are universal evils; but these evils cannot be consigned to the past like redundant theories in science. They return under different names: torture as enhanced interrogation techniques, slavery as human trafficking. Any reduction in universal evils is an advance in civilization. But, unlike scientific knowledge, the restraints of civilized life cannot be stored on a computer disc.
Further, he argues against human uniqueness (a sacred value):
In a strictly naturalistic view – one in which the world is taken on its own terms, without reference to a creator or any spiritual realm – there is no hierarchy of value with humans at the top. There are simply multifarious animals, each with their own needs. Human uniqueness is a myth inherited from religion, which humanists have recycled into science.
The idea that science and knowledge can march us towards utopia is one that is commonly held. To cite a couple of examples, David Deutsch argues this throughout his book The Beginning of Infinity (a book I highly recommend, despite my disagreement with his optimism). Steven Pinker argues that humans are becoming less violent and learning to overcome war.
What does this have to do with cultural evolution? Well, Gray seems to primarily be arguing against people who think that society evolves in the direction of progress (towards an end point or goal):
The myth that human beings can use their minds to lift themselves out of the natural world[…]has been renewed in a garbled version of the language of evolution. There is little in the current fad for evolutionary theories of society that cannot be found, sometimes more clearly expressed, in the writings of Herbert Spencer, the Victorian prophet of what would later be called Social Darwinism. Believing the human history was itself a kind of evolutionary process, Spencer asserted that the end- point of the process was laissez- faire capitalism. His disciples Sidney and Beatrice Webb, early members of the Fabian Society and admirers of the Soviet Union, believed it culminated in communism. Aiming to be more judicious, a later generation of theorists has nominated ‘democratic capitalism’ as the terminus.
[…]
As refined by later scientists, Darwin’s theory posits the natural selection of random genetic mutations. In contrast, no one has come up with a unit of selection or a mechanism through which evolution operates in society. On an evolutionary view the human mind has no built-in bias to truth or rationality and will continue to develop according to the imperative of survival. Theories of human rationality increasing through social evolution are as groundless today as they were when Spencer used them to promote laissez- faire capitalism and the Webbs communism. Reviving long- exploded errors, twenty- first- century believers in progress unwittingly demonstrate the unreality of progress in the history of ideas.
It is very clear that what bothers Gray about social evolution is the claim, by some, that it is evolution towards progress. But then he appears to make the logical error that not evolving towards progress means that social evolution is a myth. He points out that there is no identified unit of selection, unlike DNA in biological evolution. However, DNA is itself a product of evolution, just like stars and other complex energy systems. There is direction in evolution (see discussion of attractors). For example, membrane-like things co-evolve with channel-like things, regardless of whether the things have DNA. Even if we did identify a unit of selection “through which society operates,” it would not imply that we evolve towards improved humanity.
While some people have conflated social evolution with advances in civilization, I see no reason to do so. I agree with Gray that increased knowledge necessarily leading to increased humanity is a myth that requires faith. Cultural evolution requires no such myth.
“But then he appears to make the logical error that not evolving towards progress means that social evolution is a myth” – Gray does not posit or imply this. You inferred it but he simply states:
“Theories of human rationality increasing through social evolution are as groundless today as they were when Spencer used them to promote laissez- faire capitalism…” – if you read his work you would know that he advises that if a social darwinism does exist, that it is beyond the control of the animal itself.
[…] mechanism” by which cultural evolution can be demonstrated to occur. (See Jason Roy’s interpretation of Gray’s thinking.) It seems that Gray did not, in the four years between the two essays, find time to learn more […]
People are talking past each other on the topic of progress. Before we attack or defend the concept we need to first be all defining it in pretty much the same way. The same is true of course for markets, evolution and cultural evolution.
If progress is defined as lifting ourselves out of the natural world or improving humanity then the goal posts are set in a way which pretty much makes progress impossible. If progress is defined as cumulative problem solving according to the standards of the people affected, then it is certainly possible, though by no means either likely or guaranteed.
Cultures evolve — as clearly delineated by Boyd, Richerson and Henrich. However cultural evolution is quite different from biological evolution. And both are different than progress, regardless of what Spencer or Heyek wrote. All societies evolve. Historically almost none have made progress.
Biological evolution cannot make progress for various reasons. One is the Malthusian curse. The other, larger one, is that species create (evolve) problems for each other just as fast as they create solutions.
Humans can make progress and have on many dimensions over the past 250 years. Longer life spans, more freedom, greater opportunity, shorter and safer jobs, higher productivity, faster and cheaper communication and transportation, better understanding of the natural world, higher levels of education, less violence, etc etc.
Humans can solve problems faster than the rate of population growth, and can cooperate rather than just compete over resources and they can produce resources and solutions faster than they consume them.
Of course even the most basic understanding of problem solving is that solving them creates both new challenges and new problems and externalities. True dat. However, this does not negate the possibility of net progress according to the standards and values of the effected population.
Some societies have stumbled upon the recipe for progress or partial progress. Not even this is a guarantee of progress, just improved likelihood. And yes, markets (and science and open access polities) were an essential part of this problem solving algorithm.
Reblogged this on Quaerere Propter Vērum.