Controversy: Subjugation as a Means of Evolutionary Survival.
This essay introduces an idea which many will find controversial, disturbing and even "offensive". Most of the people on my Friends list are capable of thinking like grown-ups, however. Others should be forewarned.
This thought-exercise was inspired by his post in mr_reed's journal, which refers to the concept that, when one culture is conquered by another, the politically-subjugated one is often the victor on the only level that counts in terms of evolution -- that of its replicators, genes and memes. Specifically: the two groups hybridize genetically, and the genes of the "loser" often predominate in number and influence; and the cultural memes of the "loser" are also absorbed into the "victor", transforming its culture in significant ways.
It then crossed my mind: Is it possible that being conquered could be an evolutionary survival strategy?
Mind you: I am not saying that being conquered, subjugated and colonized is, in any way, beneficial for people, nor that people consciously want or seek it. It is plainly a very unpleasant and undesirable thing for all human beings in such positions. I am saying, rather, that it may benefit not the people themselves, but the information they bear and transmit, or some parts of it. From the point of view of a replicator, the only purpose of a person is to make more replicators.
Now, let me start by saying that on a practical level, societies have conquered others primarily through having higher levels of technological and military proficiency. For the most part, they just plain beat them. And the primary reason for why some cultures have such higher levels has been explained quite clearly by writers such as Jared Diamond in his Guns, Germs and Steel: they happened to evolve in environments that made such technical adaptations possible and advantageous. Granted that Diamond overlooks the possibility that the different environments also led to biological adaptations,which may in turn have also affected the rate of technical development, but his overall thesis is quite sensible: If you live in a place that has stuff to make technology with, and you also have reasons to do so, you will probably make technology.
Now, there are replicators which survive by promoting further evolution. One may call them pro-evolutionary replicators. These include memes such as a cultural belief in the value of learning and advancement, openness to change, etc. There are replicators which serve the converse function, to slow down the rate of change and stabilize it. And there are even counter-evolutionary replicators, ones which seek to preserve themselves by blocking further change, promoting inertia and regression.
Is it possible that, under some conditions, a group's replicators may lead that group to hold back its own advancement, making itself vulnerable to conquest -- for the sake of the selfish replicators? Indeed, might it be possible that some societies in history have actively invited conquest by others, sending a "come hither and get me" signal like a female spider in her alluring web, waiting for a mate to devour?
Let me repeat once again, and clearly, that this is not conscious on the part of the actual people involved, and it is most definitely not what they "want". It is a case of behavior being unconsciously driven by genes and/or memes -- in human terms, by instinct, habit, conditioning, superstition and the like, deeply-embedded metaprograms of thought and behavior.
Consider that, on the level of individual animals, submissive behavior evolved along with dominant behavior, and complementary to it. Submissive behavior serves an adaptive purpose, otherwise it would have vanished a long time ago (as it is not particularly enjoyable for its own sake, for most people). Could not a similar mechanism apply on the level of groups?
If so, where, when, and under what conditions would it arise? Well, as stated above, what is "adaptable" in any given case depends ultimately on the environment, which for humans includes both the physical and social environment. A group's environment includes its neighbors, and hence their replicators.
It is extremely unlikely that a "come and get me" strategy would have evolved in total isolation. Vitalist though I am, I would not attribute to replicators that level of prescience. More likely, rather, it evolves in situations where a) the group has neighbors and b) is already weaker than some of its neighbors for various other, and unrelated. reasons. If replicators "discover" that they can effectively get passed on in and through the conquest of their unfortunate hosts, they will probably "try" to repeat the performance somehow. (Or, speaking less Vitalistically: the replicators which do support such transmission will get transmitted more.) For memes, this can begin to occur within the course of one generation, while for genes it will take much longer.
The more times a group's descendants get bashed, the more this pattern will be reinforced, and the process will snowball. Losers beget losers. The only winners, in the long run, are the replicators.
If there is any truth to this hypothesis, it does indeed lend a dark and grim view to human history. But that is not a reason to avoid considering it.
This thought-exercise was inspired by his post in mr_reed's journal, which refers to the concept that, when one culture is conquered by another, the politically-subjugated one is often the victor on the only level that counts in terms of evolution -- that of its replicators, genes and memes. Specifically: the two groups hybridize genetically, and the genes of the "loser" often predominate in number and influence; and the cultural memes of the "loser" are also absorbed into the "victor", transforming its culture in significant ways.
It then crossed my mind: Is it possible that being conquered could be an evolutionary survival strategy?
Mind you: I am not saying that being conquered, subjugated and colonized is, in any way, beneficial for people, nor that people consciously want or seek it. It is plainly a very unpleasant and undesirable thing for all human beings in such positions. I am saying, rather, that it may benefit not the people themselves, but the information they bear and transmit, or some parts of it. From the point of view of a replicator, the only purpose of a person is to make more replicators.
Now, let me start by saying that on a practical level, societies have conquered others primarily through having higher levels of technological and military proficiency. For the most part, they just plain beat them. And the primary reason for why some cultures have such higher levels has been explained quite clearly by writers such as Jared Diamond in his Guns, Germs and Steel: they happened to evolve in environments that made such technical adaptations possible and advantageous. Granted that Diamond overlooks the possibility that the different environments also led to biological adaptations,which may in turn have also affected the rate of technical development, but his overall thesis is quite sensible: If you live in a place that has stuff to make technology with, and you also have reasons to do so, you will probably make technology.
Now, there are replicators which survive by promoting further evolution. One may call them pro-evolutionary replicators. These include memes such as a cultural belief in the value of learning and advancement, openness to change, etc. There are replicators which serve the converse function, to slow down the rate of change and stabilize it. And there are even counter-evolutionary replicators, ones which seek to preserve themselves by blocking further change, promoting inertia and regression.
Is it possible that, under some conditions, a group's replicators may lead that group to hold back its own advancement, making itself vulnerable to conquest -- for the sake of the selfish replicators? Indeed, might it be possible that some societies in history have actively invited conquest by others, sending a "come hither and get me" signal like a female spider in her alluring web, waiting for a mate to devour?
Let me repeat once again, and clearly, that this is not conscious on the part of the actual people involved, and it is most definitely not what they "want". It is a case of behavior being unconsciously driven by genes and/or memes -- in human terms, by instinct, habit, conditioning, superstition and the like, deeply-embedded metaprograms of thought and behavior.
Consider that, on the level of individual animals, submissive behavior evolved along with dominant behavior, and complementary to it. Submissive behavior serves an adaptive purpose, otherwise it would have vanished a long time ago (as it is not particularly enjoyable for its own sake, for most people). Could not a similar mechanism apply on the level of groups?
If so, where, when, and under what conditions would it arise? Well, as stated above, what is "adaptable" in any given case depends ultimately on the environment, which for humans includes both the physical and social environment. A group's environment includes its neighbors, and hence their replicators.
It is extremely unlikely that a "come and get me" strategy would have evolved in total isolation. Vitalist though I am, I would not attribute to replicators that level of prescience. More likely, rather, it evolves in situations where a) the group has neighbors and b) is already weaker than some of its neighbors for various other, and unrelated. reasons. If replicators "discover" that they can effectively get passed on in and through the conquest of their unfortunate hosts, they will probably "try" to repeat the performance somehow. (Or, speaking less Vitalistically: the replicators which do support such transmission will get transmitted more.) For memes, this can begin to occur within the course of one generation, while for genes it will take much longer.
The more times a group's descendants get bashed, the more this pattern will be reinforced, and the process will snowball. Losers beget losers. The only winners, in the long run, are the replicators.
If there is any truth to this hypothesis, it does indeed lend a dark and grim view to human history. But that is not a reason to avoid considering it.