Listen. I started typing up several responses to this along the lines of this type of analysis leaning too hard into adaptationism and underestimating the power of culture but ultimately refuted my own arguments and deleted the responses. My immediate reaction to evo psych explanations for high-level human activity such as landing on the moon is that no, in fact we went to the moon because humans are curious, ambitious, and driven by the pursuit of knowledge (and recognition, sure). But of course if we sufficiently furrow our brows we can always trace those traits back to biological pressures. So all I’ll say is this: when we ask the question “how did the Himalayan mountains form?” we first talk at the level of tectonic plates and continental drift rather than at the level of atomic structures and particle physics. Likewise, when we ask questions about complex human behaviour it’s usually more appropriate to first talk of cultural pressures and political structures. Explanations which are at a closer level of analysis to the phenomenon we seek to explain usually provide more actionable insights (e.g. if we think we waste too many resources on conspicuous consumption perhaps we should examine and modify the cultural and structural systems that drive this desire, such as aggressive marketing and the promotion of superficial values), though of course lower level explanations are not false either, and can also provide an interesting viewpoint.
Which is to say, this was an interesting read and it made me think hard enough that I’m typing this several weeks after having initially read it. Looking forward to future posts:)
Interesting. I think you're right in that these explanations aren't particularly actionable.
Understanding that earthquakes are caused by shifting tectonic plates doesn't provide substantial actionable benefit. While this knowledge can help inform the design and placement of seismic monitors, which detect seismic activity and warn against earthquakes, well…all they can really do is detect, not prevent. What really matters to us is what happens on the surface. We know that the ground shakes during an earthquake, and, presumably, we could still build earth-shaking detection technology and earthquake proof structures without the specific knowledge of tectonic plates.
So why is knowledge of tectonic plates important? People once thought that earth-quakes were a deliberate response from the Heavens, a tell-tale sign that we must atone for our sins. This would leave people wondering, "Why is this happening to us? What did we do to deserve this?" And it could provoke, for example, animal or human sacrifice in order to appease the Gods and prevent future disaster.
Now, with knowledge of tectonic plates, we can see that seismic activity is utterly and entirely independent from human activity. This knowledge also loosens the grip that the disaster has on people. Earthquakes are horrific enough as is; ascribing some additional meaning to them seems unhelpful and fuels more suffering. When you instead understand that it was always going to be this way (the tectonic plates just happened to be shifting in this particular way at this particular time), it helps alleviate the already taxing psychological burden that disasters cause, and prevents further human-generated calamities (e.g., sacrifice).
I'd argue that the discussions around emergent social behaviour (e.g., conspicuous artistic and technological displays) are along the same vein. Knowledge of why they exist doesn't really change anything, but the events themselves cause a lot of distress and leave people exclaiming "Why are we investing resources in this monument or this space program, while our people are suffering?" Well, this helps to explain the why, and importantly without the implication that some oversimplified and arbitrary "good" or "evil" force caused it (e.g., this happened because so and so is evil and doesn't care about us). Asking a collection of humans not to invest in cultural displays would be like asking a plant not to invest in conspicuous flower petals. The plant could presumably funnel those resources into its structure, its leaves, its roots, so that it could better survive. But alas, it needs to attract pollinators. And if other plants around it have more attractive flower petals, its genetic lineage will see an early fate.
Great read. John seems to take a informative, unbiased stance on the nature of conspicuous consumption.
Look forward to reading more.
Beautiful piece. Took my breath away, I slowly read it as I took notes in my diary.
Thank you so much John
Listen. I started typing up several responses to this along the lines of this type of analysis leaning too hard into adaptationism and underestimating the power of culture but ultimately refuted my own arguments and deleted the responses. My immediate reaction to evo psych explanations for high-level human activity such as landing on the moon is that no, in fact we went to the moon because humans are curious, ambitious, and driven by the pursuit of knowledge (and recognition, sure). But of course if we sufficiently furrow our brows we can always trace those traits back to biological pressures. So all I’ll say is this: when we ask the question “how did the Himalayan mountains form?” we first talk at the level of tectonic plates and continental drift rather than at the level of atomic structures and particle physics. Likewise, when we ask questions about complex human behaviour it’s usually more appropriate to first talk of cultural pressures and political structures. Explanations which are at a closer level of analysis to the phenomenon we seek to explain usually provide more actionable insights (e.g. if we think we waste too many resources on conspicuous consumption perhaps we should examine and modify the cultural and structural systems that drive this desire, such as aggressive marketing and the promotion of superficial values), though of course lower level explanations are not false either, and can also provide an interesting viewpoint.
Which is to say, this was an interesting read and it made me think hard enough that I’m typing this several weeks after having initially read it. Looking forward to future posts:)
Interesting. I think you're right in that these explanations aren't particularly actionable.
Understanding that earthquakes are caused by shifting tectonic plates doesn't provide substantial actionable benefit. While this knowledge can help inform the design and placement of seismic monitors, which detect seismic activity and warn against earthquakes, well…all they can really do is detect, not prevent. What really matters to us is what happens on the surface. We know that the ground shakes during an earthquake, and, presumably, we could still build earth-shaking detection technology and earthquake proof structures without the specific knowledge of tectonic plates.
So why is knowledge of tectonic plates important? People once thought that earth-quakes were a deliberate response from the Heavens, a tell-tale sign that we must atone for our sins. This would leave people wondering, "Why is this happening to us? What did we do to deserve this?" And it could provoke, for example, animal or human sacrifice in order to appease the Gods and prevent future disaster.
Now, with knowledge of tectonic plates, we can see that seismic activity is utterly and entirely independent from human activity. This knowledge also loosens the grip that the disaster has on people. Earthquakes are horrific enough as is; ascribing some additional meaning to them seems unhelpful and fuels more suffering. When you instead understand that it was always going to be this way (the tectonic plates just happened to be shifting in this particular way at this particular time), it helps alleviate the already taxing psychological burden that disasters cause, and prevents further human-generated calamities (e.g., sacrifice).
I'd argue that the discussions around emergent social behaviour (e.g., conspicuous artistic and technological displays) are along the same vein. Knowledge of why they exist doesn't really change anything, but the events themselves cause a lot of distress and leave people exclaiming "Why are we investing resources in this monument or this space program, while our people are suffering?" Well, this helps to explain the why, and importantly without the implication that some oversimplified and arbitrary "good" or "evil" force caused it (e.g., this happened because so and so is evil and doesn't care about us). Asking a collection of humans not to invest in cultural displays would be like asking a plant not to invest in conspicuous flower petals. The plant could presumably funnel those resources into its structure, its leaves, its roots, so that it could better survive. But alas, it needs to attract pollinators. And if other plants around it have more attractive flower petals, its genetic lineage will see an early fate.
My brain got 10X wrinklier by reading this, thanks for the new perspective.
I like the way you connected these ideas in a big picture way.
Excited to see what you have to say about social institutions.
(and if i have to report you to the pope)