@DrDanMarshall Nepotism is not necessarily a human...

@DrDanMarshall
Nepotism is not necessarily a human universal; it is a product of hierarchical societies rather than an inherent aspect of human nature.

Regarding "shared collective interests," it is the interests that benefit the community as a whole, rather than just individual members.

Like 13 February at 22:37 | Open on mastodon.social

11 comments

Dr Dan Marshall replied to 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧

@Radical_EgoCom If I am an egotist, why should I care about the needs of the collective so long as my own needs are being served? If I am not egoist, what causes me to not be an egoist? (We have two, three, answers: kin selection, the bond between married co-parents, imagined communities. Do you have another?)

"Nepotism is not a human universal." Again, talk to the anthropologists, and show me an existence proof.

13 February at 22:45 | Open on mastodon.cloud

𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 replied to Dr Dan Marshall

@DrDanMarshall
If you're an egoist, you might still have reasons to care about the needs of the collective, even if primarily motivated by self-interest. For instance, ensuring the well-being of the collective could enhance your own security, stability, and overall quality of life. Additionally, fostering a thriving community could provide you with social connections, support networks, and opportunities for collaboration that benefit you in various ways.

13 February at 22:49 | Open on mastodon.social

𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 replied to 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧

@DrDanMarshall
If you're not an egoist, several factors could contribute to your concern for the needs of the collective. These might include empathy, a sense of moral obligation or responsibility, a belief in the intrinsic value of cooperation and solidarity, cultural or societal norms promoting altruism, personal experiences that foster a sense of interconnectedness, and philosophical or religious beliefs emphasizing the importance of serving others.

13 February at 22:49 | Open on mastodon.social

Dr Dan Marshall replied to 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧

@Radical_EgoCom Humans are ethical, but our concern for fairness can probably be traced to tit-for-tat games between egoists, as mediated by our selfish genes. Compassion does exist, partly because of tit-for-tat, but also kin selection, imagined communities. I'm not saying humans don't help strangers, but we would generally put a higher priority on kin. And that, in itself, is a source of inequality.

14 February at 0:05 | Open on mastodon.cloud

𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 replied to Dr Dan Marshall

@DrDanMarshall
Humans are inherently social beings who possess a deep-rooted sense of compassion and solidarity; they aren't solely driven by selfish genes and individualistic motives. Collective cooperation and mutual aid within communities are fundamental aspects of human nature. Kin selection and imagined communities don't inherently lead to inequality; these concepts can foster a sense of interconnectedness and shared responsibility.

14 February at 0:11 | Open on mastodon.social

Dr Dan Marshall replied to 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧

@Radical_EgoCom Humans are hypersocial *because* of our selfish genes, plus the mental "memetic" hack of imagined communities. (Graeber and some other David argue that imagined communities are not limited to nations and religions, and that they have been around for as long as behaviorally modern humans have.) You are correct that nepotism doesn't entail inequality. However, unequal *clans* + nepotism = reinforced inequality.

14 February at 0:33 | Open on mastodon.cloud

𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 replied to Dr Dan Marshall

@DrDanMarshall
While human behavior can be influenced by both genetic and memetic factors, it's not accurate to attribute our social nature solely to "selfish genes" or "imagined communities." Human sociality is also shaped by historical and material conditions, including economic systems and power dynamics, which can either reinforce or mitigate inequality.

14 February at 0:36 | Open on mastodon.social

Dr Dan Marshall replied to 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧

@Radical_EgoCom Indeed :) Memes are a bad model, difficult to apply. But they at least allow us to take historical contingencies into account. If we see a cultural feature, we can investigate the conditions under which that "meme" tends to "evolve." The cultural traits that are universal persist across a wide range of environments, and are quite probably genetic rather than memetic. Change the conditions, change which "memes" are "fit."

14 February at 0:54 | Open on mastodon.cloud

𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 replied to Dr Dan Marshall

@DrDanMarshall
While certain universal cultural traits may have genetic components, the emphasis should be placed on understanding cultural evolution and social dynamics rather than reducing everything to genetic determinism. The concept of memes is limited in its ability to explain the complexities of cultural change and evolution. A more nuanced analysis of historical contingencies and social structures is needed that shapes the transmission and evolution of cultural traits.

14 February at 1:13 | Open on mastodon.social

𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 replied to 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧

@DrDanMarshall
There is also a reductionist nature in viewing culture solely through the lens of memes. It's important to consider broader socio-political contexts in understanding cultural dynamics.

14 February at 1:13 | Open on mastodon.social

Dr Dan Marshall replied to 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧

@Radical_EgoCom One thing I did like about Graeber and the other David's book was the concept of schismogenesis. It introduces a still deterministic but very chaotic "force" into cultural evolution. By contrast, too many anthropologists seem to treat "cultural evolution" as more deterministic than how modern biologists think biological *development* is. Evolution is a messy, chaotic bitch, and people who talk about cultural evolution should keep that in mind.

14 February at 1:35 | Open on mastodon.cloud

Go Up