罗宾·汉森在2024年的“显化”大会上发表了关于文化漂移的演讲，他认为文化漂移是一个“会付出惨痛代价”的现象，并对此感到担忧。他认为，文化漂移源于人类文化演化的减缓，导致文化变化不再适应环境，并引发一系列问题，例如生育率下降、文明衰落等。汉森认为，我们应该从外部视角看待文化漂移，因为它对整个人类文明都构成威胁。

🤔 **文化演化的减缓：** 汉森认为，过去几百年来，文化之间的演化（即不同文化的竞争和融合）减缓了，导致现存的几种文化内部发生变化，而文化之间没有更多互动和演化。这种现象源于战争和饥荒等选择压力的减弱，导致文化变化不再适应环境。

📉 **生育率下降：** 文化漂移的一个重要后果是生育率下降。汉森认为，生育率下降反映了主流文化适应性降低，而一些生育率较高的文化（如阿米什人和门诺派）则可能会逐渐占据主导地位。

⚠️ **文化漂移的负面影响：** 汉森认为，文化漂移会导致文明衰落、创新减少、自由主义价值观下降等一系列问题。他担心，如果主流文化被其他文化取代，人类文明可能会失去许多珍贵的价值和成就。

❓ **文化漂移的意义：** 汉森试图从外部视角看待文化漂移，认为它对整个人类文明都构成威胁。然而，文化演化本身就是一个自然过程，文化兴衰更替也是自然现象。如果主流文化被其他文化取代，这是否意味着人类文明的衰落？

💡 **文化演化的本质：** 文化演化是一个动态过程，文化之间不断竞争和融合，进而适应环境。文化漂移可能意味着当前文化适应性不足，但并不意味着人类文明的终结。相反，文化演化可能会推动新的文化兴起，创造新的文明形式。

Published on July 22, 2024 8:20 PM GMT

At 2024's Manifest, Robin Hanson gave a talk (in his usual sweeping polymathic style) on cultural drift - a phenomenon for which he thinks "there's going to be hell to pay", and about which he is "scared, because this is a really big fundamental problem".

Watch the recording of the 30:00 minute talk here (followed by Q&A).

His argument is roughly the following:

Evolution between species is more important (more adaptive) than evolution within species.The same is true of cultural evolution.In the last couple hundred years, there has been a great reduction of evolution between cultures. There are now far fewer cultures, and all of the changes are happening within these cultures.There is less famine and war now, i.e. much less selection pressure.Therefore, our cultural changes are not adaptive - they're not responsive to selection pressures. They're "drifting off the rails" (hence cultural drift).Dropping fertility rates are a consequence of this drift: "I interpret this [dropping fertility] as our main macro-world culture becoming less adaptive..."

Hanson takes this cultural drift to be a problem. But here I become confused. From what perspective is cultural drift a problem? The obvious candidate is the POV of our culture - if it is not adaptive, it will likely die out. We don't want our culture to die out. But Hanson seems to want to appeal to a perspective outside of our culture:

"There are two levels of thinking about culture, one is from the inside and one is from the outside. I'm trying to get you to see it from the outside...""I'm here scared, because this is a really big fundamental problem. This is Humanity's main engine..."

It seems Hanson wants to say that this is a problem for Humanity, not just for our culture. However, cultures dying out and being replaced by more adaptive ones is exactly what we would expect of a healthy evolutionary system. If our liberal western culture (whatever that means) goes extinct and is replaced by the Amish or Mennonite cultures (as Hanson suggests it might), then this looks like selection working "as intended".

Despite Hanson saying that we should see things "from the outside", all of the specific worries he cites are quite clearly from inside our culture:

"We would then plausibly have several centuries of a declining population with very little innovation.""...the world will become less liberal.""the Amish and Mennonites are doubling every twenty years, will just keep doubling, and in a few centuries come to dominate... Humanity doesn't go extinct there... It's not that terrible - it's not existential... It's pretty bad though, several centuries decline of our civilization, loss of liberality""...a lot of what we create here will be lost... our civilization and the precious things we are creating and collecting much of that may be thrown away"

I agree these are all bad things. I like technology. I like Liberalism. But if Hanson's whole argument is simply: "if our culture goes away, that's bad!" then why did we need the framework of cultural evolution, the "outside perspective", and so on? Why not just say: "Our fertility is dropping, and illiberal cultures' fertility is rising. If this stays the same, our culture will be overtaken by illiberal ones. That's bad!" ? This way of putting it gets at the exact same worry in a more direct way.

So, maybe I don't understand Hanson's argument. Curious to hear others' thoughts.

Discuss