Advertisement

Journal of Bioeconomics

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 31–38 | Cite as

Cultural species and their ecosystems

Commentary on “Do Institutions for Collective Action Evolve?” by Elinor Ostrom
  • David Sloan WilsonEmail author
Article

Abstract

The target article was written for a workshop that I organized with Lin Ostrom titled “Rules as Genotypes in Cultural Evolution”. In my commentary, I describe the background for the workshop and target article in addition to commenting on the article itself. A compelling case can be made for functionally organized human groups as like species that adapt to their local environments. A cultural inheritance mechanism is required for this to happen, which functions analogously to genetic inheritance, although the mechanistic details need not be analogous. Indeed, a diversity of cultural inheritance mechanisms are possible that need not be mechanistically analogous to each other. In addition, most modern human populations consist of a diversity of functionally organized groups, or cultural ecosystems. The distinction between “species” and “ecosystem” is important because the concept of an inheritance system applies primarily to the former. Finally, positive cultural evolution in modern large-scale society must be engineered and an explicitly evolutionary perspective will add value to the enterprise.

Keywords

Cultural Evolution Evolutionary Perspective Human Group Proximate Mechanism Target Article 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I join the many others who knew Lin in mourning her passing and I cherish the opportunity that I had to work with her for several years prior to her death. I thank my colleagues at the Evolution Institute for their role in making my collaborations with Lin possible.

References

  1. Bird, A. (2002). DNA methylation patterns and epigenetic memory. Genes & development, 16(1), 6–21. doi: 10.1101/gad.947102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Dethlefsen, L., McFall-Ngai, M., & Relman, D. A. (2007). An ecological and evolutionary perspective on human–microbe mutualism and disease. Nature, 449(7164), 811–818. doi: 10.1038/nature06245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Evans-Prichard, E. E. (1965). Theories of primitive religion. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  5. Goodnight, C. J. (1990a). Experimental studies of community evolution I: The response to selection at the community level. Evolution, 44, 1614–1624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Goodnight, C. J. (1990b). Experimental studies of community evolution II: The ecological basis of the response to community selection. Evolution, 44, 1625–1636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Holden, C., & Mace, M. (2009). Phylogenetic analysis of the evolution of lactose digestion in adults. Human Biology, 81, 597–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lewis, O. A., & Steinmo, S. (2012). How institutions evolve: Evolutionary theory and institutional change. Polity, 44(3), 314–339. doi: 10.1057/pol.2012.10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lustick, I. S., Alcorn, B., Garces, M., & Ruvinsky, A. (2012). From theory to simulation: The dynamic political hierarchy in country virtualisation models. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 24(3), 279–299. doi: 10.1080/0952813X.2012.693841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mayr, E. (1961). Cause and effect in biology. Science, 134(3489), 1501–1506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McGinnis, M. D. (1999). Polycentric governance and development: Readings from the workshop in political theory and policy analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  12. Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2005). Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Sober, E., & Wilson, D. S. (1998). Unto others: The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Steinmo, S. (2010). The evolution of modern states: Sweden, Japan, and the United States (Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics) (p. 288). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Swenson, W., Arendt, J., & Wilson, D. S. (2000). Artificial selection of microbial ecosystems for 3-chloroaniline biodegradation. Environmental Microbiology, 2, 564–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Swenson, W., Wilson, D. S., & Elias, R. (2000). Artificial ecosystem selection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 97, 9110–9114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wilson, D. S. (2002). Darwin’s cathedral: Evolution, religion and the nature of society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wilson, D. S. (2013). Human cultures are primarily adaptive at the group level (with comment). Cliodynamics: The Journal of Theoretical and Mathematical History, 4(1). http://escholarship.org/uc/item/05n4z9w8
  19. Wilson, D. S., & Gowdy, J. M. (2013). Evolution as a general theoretical framework for economics and public policy. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 90(suppl.), S3–S10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wilson, D. S., Hayes, S. C., Biglan, A., & Embry, D. (2014). Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change. Behavioral and Brain Sciences (in press).Google Scholar
  21. Wilson, D. S., Ostrom, E., & Cox, M. (2013). Generalizing the design principles for improving the efficacy of groups. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 90(suppl.), S21–S32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wilson, D. S., & Wilson, E. O. (2007). Rethinking the theoretical foundation of sociobiology. Quarterly Review of Biology, 82, 327–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departments of Biology and AnthropologyBinghamton UniversityBinghamtonUSA

Personalised recommendations