Regal Vs Kalyptic Society

http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit/1997/vol1/fog_a.html

This paper carefully draws the analogy between r/K selection in genetic evolution to the speculative equivalent in cultural evolution. This can't be the whole picture, but it is hard not to hear the ring of truth too.

From the above (regarding genetic evolution) ...

If an animal species lives under conditions where resources are ample so that there are good opportunities for expansion, but where there are also considerable dangers such as predators, then it will be advantageous for this species to use most of its resources on breeding as fast as possible and spending few resources on each offspring. This is called r-selection. The r is the mathematical symbol for the rate of reproduction. r-selection causes the evolution of small animals growing fast and breeding fast. Examples are mice and insects.

The opposite of r-selection is K-selection. This is what happens when a species lives under conditions where the population is limited by scarce resources rather than by predation. The capital K is a mathematical symbol for carrying capacity, i.e. the maximum number of individuals that the resources in a given habitat can continually sustain. K-selection leads to the evolution of big animals which breed slowly and utilize the given resources optimally, and which invest a considerable proportion of their resources in the care of their sparse offspring. If the animals under these conditions bred excessively, then they would have insufficient resources for nurturing each young, and they might over-exploit their habitat to the point where the resources were exhausted. K-selection is found in those animals that come last in a food-chain, such as whales, elephants, and humans.

From the above (regarding memetic evolution) ...

The analogy with genetic r/K-theory becomes apparent when you consider that an r-selected culture spends a high proportion of its resources on winning new territory. Or, to be more exact: The r-memes make their hosts spend many resources on winning new hosts for the same set of memes. The cultural k-strategy implies a different allocation of resources, namely on keeping the hosts you already have by making them satisfied with their society.

The fitness determinant for cultural r-selection may be characterized as military strength and political unification. It is the ability of a culture to spread to new peoples and to withstand the influence from other cultures. The fitness determinant for cultural k-selection, on the other hand, is the contentment of all individuals and thereby a minimization of conflicts between leaders and subjects. Only by satisfying the needs and wishes of all individuals as fully as possible can the culture avoid upheavals. The r-selection is determined by the reproduction of culture in space (geographic expansion), the k-selection is determined by reproduction in time (retention).

Um yeah. Try explaining China with this theory ... oops, didn't think of that one? Typical fuzzy brained pseudoscience we've come to expect from memeticists ...

What's to explain? Are you trying to compare the Chinese with r-selection or with K-selection? Your phrasing seems to imply that the Chinese are a counter-example to the paper, which means you're implying that the Chinese favor r-selection strategies (Pardon me while I jump to conclusions). I haven't read the referenced paper. I know little about evolutionary strategies. I do know that the Chinese lavish a great deal of attention and energy on their children, to the point of obsessiveness compared to westerners. Sounds like K-selection to me. They're also very stern, possessive, dictatorial, etc, to their children, to a point that astounds westerners (then again, the ancient Romans gave the father the legal right to execute his kids up until the age of 25, or sell them off into slavery, etc). Chinese culture also has an odd take on authority and citizenship to modern western eyes, but I'll bet you'd find similar attitudes in various European countries in fairly recent history.

China is a good example really. You can see many of the patterns discussed in the paper there (border causing conflicts, regal and kalyptic periods, ...). Of course, it's no simple example and you have to consider its long history and its neighbors too.

'pseudoscience'? No. It gives references, explains without using analogies (except for introduction), gives tables of properties and lots of concrete examples. It's no hard science, but states a falsifiable theory. -- GunnarZarncke