It can be too slow to catch up to rapid change, but then in that case one of the things you want is a diversity of cultures for selection to act on.
Is this the problem that you are trying to solve by preserving cultures? Make the human race as a whole more resilient in the face of rapid change?
Is this really the reason why you think culture is important? Or is it a rationalization?
I am skeptical for two reasons:
Your argument about rapid change seems extremely different from your argument in the grandparent post where you talked about literature and philosophy, Aristotle and Chaucer.
Do you think that preserving a bunch of tiny cultures of a few hundred people (many of whom probably live in poverty) is really going to help make the human race more resilient in the face of rapid change?
The grandparent comment was talking about how actually preserving culture is much harder than preserving language, that we’re not very good at it, and that when we’ve tried we’ve had mixed results and diminishing returns beyond in the long run. However, the long run followed a period where the preservation was really really impactful. The Middle East preserving Aristotle and other Greek and Roman works, and reintroducing them to Europe, basically kickstarted the Renaissance and the scientific revolution. That’s a very big deal, and an example of what can happen when cultures coexist, last, and cross-pollinate. Chaucer I care much less about, but I mentioned it because it had been referenced even earlier in the same thread.
No, I don’t. However, I also think that in any kind of complex system, monocultures are fragile. That’s true whether it’s farming, medicine, philosophy, operating systems, electricity generation, or a bunch of other things. I think those smaller cultures have a lot of accumulated-but-illegible value that is very easy to lose and very difficult to share with the larger world. In a lot of cases even the people living in a culture won’t really know, in the historical or scientific senses, which parts of their culture are load-bearing and contributing to survival, or why, let alone which will be beneficial to outsiders now or in the future. And critically, most attempts to engage with them in a deep enough way will tend to destroy the culture before we can even begin to really understand it, let alone gain value from it. To that end, it would be great to be able to preserve the value long enough to actually develop understanding, without condemning anyone to isolation and poverty if they don’t want that.
But in the long run, yes, I do think resilience is my core reason for wanting to preserve other cultures long enough to really understand them. I think we generally do a really bad job of trying to understand when culture is valuable vs a hindrance and why, and most attempts are either racist, misguided, or clumsy at best. Right now (for good historical reasons) everyone rounds such attempts to assumed-to-be-racist. I also just find the diversity of ways humans try to understand and explain their world to be fascinating and illuminating. Not by being right or wrong or useful or useless, but for pointing out that there are many possible natural ways of carving up an ambiguous landscape of things and concepts. It helps me find common ground when engaging with people whose minds work very differently from my own, and have productive and/or enjoyable conversations with them.
I also think that in any kind of complex system, monocultures are fragile.
This is a valid point. But the world is far from a monoculture. Even if all currently endangered languages die out, we will have plenty of cultures left.
If the world ends up with less than, say, 100 languages, then I agree it starts to make sense to preserve them. As it stands now, I think we have more than enough cultural diversity, and keeping tiny minority languages and cultures alive is not worth the opportunity cost.
There’s truth to that for sure. The smaller and more isolated cultures have more variability, but cost more to try to preserve, and I don’t have a good model to evaluate that balance.
Is this the problem that you are trying to solve by preserving cultures? Make the human race as a whole more resilient in the face of rapid change?
Is this really the reason why you think culture is important? Or is it a rationalization?
I am skeptical for two reasons:
Your argument about rapid change seems extremely different from your argument in the grandparent post where you talked about literature and philosophy, Aristotle and Chaucer.
Do you think that preserving a bunch of tiny cultures of a few hundred people (many of whom probably live in poverty) is really going to help make the human race more resilient in the face of rapid change?
Good questions!
The grandparent comment was talking about how actually preserving culture is much harder than preserving language, that we’re not very good at it, and that when we’ve tried we’ve had mixed results and diminishing returns beyond in the long run. However, the long run followed a period where the preservation was really really impactful. The Middle East preserving Aristotle and other Greek and Roman works, and reintroducing them to Europe, basically kickstarted the Renaissance and the scientific revolution. That’s a very big deal, and an example of what can happen when cultures coexist, last, and cross-pollinate. Chaucer I care much less about, but I mentioned it because it had been referenced even earlier in the same thread.
No, I don’t. However, I also think that in any kind of complex system, monocultures are fragile. That’s true whether it’s farming, medicine, philosophy, operating systems, electricity generation, or a bunch of other things. I think those smaller cultures have a lot of accumulated-but-illegible value that is very easy to lose and very difficult to share with the larger world. In a lot of cases even the people living in a culture won’t really know, in the historical or scientific senses, which parts of their culture are load-bearing and contributing to survival, or why, let alone which will be beneficial to outsiders now or in the future. And critically, most attempts to engage with them in a deep enough way will tend to destroy the culture before we can even begin to really understand it, let alone gain value from it. To that end, it would be great to be able to preserve the value long enough to actually develop understanding, without condemning anyone to isolation and poverty if they don’t want that.
But in the long run, yes, I do think resilience is my core reason for wanting to preserve other cultures long enough to really understand them. I think we generally do a really bad job of trying to understand when culture is valuable vs a hindrance and why, and most attempts are either racist, misguided, or clumsy at best. Right now (for good historical reasons) everyone rounds such attempts to assumed-to-be-racist. I also just find the diversity of ways humans try to understand and explain their world to be fascinating and illuminating. Not by being right or wrong or useful or useless, but for pointing out that there are many possible natural ways of carving up an ambiguous landscape of things and concepts. It helps me find common ground when engaging with people whose minds work very differently from my own, and have productive and/or enjoyable conversations with them.
This is a valid point. But the world is far from a monoculture. Even if all currently endangered languages die out, we will have plenty of cultures left.
If the world ends up with less than, say, 100 languages, then I agree it starts to make sense to preserve them. As it stands now, I think we have more than enough cultural diversity, and keeping tiny minority languages and cultures alive is not worth the opportunity cost.
There’s truth to that for sure. The smaller and more isolated cultures have more variability, but cost more to try to preserve, and I don’t have a good model to evaluate that balance.