background preloader

Sociocultural evolution

Sociocultural evolution, sociocultural evolutionism or cultural evolution are umbrella terms for theories of cultural and social evolution that describe how cultures and societies change over time. Whereas sociocultural development traces processes that tend to increase the complexity of a society or culture, sociocultural evolution also considers process that can lead to decreases in complexity (degeneration) or that can produce variation or proliferation without any seemingly significant changes in complexity (cladogenesis).[1] Sociocultural evolution can be defined as "the process by which structural reorganization is affected through time, eventually producing a form or structure which is qualitatively different from the ancestral form." Most 19th-century and some 20th-century approaches to socioculture aimed to provide models for the evolution of humankind as a whole, arguing that different societies are at different stages of social development. Introduction[edit] Related:  House musicmedio ambiente

Post-industrial society Clark's Sector model for US economy 1850 -2009.[1] In sociology, the post-industrial society is the stage of society's development when the service sector generates more wealth than the manufacturing sector of the economy. The concept was popularized by Daniel Bell, and is closely related to similar sociological theoretical constructs such as post-fordism, information society, knowledge economy, post-industrial economy, liquid modernity, and network society. They all can be used in economics or social science disciplines as a general theoretical backdrop in research design. As the term has been used, a few common themes (not limited to those below) have begun to emerge. Origins[edit] Daniel Bell popularized the term through his 1974 work The Coming of Post-Industrial Society.[2] Although some have credited Bell with coining the term,[3] it was also used extensively by social philosopher Ivan Illich in his 1973 paper Tools for Conviviality. Valuation of knowledge[edit] Critics[edit]

Introduction to Human Evolution Human evolution Human evolution is the lengthy process of change by which people originated from apelike ancestors. Scientific evidence shows that the physical and behavioral traits shared by all people originated from apelike ancestors and evolved over a period of approximately six million years. One of the earliest defining human traits, bipedalism -- the ability to walk on two legs -- evolved over 4 million years ago. Other important human characteristics -- such as a large and complex brain, the ability to make and use tools, and the capacity for language -- developed more recently. Many advanced traits -- including complex symbolic expression, art, and elaborate cultural diversity -- emerged mainly during the past 100,000 years. Humans are primates. Most scientists currently recognize some 15 to 20 different species of early humans. Early humans first migrated out of Africa into Asia probably between 2 million and 1.8 million years ago. Paleoanthropology The process of evolution

Transformation of culture - Wikipedia Transformation of culture, or cultural change, is the dynamic process whereby the living cultures of the world are changing and adapting to external or internal forces. This process is occurring within Western culture as well as non-Western and indigenous cultures and cultures of the world. Forces which contribute to the cultural change described in this article include: colonization, globalization, advances in communication, transport and infrastructure improvements, and military expansion. Theories of cultural change[edit] Various scholars have proposed different theories of cultural change. Thomas R. Transformation of Western culture[edit] "Western" or European culture began to undergo rapid change starting with the arrival of Columbus in the New World, and continuing with the Industrial Revolution. Transformation of indigenous cultures[edit] Around the world many indigenous groups have over centuries or millennia successfully sustained economies in one particular place and ecosystem.

Raven paradox The raven paradox suggests that both of these images contribute evidence to the supposition that all ravens are black. The raven paradox, also known as Hempel's paradox or Hempel's ravens, is a paradox arising from the question of what constitutes evidence for a statement. Observing objects that are neither black nor ravens may formally increase the likelihood that all ravens are black – even though, intuitively, these observations are unrelated. The paradox[edit] Hempel describes the paradox in terms of the hypothesis:[2][3] (1) All ravens are black. In strict logical terms, via contraposition, this statement is equivalent to: (2) Everything that is not black is not a raven. It should be clear that in all circumstances where (2) is true, (1) is also true; and likewise, in all circumstances where (2) is false (i.e. if a world is imagined in which something that was not black, yet was a raven, existed), (1) is also false. (3) Nevermore, my pet raven, is black. Proposed resolutions[edit] is if . If

Technological determinism Technological determinism is a reductionist theory that presumes that a society's technology drives the development of its social structure and cultural values. The term is believed to have been coined by Thorstein Veblen (1857–1929), an American sociologist and economist. The most radical technological determinist in the United States in the 20th century was most likely Clarence Ayres who was a follower of Thorstein Veblen and John Dewey. The first major elaboration of a technological determinist view of socioeconomic development came from the German philosopher and economist Karl Marx, whose theoretical framework was grounded in the perspective that changes in technology, and specifically productive technology, are the primary influence on human social relations and organizational structure, and that social relations and cultural practices ultimately revolve around the technological and economic base of a given society. Origin[edit] Explanation[edit] Hard and soft determinism[edit]

Human Evolution Cookies on the New Scientist website close Our website uses cookies, which are small text files that are widely used in order to make websites work more effectively. To continue using our website and consent to the use of cookies, click away from this box or click 'Close' Find out about our cookies and how to change them Log in Your login is case sensitive I have forgotten my password close My New Scientist Look for Science Jobs Human evolution Introduction: Human evolution The incredible story of our evolution from ape ancestors spans 6 million years or more. Human 'missing link' fossils may be jumble of species THIS WEEK: 19:00 09 April 2014 The extinct Australopithecus sediba is hailed as a transitional form between ape-like australopithecines and early humans, but it may actually be two species Denisovans: The lost humans who shared our world FEATURE: 20:00 03 April 2014 They lived on the planet with us for most of our history, yet until six years ago we didn't know they existed. Most read Subscribe

10 Daily Habits That are Killing the Environment Image Source Fotopedia They say it takes 21 days to form a habit, and many of us have daily habits that are slowly destroying the environment. Here is a list of 10 things we can easily change to reduce our impact on the planet, with suggestions for ways to develop new, environmentally-friendly habits instead. 1. Leaving The Lights On You’ve probably heard this a million times before but turning the light off when you leave the room, even if you’re only going for a few minutes, really does make a difference to the environment, since it saves a finite source of energy that can’t be replaced. 2. Many people guess the amount of water they need when they boil the kettle, and they end up boiling too much. 3. Maybe you’re not ready to take a step in the veggie or vegan direction, but if you’re eating farmed meat, you’re supporting an incredibly environmentally damaging industry. 4. 5. 6. 7. It’s remarkably easy to compost at home, and you don’t need a garden to do it. 8. 9. 10.

Epistemology A branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge Epistemology (; from Greek ἐπιστήμη, epistēmē, meaning 'knowledge', and -logy) is the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge. Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief. Etymology[edit] The word epistemology is derived from the ancient Greek epistēmē meaning "knowledge" and the suffix -logy, meaning "logical discourse" (derived from the Greek word logos meaning "discourse"). The title of one of the principal works of Fichte is ′Wissenschaftslehre,′ which, after the analogy of technology ... we render epistemology. It was properly introduced in the philosophical literature by Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier in his Institutes of Metaphysics (1854):[8] This section of the science is properly termed the Epistemology—the doctrine or theory of knowing, just as ontology is the science of being... Defining knowledge[edit] Belief[edit]

The Californian Ideology Richard Barbrook (left) and Andy Cameron (right) "The Californian Ideology" is a critique of dotcom neoliberalism by English media theorists Richard Barbrook and Andy Cameron of the University of Westminster.[1] Barbrook and Cameron argue that the rise of networking technologies in Silicon Valley in the 1990s was linked to American neoliberalism and a paradoxical hybridization of beliefs from the political left and right in the form of hopeful technological determinism. Andrew Leonard of called Barbrook & Cameron's work "one of the most penetrating critiques of neo-conservative digital hypesterism yet published. Critique[edit] "This new faith has emerged from a bizarre fusion of the cultural bohemianism of San Francisco with the hi-tech industries of Silicon Valley...the Californian Ideology promiscuously combines the free-wheeling spirit of the hippies and the entrepreneurial zeal of the yuppies." Richard Barbrook and Andy Cameron[3] Influences[edit] Reception[edit] See also[edit]

How the Concept of "God" Influences Goal Pursuit Does thinking about god help you in life? It’s a question whose answer will likely never be accepted by many, but that hasn’t stopped researchers from trying to find it. A new study examining self-regulation reveals that thinking about god does help you achieve your goal, but only if your goal is to successfully resist the urge to do something. Leveraging classic and recent theorizing on self-regulation and social cognition, we predict and test for 2 divergent effects of exposure to notions of God on self-regulatory processes. Specifically, we show that participants reminded of God (vs. neutral or positive concepts) demonstrate both decreased active goal pursuit (Studies 1, 2, and 5) and increased temptation resistance (Studies 3, 4, and 5). The researchers believe the findings are due to god’s reputation for omnipotence and omniscience. From an evolutionary standpoint, the idea that God helps you resist temptation while decreasing your pursuit of other goals makes a lot of sense.

Global Environmental Politics: From Person to Planet - Simon Nicholson, Paul Wapner Scientific realism Scientific realism is, at the most general level, the view that the world described by science is the real world, as it is, independent of what we might take it to be. Within philosophy of science, it is often framed as an answer to the question "how is the success of science to be explained?" The debate over what the success of science involves centers primarily on the status of unobservable entities apparently talked about by scientific theories. Generally, those who are scientific realists assert that one can make valid claims about unobservables (viz., that they have the same ontological status) as observables, as opposed to instrumentalism. Main features of scientific realism[edit] Scientific realism involves two basic positions. According to scientific realism, an ideal scientific theory has the following features: The claims the theory makes are either true or false, depending on whether the entities talked about by the theory exist and are correctly described by the theory. [edit]