Amerika

One of the big discoveries of the current micro-era has been culture. After years of denial, we are now seeing more people accepting the utility of culture, and how it varies between groups, making it impossible to be both multicultural and have a culture:

“Every social situation that people encounter in their daily lives comes with a set of unwritten rules about what behavior is considered appropriate or inappropriate,” wrote Kimmo Eriksson, Pontus Strimling and their colleagues in their paper. “These everyday norms can vary across societies: some societies may have more permissive norms in general or for certain behaviors, or for certain behaviors in specific situations.”

Overall, the team’s findings suggest that social norms can be explained by the extent to which societies prioritize different moral values. While some societies tend to prioritize values that focus on protecting individuals and their rights, such as care (i.e., kindness towards others) and liberty (i.e., personal freedom), others focus more on group cohesion and purity (i.e., avoiding behaviors thought to be “indecent” or “taboo”).

“Societies with more individualistic morality tend to have more permissive norms in general (greater liberty) and especially for behaviors deemed vulgar (less purity), but they exhibit less permissive norms for behaviors perceived to have negative consequences in specific situations (greater care),” wrote the authors. “By comparing our data with available data collected twenty years ago, we find a global pattern of change toward more permissive norms overall, but less permissive norms for the most vulgar and inconsiderate behaviors.”

In societies that value individual freedom and kindness towards others, however, inconsiderate behaviors and acts considered to be disrespectful towards others are now deemed less acceptable. In contrast, societies guided by strict moral values and emphasizing “purity” have overall stricter norms, which specifically focus on not being “vulgar” or engaging in “impure” behaviors.

As time goes on, we will find that culture varies not just by nation-state, but by race, ethnicity, social class, family, and individual. Some are not compatible with their host cultures, or those of their class. This occurs because of the genetic root of personality:

All animals—from the smallest worm to the biggest whale—have personalities: individual behavioral preferences that remain more or less stable throughout their lifetime. In Drosophila melanogaster, the fruit flies I worked with, individuality is evident in simple binary behaviors. Individual flies show a preference for turning left or right, choosing a hot or cool environment, preferring brightly lit areas or the shade, and many other idiosyncrasies.

Both nature and nurture influence animal personality. The environment during development can play a crucial role in some instances. In others, genes inherited from parents can drive preferences. In certain populations of fruit flies, for example, parents that like hot temperatures increase the chances that offspring prefer hot temperatures.

It is also possible for genes to influence how much individuals differ from each other. For instance, certain combinations of genes can lead individual fruit flies to have widely different temperature preferences, with some liking colder temperatures and others preferring it warm. These genes determine how wide the range of temperatures an individual’s preferences are drawn from.

In turn, by implication that means that culture is genetic, and those who share enough of the same genes will find themselves compatible, even if some individuals branch off because of their own variations in genetic expression.

For those who read ahead in their textbooks, this means that soon we will see a need for mono-ethnic societies. This allows us to sidestep the cruelty and stupidity of “racism” and “anti-racism” and instead ask the question of what in a practical and realistic context makes for a surviving and thriving civilization.

Tags: Culture, diversity, mono-ethnic, nationalism