Human cumulative culture and the exploitation of natural phenomena

Abstract

Cumulative cultural evolution (CCE)—defined as the process by which beneficial modifications are culturally transmitted and progressively accumulated over time—has long been argued to underlie the unparalleled diversity and complexity of human culture. In this paper, I argue that not just any kind of cultural accumulation will give rise to human-like culture. Rather, I suggest that human CCE depends on the gradual exploitation of natural phenomena, which are features of our environment that, through the laws of physics, chemistry or biology, generate reliable effects which can be exploited for a purpose. I argue that CCE comprises two distinct processes: optimizing cultural traits that exploit a given set of natural phenomena (Type I CCE) and expanding the set of natural phenomena we exploit (Type II CCE). I argue that the most critical features of human CCE, including its open-ended dynamic, stems from Type II CCE. Throughout the paper, I contrast the two processes and discuss their respective socio-cognitive requirements. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue ‘The emergence of collective knowledge and cumulative culture in animals, humans and machines’.

The emergence of collective knowledge and cumulative culture in animals, humans and machines

“…Both accept the ‘core criteria’ for CCE proposed by Mesoudi & Thornton [ 78 ] ( figure 1 ) then dissect the resultant concept further, but in different ways. Derex [ 151 ] offers the broadest analysis, proposing a distinction between a Type I CCE and Type II CCE, on the basis of how these adaptively exploit the natural phenomena with which they are engaged. Type I optimizes exploitation of only a given set of phenomena, as in the case of the progressive efficiency of homing flights of pigeons cited above [ 32 ], and other cases of CCE in animals and humans (and presumably robot analogues too).…”

“…In the top, framed box (after [ 25 ]) are distinctions between two broad meanings of the assertion that ‘culture evolves’, followed by a dissection of forms of cultural evolution. The remainder of the figure illustrates distinctions within cumulative cultural evolution (CCE) due to [ 78 , 151 , 152 ], as discussed in the text. The white arrow between core and extended criteria for CCE indicates that the latter are potential variants within the category defined by the former.…”

“…This appears to broadly map to Derex's Type I CCE, with both mapping to the ‘improvement in performance’ criterion of [ 78 ] ( figure 1 ). However, readers must judge for themselves how close this mapping across [ 78 , 151 , 152 ] may be. The main thrust of Gruber et al .…”

“…Both the chimpanzee and tit progressions appear to fit Type I CCE [ 151 ] instantiated in foraging benefits to the practitioners [ 152 ]. One might question if the behavioural combination in the chimpanzee case also exploits additional physical phenomena (in this case, opening a valve), thus entering the domain of Type II CCE.…”

Experiments in artificial culture: from noisy imitation to storytelling robots

“…The work of this paper fits, we believe, within the microevolution strand of the science of cultural evolution [ 12 ], and although simulation models of cultural evolution are not new [ 13 ], we believe that our approach using robots in an embodied individual-based simulation is novel. Physical embodiment and noise together provide the ‘natural phenomena’ [ 14 ] that can be exploited in cumulative cultural evolution.…”