In what case do you like reading so much? What about the type of the complex population dynamics a theoretical empirical synthesis book? The needs to read? Well, everybody has their own reason why should read some books. Mostly, it will relate to their necessity to get knowledge from the book and want to read just to get entertainment. Novels, story book, and other entertaining books become so popular this day. Besides, the scientific books will also be the best reason to choose, especially for the students, teachers, doctors, businessman, and other professions who are fond of reading.

Complex Population Dynamics: A Theoretical/Empirical Synthesis

PROP. MURDOCK, of Yale University, has made an admirable translation of Lippert's “Kul-turgeschichte der Menschheit in ihrem organischen Aufbau”(1886–87), which together with his other writings, gained for the author the reputation in Germany of being in the front rank of sociologists, though his work has scarcely had due recognition in other countries. At that time trustworthy data on the ethnography of backward peoples were very scanty and incomplete, so it is not surprising that occasionally his imagination led him beyond his facts and that he was inclined to read too much into them. Such faults are characteristic of most pioneers, but Lippert consciously strove to be inductive, as is shown by his use of the method of comparative ethnology. His approach was distinctly evolutionary, as was almost inevitable at that time, and he covered, so far as he could, the whole field of social anthropology with a due regard to balance and perspective. He did not, however, make the common mistake of confusing evolution with progress. Although Lippert says that “human ingenuity has striven in different places to achieve the goal set by the care for life with the elements there at hand”(p. 169), he does not ignore diffusion from a single centre in the case of the bow (p. 180) and claims it for the fire cult (p. 584) and for the origin of grape wine (p. 199), but in his time the conception of the diffusion of cultures had not achieved the importance which it has now attained. The Evolution of Culture. By Julius Lippert. Translated and edited by Prof. George Peter Murdock. Pp. xxxiii + 716. (London: George Alien and Unwin, Ltd., 1931.) 20s. net.

The Evolution of Culture

The origins of religion and of complex societies represent evolutionary puzzles1–8. The ‘moralizing gods’ hypothesis offers a solution to both puzzles by proposing that belief in morally concerned supernatural agents culturally evolved to facilitate cooperation among strangers in large-scale societies9–13. Although previous research has suggested an association between the presence of moralizing gods and social complexity3,6,7,9–18, the relationship between the two is disputed9–13,19–24, and attempts to establish causality have been hampered by limitations in the availability of detailed global longitudinal data. To overcome these limitations, here we systematically coded records from 414 societies that span the past 10,000 years from 30 regions around the world, using 51 measures of social complexity and 4 measures of supernatural enforcement of morality. Our analyses not only confirm the association between moralizing gods and social complexity, but also reveal that moralizing gods follow—rather than precede—large increases in social complexity. Contrary to previous predictions9,12,16,18, powerful moralizing ‘big gods’ and prosocial supernatural punishment tend to appear only after the emergence of ‘megasocieties’ with populations of more than around one million people. Moralizing gods are not a prerequisite for the evolution of social complexity, but they may help to sustain and expand complex multi-ethnic empires after they have become established. By contrast, rituals that facilitate the standardization of religious traditions across large populations25,26 generally precede the appearance of moralizing gods. This suggests that ritual practices were more important than the particular content of religious belief to the initial rise of social complexity. Belief in moralizing gods followed the expansion of human societies and may have been preceded by doctrinal rituals that contributed to the initial rise of social complexity.

Complex societies precede moralizing gods throughout world history

Social complexity has been one of the recent emerging topics in the study of animal and human societies, but the concept remains both poorly defined and understood. In this paper, I critically review definitions and studies of social complexity in invertebrate and vertebrate societies, arguing that the concept is being used inconsistently in studies of vertebrate sociality. Group size and cohesion define one cornerstone of social complexity, but the nature and patterning of social interactions contribute more to interspecific variation in social complexity in species with individual recognition and repeated interactions. Humans provide the only example where many other unique criteria are used, and they are the only species for which intraspecific variation in social complexity has been studied in detail. While there is agreement that complex patterns emerge at the group level as a result of simple interactions and as a result of cognitive abilities, there is consensus neither on their relative importance nor on the role of specific cognitive abilities in different lineages. Moreover, aspects of reproduction and parental care have also been invoked to characterize levels of social complexity, so that no single comprehensive measure is readily available. Because even fundamental components of social complexity are difficult to compare across studies and species because of inconsistent definitions and operationalization of key social traits, I define and characterize social organization, social structure, mating system, and care system as distinct components of a social system. Based on this framework, I outline how different aspects of the evolution of social complexity are being studied and suggest questions for future research. Animal and human societies differ in social complexity, i.e., the number and association patterns of group members as well as the nature and patterning of their social relationships, but the dimensions of social complexity, the processes that generate it, the selective forces that engender different levels of social complexity, and the evolutionary consequences of this variation remain to be comprehensively understood. Here, I offer a conceptual framework for the systematic and comparative studies of social complexity by defining its main components as well as their proximate and ultimate relationships.

/pdf/a-framework-for-studying-social-complexity-losukz8f5q.pdf

A framework for studying social complexity

Why do humans make music? Theories of the evolution of musicality have focused mainly on the value of music for specific adaptive contexts such as mate selection, parental care, coalition signaling, and group cohesion. Synthesizing and extending previous proposals, we argue that social bonding is an overarching function that unifies all of these theories, and that musicality enabled social bonding at larger scales than grooming and other bonding mechanisms available in ancestral primate societies. We combine cross-disciplinary evidence from archeology, anthropology, biology, musicology, psychology, and neuroscience into a unified framework that accounts for the biological and cultural evolution of music. We argue that the evolution of musicality involves gene-culture coevolution, through which proto-musical behaviors that initially arose and spread as cultural inventions had feedback effects on biological evolution because of their impact on social bonding. We emphasize the deep links between production, perception, prediction, and social reward arising from repetition, synchronization, and harmonization of rhythms and pitches, and summarize empirical evidence for these links at the levels of brain networks, physiological mechanisms, and behaviors across cultures and across species. Finally, we address potential criticisms and make testable predictions for future research, including neurobiological bases of musicality and relationships between human music, language, animal song, and other domains. The music and social bonding hypothesis provides the most comprehensive theory to date of the biological and cultural evolution of music.

/pdf/music-as-a-coevolved-system-for-social-bonding-59cxv3huzt.pdf

Music as a coevolved system for social bonding

Do human societies from around the world exhibit similarities in the way that they are structured, and show commonalities in the ways that they have evolved? These are long-standing questions that have proven difficult to answer. To test between competing hypotheses, we constructed a massive repository of historical and archaeological information known as “Seshat: Global History Databank.” We systematically coded data on 414 societies from 30 regions around the world spanning the last 10,000 years. We were able to capture information on 51 variables reflecting nine characteristics of human societies, such as social scale, economy, features of governance, and information systems. Our analyses revealed that these different characteristics show strong relationships with each other and that a single principal component captures around three-quarters of the observed variation. Furthermore, we found that different characteristics of social complexity are highly predictable across different world regions. These results suggest that key aspects of social organization are functionally related and do indeed coevolve in predictable ways. Our findings highlight the power of the sciences and humanities working together to rigorously test hypotheses about general rules that may have shaped human history.

/pdf/quantitative-historical-analysis-uncovers-a-single-dimension-47t71af1ao.pdf

Po-Ju Tuan

Papers

Quantitative historical analysis uncovers a single dimension of complexity that structures global variation in human social organization.