Question

How much can we attribute behaviour to natural selection? When and why did culture kick in?

Answer 1

It's a mystery

Answer 2

That is something that people have been discussing for a long time, the truth, as science today sees it, is that it is a combination of both. The best way to think of it is that you have a base "score" for thing like agression and addictive behavour, that is the nature part of it. Culture and nurture can ether add or subtract from that. For example if you come from a line of paticularly agressive people from birth you will be more aggrssive, but if your parents teach you to control it, or you are in some sort of school program, your agression "score" can be lowered.

Answer 3

Essentially behaviour is the essence of our mental evolution. Our physical evolution happens over thousands of generations whereas the evolution of our mental features happens within generations due to the fact that our brains can (to some degree) evolve throughout our lives. The introduction of society and culture to our race likely lead to our very rapid transistion from primate to sentient man (Homo sapien).

Behaviour is dicatated by the environment in which we grow up and the culture to which we belong. (And to a lesser extent the religions which our cultures embrace) Our behaviour passes through our generations and clearly affects our interaction within society. This interaction with society dictates which beahviours are found to be acceptable and which behaviours are unwanted, This leads to segregation of people who do not follow 'acceptable behaviours', due to this segregation these people are less likely to contribute genetically to society and those that do are also more likely to try and address behavioural issues before their offspring become segregated.

As such behaviour can be seen to contribute to natural selection. This behavioural selection does not necessarily require 'culture' per se in order to affect natural selection. In certain tribes of monkeys a 'liar' is segregated or even driven off/killed. (A 'lying' monkey is one who uses the tribes danger call in order to scare the rest of the tribe off and then steal food) While this is a rather simplistic example it shows that even in less cultural settings behaviour can affect natural selection.

Answer 4

I think the best answer you can get is if you watch these lectures from professor Robert Sapolsky from Standford University. They are amazing, and I think they answer just properly your question about how much can we attribute behaviour to natural selection.
1st lecture: http://goo.gl/doQoX 2nd lecture: http://goo.gl/Lqz3u

Answer 5

The "original" use of natural selection for any living species in this world is to have certain physical characteristics or a certain personality that will prove to be "superior" -- more effective and adaptive to a current environment or situation. For starters, a great book to read is Richard Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene." In it, he makes an argument saying that species are selfish for the better good of their species and for their survival. Although in human society, the need for natural selection has perhaps changed over time -- as medicine is improving, those with certain cancers that would normally die off may be able to survive -- we still have a natural tendency to behave to survive.

If I could take a more worldly approach, I must consider this example: A young lad were to apply for a high-paying job but is only one of many candidates. His approach to securing his job is to fill out an application, send a resume, and sit and wait for a phone call. On the other hand, another young lad applying for that same job not only filled out and application and sent a resume, but also waited outside the door everyday to catch the CEO on his/her way out to get acquainted with him. There is a stark difference in these two men's behavior. The former is passive and the latter aggressive. The latter may seem to be the bolder way of getting that job and may be a selfish way of thinking -- thinking that he can keep personal contact with his possibly future boss. However, in the end, it is he who will have the money and support to pay for any medical expenses that he may need for perhaps his naturally weak body. My point is, although natural selection for us may no longer be about having colorful colors on our back to deceive our predators that we are poisonous, allowing us to live a few days longer, we still behave to survive on the type of world we live in now.

Although I mentioned that natural selection no longer require us to chirp louder than the rest of our brothers in order to be better fed like many bird species, we still encounter the rudimentary aspects of natural selection today. For example, a man who's physical appearance is being short, pimple-faced, greasy hair, oversized, and perhaps not very intelligent, it may prove to be hard for this man to find a mate. In the end, he may end up dying by himself. Speaking in terms of evolution, if society deems this type of man unattractive and incapable of producing offspring, there is no use for him to pass his genes to the next generation. Although this scenario may not happen often, it is still an aspect of natural selection that involves our behavior to choose who is to survive.

In short, I can say that we can attribute much of our daily lives to natural selection -- whether it be for our new social rules or for the natural and basic survival rules.

As for the culture aspect, I believe it is simply a different way of approaching this problem of surviving. It has been a group of people's way of surviving and adapting to their specific environment. Culture kicked in because it worked and it is what kept a social group alive. Why did it kick in? It's simply one of those unique characteristics entailed in being a human being. Culture is used for the same basic principle of doing something in order to survive and pass genes to an offspring, to another generation. May it be that in Africa, having long necks with rings around it be deemed beautiful, although in other parts, it may be deemed ugly. In Africa, that culture will serve the same purpose as will the standards in, for example, America will. A woman with a longer neck may be able to be a bride and reproduce and make many offsprings. Similarly, a short-necked woman in the U.S. may be able to do the exact same thing.

Natural selection is a phenomenon that involves behavioral or physical traits that will enable someone's genes to survive and be passed on to the next generation. Although its primary definition may have been added to in the human society, we still do things to survive and live long and prosper. Do we not think about what's socially 'accepted' so that we won't die off?