Are some cultures better/superior?

[Crsca]

some cultures are more evolved than others, take the north sentinelese for example. they are just a society of austronesian anarcho-primitivists who escaped into the jungles some years ago.

[Liriena]

some cultures are more evolved than others, take the north sentinelese for example. they are just a society of austronesian anarcho-primitivists who escaped into the jungles some years ago.

That's some 19th century anthropology right there.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I'll go with two and an iceberg.

Wikipedia defines culture as
This definition would mean Nazi Germany's social and institutional racism is a part of their culture, as well as Sparta's slavery, etc.

The Oxford Dictionary defines it as

This first definition does not necessarily include in it a society's mindset or behavior, referring more to art, but art is also shaped by the social landscape; for example, Germany's contemporary art was shaped by a fetishization of Germanic purity and heritage.


This definition includes the beliefs I mentioned above as part of their culture.

Alright.

Not just brutality, but any social or systemic repression of a people, especially in the name of something like race or religion or simple greed. By my standards, of course.

Also other things, but a culture that not only allows but approves of violence as a necessity to its people's lifestyle I consider the worst.

Fair enough... although it seems to me like an awfully broad standard, and one that could be applied in one way or another to every culture... except maybe Iceland.

It's a standard I apply to every culture, that's the point of a standard.

[The Grande Republic 0f Arcadia]

Yep. My culture is the best. Doesn't mean other cultures are worthless. It just means We Are The Americans, Your Cultural Traditions And Foods Will Become Our Own. Resistance Is Futile.

[Greater Cesnica]

I have to say the western culture is the best one. However trying to enforce our values by bombing nations like Libya and than expecting a smooth transition to a democracy is really dumb.
Gaddaffi was not really a dictator.

No really?

[Greater Cesnica]

No really?

Gadaffi did built the country up. Before the death and civil war Libya was on the wealthiest African nations.

I knew that already. boi.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

However trying to enforce our values by bombing nations like Libya and than expecting a smooth transition to a democracy is really dumb.

So, you take back this post then?:

Islam is a violent and radical religion.
Radical muslims kill people in the name of their religion and want to conquer europe.
If we don't stop the muslims. We will be conquered by barbarians that kill gays and put women in burkas.
Your religion is the new communism!
Europe won against nazism in 1945.
Now it is time to bomb the shit of the IS and recolonise these lands under NATO rule.

[The 19th Century]

some cultures are more evolved than others, take the north sentinelese for example. they are just a society of austronesian anarcho-primitivists who escaped into the jungles some years ago.

That's some 19th century anthropology right there.

And people still believe it in 2017! My ideas have really stood the test of time.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

That's some 19th century anthropology right there.

And people still believe it in 2017! My ideas have really stood the test of time.

I really wish we could like posts on the forums.

[MC United]

There IS a way to objectively assess cultural superiority. I proposed it here (and was the originator of the idea as far as I know; apologies to anyone who independently proposed it before I did):

viewtopic.php?p=32113909#p32113909

No subjective moral judgments are required.

What is your view?

I'd say that measuring the value of cultures based on their accumulation of information would be a lot trickier than you make it sound, not to mention the fact that your examples seem rather biased. Would there be room in your method for information that's not in fact written down?

Non-written information can be observed and recorded. It can be verbally described. The video, verbal or written descriptions have information content that can be determined, i.e., by how many bits are required to encode the descriptions.

If a large number of books published within one culture are about the information produced and accumulated by another culture, do those books count as information belonging to the culture that published the books or information belonging to the subject culture or both?

Book publication was given as an example, not a requirement.

As for your hypothetical, I would say yes to both. Information pertaining to the observed culture is added to the total information content of the observer culture.

Given that the Nobel Prizes were invented by the West, don't you think that there might be a bias at play in there?

Given that the Western numeral system was invented by the Hindus and transmitted by Arab mathematicians, don't you think there might be a bias at play in there? I don't, in either case. In any event, Nobel Prizes were again given by way of example, as indicators of objective scientific advancement or other cultural development. The information content of the underlying research that led to the Nobel Prize would be the significant quantity.

Furthermore, is there room in your method for concerns regarding power relations between cultures, particularly power disparities and domination, and their effects on the information content of the dominating cultures and the dominated ones?

No. "Power relations" IMO are excuses. However, as I later proposed, one could also evaluate the information density, or specific information content, of a culture, as the total information content per capita.

And what about cultures who lost a sizeable portion of their heritage to genocide or some other disaster? How would your method approach that?

Their current cultural status would be assessed synchronically, i.e., as of the present time. It would be possible, if difficult, to perform a similar assessment diachronically. As another poster has noted, this raises issues like defining the temporal span of a culture, which likely are harder to quantify.

And where do you draw the line between one culture and other when determining which information belongs to which, particularly in the case of cultures that alternatively existed in one same territory?

I would tend to determine that if a given culture considers a given quantity of information as part of its culture, then it will be included in the total information content of the culture. Overlapping cultures would both be considered to possess shared information.

And on the matter of books published, are we speaking in terms of the sheer number of volumes printed or the diversity of titles, and what exactly would you consider "published" to mean?

Again, book publication is given by way of non-limiting example. The meaning of "published", however, can be taken as the meaning assigned to it by various international patent statutes.

And what counts as information? What doesn't?

Information theory, and/or information science, can be of use here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_science

[Greater Cesnica]

That's some 19th century anthropology right there.

And people still believe it in 2017! My ideas have really stood the test of time.

That will still be believed in future centuries to come I'm afraid.

[Liriena]

I'd say that measuring the value of cultures based on their accumulation of information would be a lot trickier than you make it sound, not to mention the fact that your examples seem rather biased. Would there be room in your method for information that's not in fact written down?

Non-written information can be observed and recorded. It can be verbally described. The video, verbal or written descriptions have information content that can be determined, i.e., by how many bits are required to encode the descriptions.

If a large number of books published within one culture are about the information produced and accumulated by another culture, do those books count as information belonging to the culture that published the books or information belonging to the subject culture or both?

Book publication was given as an example, not a requirement.

As for your hypothetical, I would say yes to both. Information pertaining to the observed culture is added to the total information content of the observer culture.

Given that the Nobel Prizes were invented by the West, don't you think that there might be a bias at play in there?

Given that the Western numeral system was invented by the Hindus and transmitted by Arab mathematicians, don't you think there might be a bias at play in there? I don't, in either case. In any event, Nobel Prizes were again given by way of example, as indicators of objective scientific advancement or other cultural development. The information content of the underlying research that led to the Nobel Prize would be the significant quantity.

Furthermore, is there room in your method for concerns regarding power relations between cultures, particularly power disparities and domination, and their effects on the information content of the dominating cultures and the dominated ones?

No. "Power relations" IMO are excuses. However, as I later proposed, one could also evaluate the information density, or specific information content, of a culture, as the total information content per capita.

And what about cultures who lost a sizeable portion of their heritage to genocide or some other disaster? How would your method approach that?

Their current cultural status would be assessed synchronically, i.e., as of the present time. It would be possible, if difficult, to perform a similar assessment diachronically. As another poster has noted, this raises issues like defining the temporal span of a culture, which likely are harder to quantify.

And where do you draw the line between one culture and other when determining which information belongs to which, particularly in the case of cultures that alternatively existed in one same territory?

I would tend to determine that if a given culture considers a given quantity of information as part of its culture, then it will be included in the total information content of the culture. Overlapping cultures would both be considered to possess shared information.

And on the matter of books published, are we speaking in terms of the sheer number of volumes printed or the diversity of titles, and what exactly would you consider "published" to mean?

Again, book publication is given by way of non-limiting example. The meaning of "published", however, can be taken as the meaning assigned to it by various international patent statutes.

And what counts as information? What doesn't?

Information theory, and/or information science, can be of use here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_science

Alrighty, I don't really have any other objections at the time. This actually quite thoughtful.

[MC United]

Non-written information can be observed and recorded. It can be verbally described. The video, verbal or written descriptions have information content that can be determined, i.e., by how many bits are required to encode the descriptions.



Book publication was given as an example, not a requirement.

As for your hypothetical, I would say yes to both. Information pertaining to the observed culture is added to the total information content of the observer culture.



Given that the Western numeral system was invented by the Hindus and transmitted by Arab mathematicians, don't you think there might be a bias at play in there? I don't, in either case. In any event, Nobel Prizes were again given by way of example, as indicators of objective scientific advancement or other cultural development. The information content of the underlying research that led to the Nobel Prize would be the significant quantity.



No. "Power relations" IMO are excuses. However, as I later proposed, one could also evaluate the information density, or specific information content, of a culture, as the total information content per capita.



Their current cultural status would be assessed synchronically, i.e., as of the present time. It would be possible, if difficult, to perform a similar assessment diachronically. As another poster has noted, this raises issues like defining the temporal span of a culture, which likely are harder to quantify.



I would tend to determine that if a given culture considers a given quantity of information as part of its culture, then it will be included in the total information content of the culture. Overlapping cultures would both be considered to possess shared information.



Again, book publication is given by way of non-limiting example. The meaning of "published", however, can be taken as the meaning assigned to it by various international patent statutes.



Information theory, and/or information science, can be of use here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_science

Alrighty, I don't really have any other objections at the time. This actually quite thoughtful.

Thank you, and I appreciate your response.