CitedWikipedia
Homo sapiens differs from other animals in that much of our biological nature is determined by culture rather than genetics.
CitedWikipedia
Furthermore, a basic aspect of culture is morality.
Morality is extremely powerful in determining human behaviour, partly via its codification in religions.
In English, we have the following terms, based on the noun ‘morality’:
- moralisation,
- demoralisation, and
- mismoralisation (rare).
It is somewhat confusing that ‘demoralisation’ has a different kind of meaning to the other two.
This is because demoralisation refers to morale, whereas (mis)moralisation refers to morals (= standards for good/bad character/behaviour, ).
Citeddictionary.cambridge.org 1·dictionary.cambridge.org 2
The term ‘moralisation’ means the attribution of moral values to phenomena.
By the same token, ‘mismoralisation’ would mean the attribution of the wrong moral value to a given phenomenon.
However, there is a kind of attribution that is particularly important in cultural conflict in Homo sapiens.
This is the attribution of values that are configured to be particularly destructive/deranging to the culture in question, by being not only incorrect but also
- incongruous with each other, and
- hypocritical.
CitedWikipedia
In this context, I propose the new term ‘dysmoralisation’.
It is remarkable that ‘dysmoralisation’ has not previously been coined, because it
- is etymologically sound, unambiguous, self-evident in meaning, and easily pronounced, and
- would considerably clarify important processes in current historical contexts.
CitedWikipedia
FOOTNOTE
Chatgpt
MY QUESTION
Homo sapiens is exceptional among animals in that culture is at least as important as instinct/genetics, in determining our behaviour and ecology. In other words, we are ‘software-‘ as much as ‘hardware-‘based. Which biological author has explained this most clearly? Supply full references.
ANSWER FROM CHATGPT
The idea you describe is now a central thesis of gene–culture coevolution (or dual inheritance theory): Homo sapiens is unique because cultural inheritance is an evolutionary inheritance system alongside genetic inheritance. Rather than relying primarily on genetically specified behavioural programmes (“hardware”), humans rely to an unprecedented degree on socially transmitted information (“software”). Most evolutionary biologists today would not say that culture is more important than genes—because culture itself depends on genetically evolved capacities—but many do argue that culture has become equally fundamental in determining human ecology and behaviour.
Among biological authors, I would rank the following as the clearest expositors.
Joseph Henrich (probably the clearest single author)
Henrich argues repeatedly that humans are a cultural species, and that our ecological success depends more on accumulated cultural knowledge than on individually evolved instincts.
His central thesis is that humans succeeded because:
- natural selection evolved exceptional capacities for social learning;
- cumulative culture stores adaptive information outside the genome;
- people inherit adaptive behaviour culturally rather than rediscovering it individually.
This comes very close to your “software versus hardware” formulation.
Reference
Henrich, J. (2016). The Secret of Our Success: How Culture Is Driving Human Evolution, Domesticating Our Species, and Making Us Smarter. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Especially Chapters 1–4 and the concluding chapters.
Peter J. Richerson & Robert Boyd
These authors virtually founded modern gene–culture coevolution theory.
Their key insight is that humans possess two inheritance systems:
genes
culture
and that culture evolves rapidly enough to become a dominant determinant of human adaptation.
They explicitly argue that human ecological dominance cannot be explained by genes alone.
Reference
Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2005). Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
This is perhaps the classic biological statement of the position.
Robert Boyd
Boyd later produced an especially concise synthesis.
Reference
Boyd, R. (2018). A Different Kind of Animal: How Culture Transformed Our Species. Princeton University Press.
This book repeatedly contrasts humans with every other animal by arguing that cumulative culture has become humanity’s principal adaptive system.
Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza & Marcus W. Feldman
These authors established the mathematical basis for treating cultural transmission as an evolutionary inheritance system.
Reference
Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., & Feldman, M. W. (1981). Cultural Transmission and Evolution: A Quantitative Approach. Princeton University Press.
Although mathematical, it was foundational in showing that cultural inheritance can evolve independently of genes.
Edward O. Wilson & Charles J. Lumsden
Wilson was among the earliest evolutionary biologists to argue that genes and culture form interacting systems.
Reference
Lumsden, C. J., & Wilson, E. O. (1981). Genes, Mind, and Culture: The Coevolutionary Process. Harvard University Press.
Historically important, although later work by Boyd, Richerson and Henrich is generally regarded as clearer and more influential today.
Which author comes closest to your formulation?
If your statement were rewritten in modern evolutionary language, it might read:
Humans are unique among animals because adaptive information is inherited through two interacting systems—genetic inheritance and cumulative cultural inheritance—with the latter providing much of the behavioural and ecological information that in most animals is specified primarily by genetically evolved behavioural programmes.
The author who expresses this idea most consistently and accessibly is Joseph Henrich, while Richerson & Boyd provide its most rigorous biological formulation. Henrich’s prose is also especially compatible with your “software/hardware” analogy, although he typically speaks of cumulative culture rather than software.
One small caveat is that the phrase “culture is at least as important as instinct/genetics” is somewhat stronger than most evolutionary biologists would endorse. They generally emphasize that culture itself is enabled by genetically evolved cognitive machinery, so the relationship is one of gene–culture coevolution rather than a competition between genes and culture. Nonetheless, your characterization accurately captures the distinctive role that these authors attribute to culture in explaining the extraordinary behavioural flexibility and ecological success of Homo sapiens.
END OF TRANSCRIPT FROM AI
Posted on June 29, 2026 10:03 AM by
milewski
The author added the following in comments beneath the original post.
Citedpmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov