your tone was uncalled for.

Kambiz

In general, of course.

On that point though, often improvements, optimizations, refinements in any cultural meme that provides better functionality are under heavy positive selection.

What I meant is that the benefit may not always be so obvious.

For instance, sometimes one technology or way of doing things may be more productive in the short run but deplete resources in the mid or long run. It would still be positively selected because its short term benefits but it may not be so positive when looked at it holistically, from a historical perspective.

We are not out of the natural selection process, be it biological or cultural, but unlike most other species we don’t have almost any predators and we can very much alter the enviroment before the unavoidable malthusian/selective forces are felt.

Often one way is sufficient for survival and certain prosperity but it’s not competitive enough. A more destructive way of doing things can be more efficient in the short run but less so in the long run. This is a tragedy we seem bound to fall into repeatedly, I suspect, because percieving the whole thing, being balanced and sustainable, does not give the competitive edge normally.

In other cases, a tech my be just as good as the other. Or better for certain type of economy/ecology and not for another. What I mean is that there is not always necesarily a better way – sometimes things are just different, with pros and cons of their own.

Consider pottery for instance: it’s been argued that pots are burdensome for hunter-gatherers, while useful for farmers. It’s not like they are always positive: it depends on your particular circumstances. Even agriculture as such: in arid enviroments it can be impracticable, even if some kilometers away, at an oasis or a riverine enviroment it can be very succesful.

But overall I agree that there is fundamental difference between an bow and a hat (unless the first is a musical bow and the scond a helmet, I guess).