So I might be mixing concepts here. But here goes:
In economics we have dominant strategies:
In biology, the speed at which a pure strategy spreads in the population is limited by its current frequency, as the payoffs govern the growth rate x˙i /xi . A pure strategy which strictly dominates another will have a higher growth rate and drive the dominated strategy to extinction. In economics, strategies that are rare, dominated, but better than average at some point, may develop quickly, in a way which is not limited by their frequency. They may have a higher growth rate than the strategy that dominates them, leading to survival of pure strategies dominated by other pure strategies. In this sense, biological dynamics are more rational than economic or social ones.
Now John Vervake popularises a notion of psychotechnology:
Your brain has evolved over several species to use tools. In fact: if you start to use a tool for a short amount of time your brain starts to model it as part of your body. (e.g. when parking your car you can “feel” it as if it’s an extension of your body) Clothes, glasses, walls, shoes… they’re all tools. And the use of tools can be exacted. Your brain’s use of tools can be moved from a physical thing to a cognitive thing. Example of a psychotechnology: literacy. (Words, language) It’s a standard set of tools that can enhance your cognition. You can put words somewhere and they stay there.
Can morals be viewed an evolving psycho-technological driven by dominant strategies which helps in preservation of the species and/or self? Has any mathematician/anthropologist modelled spread of morals like this?
Has any philosopher advocated for this?