Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA02049 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 12 May 2000 21:38:30 +0100 Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 11:24:16 -0700 From: Bill Spight <bspight@pacbell.net> Subject: Re: Central questions of memetics To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Message-id: <391C4C50.4777B958@pacbell.net> Organization: Saybrook Graduate School X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en]C-PBI-NC404 (Win95; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: ja,en References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB183@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Dear Vincent,
> I think you're right, but in a way isn't that one of the key questions of
> memetics- what is happening to us now that our physical environment has been
> transformed into something very different from our ancestral,
> hunter-gatherer environment? Are all our peculiar cultural habits a
> feature, as Wilson would say I suppose, simply the result of genetic driving
> which can't keep up with the pace of environmental change, and thus are
> often 'mistakes' (like the examples you give), or is something else
> involved? Does something having a use in our ancestral environment explain
> its specific form (or forms) of existence in the contemporary environment?
To address your last question first, OC the phenotypic form of
these behavioral genes is different in different cultural
enviroments. And memes account for much of the difference, if not
all.
BTW, I part with the mainstream of evolutionary psychology in
thinking that such phenotypes are more likely to reveal their
nature in modern societies than in prehistoric ones. The reason
is the nature of social evolution. There is a tendency over time
to produce societies which fit the genes, even if the fitness of
individuals or society as a whole is reduced in regard to
specific genes.
The sweet tooth is a good example. The preference for sweets is
more general than a preference for fruit. However, in the
physical environments which originally selected for the
preference, sweets were mainly fruits (maybe honey, sorghum, and
saps as well). In such environments either preference can enhance
survivability. But when we shifted from food gathering to food
production, we started making foods sweeter than fruit. IOW, we
altered the environment to fit the genes. I think that much the
same is true of sports, although it is a much more complex area.
I would not be surprised if the sports genes and war genes are
the same.
So I do not see it as a question of the genes failing to adapt to
a rapidly changing environment. We get the environment we
deserve. (Pretty much.) There is coevolution among memes, and
also among genes and between memes and genes. But by and large
genes form the environment for memes.
Our ability to alter our physical environment is a double edged
sword. That power has obvious survival value. OTOH, we also
reduce the survival value of some of our genes in the process. In
the short term (on evolutionary time scales) we are obviously
flourishing. Our longer term prospects are uncertain.
Best,
Bill
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 12 2000 - 21:39:51 BST