Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id DAA03359 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 13 May 2000 03:43:33 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000512205117.007eaea0@mailhost.rongenet.sk.ca> X-Sender: hawkeye@mailhost.rongenet.sk.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 20:51:17 -0600 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk, memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Lloyd Robertson <hawkeye@rongenet.sk.ca> Subject: Re: New subject: I need help on memes, morality, and abortion. In-Reply-To: <391C3804.B4418043@mediaone.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
I think you have expressed some great ideas, Chuck. I don't think that
morality memes can be examined in isolation. They exist as part of a
complex. As you suggest, part of that complex is based on the economics
prevalent in any given location in any given point of time (recognizing a
time lag between economic and moral change).
It is interesting that the R. Catholic Church has been both anti-abortion
and anti-birth control. This suggests an element to the debate that most
anti-abortionists are not willing to acknowledge. An argument could be made
that in traditional agrarian societies large family size was both an
economic asset and a form of social security in old age. This supports your
economic thesis. But I think memetics can offer additional insights.
First, in support of your economic thesis, Quebec is, traditionally, the
most Catholic of Canada's provinces. Until its "Quiet Revolution" of the
1960s its French speaking majority was largely agrarian. Business in
Montreal was mainly an Anglo run affair. The major export of the
Francophone majority was its people, to other parts of Canada and to the
United States. It's birth rate was so high that in the 1093s the Ku Klux
Klan organized around the fear of "the Roman Catholic Conspiracy to Conquer
(K)anada". With the "Quiet Revolution" and the resultant Francophone
presence in business, government and higher education the birth rate
tumbled to Canada's lowest. And the abortion rate became Canada's highest.
Quebec is still mainly R. Catholic. But the Church's apparent influence has
dropped significantly.
On the other hand, why should Quebec's birth rate be lower that
neighboring, and more heavily industrialized, Ontario's. I think that there
may be a kind of memetic force happening where the force of Quebec's rapid
economic change resulted in a willingness to experience "revolutionary"
change to its moral structure.
Why does not the R.C. Church endorse this change? I think it's affected by
another force than economic. Proselizing brings limited results. Growth is
largely a matter of making babies. Those religious and ideological
memeplexes that result in increased human offspring, no matter how
materially poor, will have an advantage over those who do not. Of course,
if the economic forces became sufficiently powerful the Church begins to
lose it's influence everywhere, as it has in Quebec, then it would be
forced to change it's teachings.
Lloyd
At 05:57 PM 12/05/00 +0100, Chuck Palson wrote:
>Since there is one suggestion that we find a new subject on the list, I
>wonder if I could introduce the subject of morality. After all, memes
>are just about anything that might reside in the brain, so morality is
>certainly appropriate since it doesn't reside anyplace else in my body,
>least of all my genitals, right?
>
>I am giving some lectures soon and I am trying to clarify some issues
>about the nature of morality that has come up in previous lectures, so
>I'm hoping that some of you might like to give me some feedback on how
>to present the subject.
>
>Here's the basic theme. Morality is a structure of laws that make
>cooperation within a particular type of society possible. In other
>words, the morality of hunter/gatherers differs from our own because
>they need different types of cooperation. From this follows that what
>produces changing moral structures is the technology/economy that
>changes which forces social changes.
>
>The class pretty much accepts this now because it's very easy to
>demonstrate this principle historically because the technology/economy
>changes *always* precede the changes in morality.
>
>But here's the problem: when I get up to the present and talk about
>current moral dilemmas, they insist that current morality exists by
>itself and motivates behavior. For example they insist that Catholic
>religion qua religion motivates the abortion issue or Northern Ireland.
>BTW, I have some pretty solid evidence that the abortion wars are being
>moved by 1 major factor, the amount of face time each side wants to
>invest in children. Face time is expressed by two factors a) family
>size, and/or b)face time (assuming in a that greater family sizes lead
>to more face time). Put face time on a contiuum, and the more face time
>is associated with more agreement with anti-abortion sentiment. Choice
>of one side or another in the contiuum results in a very different set
>of economic options, and it is the resulting economic interests that
>clash. (overtime, apartment rental, reciprocal arrangements on baby
>sitting, time devoted to work and career, economic means which in turn
>decides neighborhoods one can live in AND education for the kids, taxes,
>etc. etc. - it's very pervasive). The anti-abortion side has the
>quixotic hope that they can force family size up AND people's positive
>feelings towards their children. (If you want to disagree on this list,
>please try to express it in a different posting than the main subject I
>am presenting.)
>
>The class agrees that indeed, face time is a crucial point where
>interests clash, but they refuse to connect it with the abortion issue.
>They insist it is a purely moral issue.
>
>In part, this resistance is because it is the part of the issue that is
>immediately accessible to our consciousness, so it just rises to the
>surface with all the intense feelings that come with the issue.
>
>But that is also the problem. Except in formal business transactions, we
>all tend to hide from ourselves and others the material motivatoins of
>our behavior. I believe it's almost a natural reflex -- I spent a few
>years to train it out enough to see past it. So I want to at least be
>able to describe the mechanism by which we prefer to use moral
>arguments. Here's my ideas on that:
>
>The main goal of social interaction is to create alliances (because of
>our necessarily social nature), so we look for things we can agree
>strongly on. It has been shown that if a group discusses a controversial
>issue, the tendency is drift towards the middle of the group opinion.
>It's more complex than that - and I wish I could find the research again
>- but that's the general gloss.
>
>It makes sense. If you are in a group and discussing something, you
>don't want to be too far out because you could get ostrasized. Instead,
>you try to find points of agreement.
>
>Here, I think, is the nub of the problem. Bring up the economic
>motivations, and they are quite apt to bring up a lot of differences.
>Further, once you bring them up, it can unravel pretty quickly. For
>example, have you ever tried to discuss with a roomate of a few years
>that you think you have done more for them then them for you in favors?
>These are favors that no one talks about because it would indeed do
>damage to the relationship just by bringing it up. The reason is that
>you don't give the favor right back if there's trust - you may expect
>something back in the genrealized future. So when you start tallying up,
>you will ultimately end up with an imbalance, even though that's
>natural. I think you'll find that that is the general principle. But
>some of you may know some others that are operating.
>
>So we settle on agreeing on moral principles with the hopes that strong
>agreement will motivate the people involved to be fair.
>
>It's so strong that it's projected into everything. I first noticed it
>when Bush was hesitating about going to war in the Gulf. He first tried
>to push it on the basis of protecting the oil supply, but not for long.
>That was considered "cynical," which, when you think about it, is pretty
>weird. After all, Americans do love their cars. But then again, it's not
>weird if you see it as a reflexive reaction that gets played over and
>over again in people's social life. In fact, what decided everyone was
>when someone from the Kuwait embassy got the story spread that Sadam's
>army was killing lots of babies in a local hospital so they could take
>the incubators. That did it! It was a moral issue that finally propelled
>nearly everyone in favor of the war.
>
>But I notice that it happens all the time, and, I think, for the reason
>mentioned above.
>
>So -- what do all you memologists think of the morality memes?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>===============================================================
>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 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 : Sat May 13 2000 - 03:43:56 BST