Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA08147 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 14 May 2000 22:50:45 +0100 Message-ID: <391EDA0D.B199085F@mediaone.net> Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 17:53:33 +0100 From: Chuck Palson <cpalson@mediaone.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: New subject: I need help on memes, morality, and abortion. References: <3.0.5.32.20000512205117.007eaea0@mailhost.rongenet.sk.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Lloyd -
Thanks for the compliment. Unfortunately, I have been disabused of some of the
validity of what I have said. What remains is this: of the abortion
_activists_, there are two 'economic' issues (as I have defined that term): 1)
face time as I have defined, and 2) the control of status differences - that
is, status is not as important in catholic urban neighborhoods; group
coopertion is valued more. It seems to be these two conditions that are
primary. Beyond that, I have been disabused of the possibility of a nice neat
continuum of face time. There may be a fairly neat continuum of the two
factors, but I think there is a lot of room for how personality differences
might enter in. For example, the strength of the maternal instinct may be a
factor.
That said, I have been interested in the French Canadian family size issue for
quite a while. One thing is for sure - when there is a difference in family
sizes between groups, there is inevitable conflict. This can be seen
historically. It might also be of interest to you that the Catholic church was
not officially against abortion if it was before "quickening" - which is when
the baby starts to obviously begin moving - until the papal convention of 1859.
That was also the convention in which papal infallibility was declared. Both of
these event were probably a result of a steady increase in defeats of the
Church as the industrial revolution progressed and protestantism grew
comensurately. BUT, the motivations of the church hierarchy and the lay
congregation were probably quite different. History is full of Church decrees
that the lay public ignored, but in this case they followed it.
I suspect that the rather sudden decline in French Canadian family size had
some kind of disorienting effect on the french population - it was like they
suddenly rocketed into the industrial revolution. It sometimes seems to me that
they are still trying to find themselves. Entering the industrial age usually
takes a few generations. But whatever it is, it is frustrating for both the
french and non-french canadians because it seems that no matter what is done to
resolve the situation, the french are automatically unhappy about it. I would
love to know what the specific content of that disorientation. I think part of
it has to do with the traditional lack of trust between the french - which is
why they depend on a highly centralized government to give the structure they
need. (Fukuyama's book on trust is very good on this stuff)
Lloyd Robertson wrote:
> 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 is actually pretty well verified. Urban living makes children less
important.
> On the other hand, why should Quebec's birth rate be lower that
> neighboring, and more heavily industrialized, Ontario's.
I did not know this. - that's very interesting. As to exactly why, I wouldn't
rush to memics. You have to look very carefully at the 'economy' as I define
it. What, for example, is the rural/urban population ratio. What kind of
industry in the different provinces? What is the rate of population mobility
(expressed by, say, times moved every n years)? Question: how much lower is the
birth rate in Quebec?
> 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.
I don't understand what you are getting at here.
> 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.
That's correct. In fact, the Church has come to realize by now that the sheer
size of their flock will get them nowhere. They are getting very worried that
they are declining in size in the industrialized countries. The Pope's recent
admission that the Church has made a lot of mistakes over the past centuries is
far more important than anti-Catholics want to admit. The very act of
confession opens them up to some very basic changes that will be coming down
over the next decades. They have no choice but to change or they will be
economically bankrupt; remember - it takes a lot of money to run the church
bureacracy.
===============================================================
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 : Sun May 14 2000 - 22:51:09 BST