Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA03066 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:27:38 GMT Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020311104619.02cbf260@pop.cogeco.ca> X-Sender: hkhenson@pop.cogeco.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 11:24:40 -0500 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Keith Henson <hkhenson@cogeco.ca> Subject: RE: Rumsfeld Says He May Drop New Office of Influence Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
At 08:21 AM 10/03/02 -0700, Ned Wolpert <wolpert5@cox.net> wrote:
snip
>I too have the same problem. On one hand, I accept that evolution
>exists, and accept the base principles of genetics. I can also agree
>that the 'meme' does exist and that thoughts/ideas are viral and merely
>desire replication. I have a problem when us humans (the vehicle of
>both genes and memes) decide we can manipulate either.
Hmm. Any time you look at domestic dogs you see evidence we can and have
manipulated genes for thousands of years.
>As we look at
>eugenics (active or passive) the ease for a 'culture' to develop
>destructive traits, like the Nazis, seems too easy. And what about
>eugenics of the mind? (meugenics?) Does one try to kill religious
>thought like the Marxists of USSR?
Been done. There are other ways, but killing all the carriers of a meme
does the trick. You might note that while we have plenty of other problem
memes around, the Thuggee meme is not among them.
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.phtml?title=Thuggee
Thuggee was an Indian cult worshipping Kali whose members were known as
Thugs. It was allegedly a hereditary cult with both Muslim and Hindu
members that practiced large-scale robbery and murder of travellers by
strangulation. It was suppressed by the British rulers of India in the
1830s. A police organisation known as the Thuggee and Dacoity Department
was established within the Government of India and remained in existence
until 1904 when it was replaced by the Central Criminal Intelligence
Department.
>I think the problem is that people believe that evolution is geared to
>go toward a 'perfection', or if it doesn't then they try to push it
>toward a 'perfection'.
If you actually study evolution, you can make a better case that it
evolution is geared to producing dead end parasites. At least there are
more such examples.
>This seems to be the core problem whenever the
>study of genetics and culture are mixed. (Without trying to rile people
>up via flame-bait, a comment made to me from someone was basically
>"social darwinism is reductionist and/or tautological at its best,
>racist at its worst." Where does sociobiology fit in that?.)
>
>The only thing I end up with is that educating people on the concept of
>these two replicators is very important. That way we can avoid the
>pitfalls of having two replicators driving our actions though 'instinct'
>and our concept of 'intelligence'. Course, then I'm back to square one;
>what education is this? I don't think it currently exists in any form.
Look a the number of classes taught that include "evolutionary
psychology." There are a lot of them
Keith Henson
===============================================================
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 : Mon Mar 11 2002 - 16:38:03 GMT