Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA09994 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 23 May 2000 13:20:57 +0100 Message-ID: <392A30D2.1A470163@mediaone.net> Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 08:18:42 +0100 From: chuck <cpalson@mediaone.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: What is "useful"; what is "survival" References: <3929A97D.B10F573@mediaone.net> <00052308020900.00622@faichney> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------D0CA2896E0EFF03078C72912" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Robin Faichney wrote:
> On Mon, 22 May 2000, chuck wrote:
> >In short, the industrial revolution did not happen because people were suddenly
> >infected with some virus as some memists might claim. It was a necessary
> >response to a changing ecology. The competitive game is a constant in across all
> >human societies - that's how change is ultimately accomplished. But it's not the
> >competition itself, but the ecology that drives it.
> >
> >Unfortunately to give this a reality, it is necessary to have a good grasp of a
> >lot of historical data pertaining to economics, politics, psychology, population
> >studies, and history. There are simply no easy shortcuts on this one. But the
> >principle is still ecological, not simply a game of cultural catchup -- even
> >though people may conceptualize it that way in their daily lives.
>
> This seems wildly implausible to me, and I'm afraid I'm not willing to accept it
> on your say-so, even though you might be much better read in the relevant areas.
> I take is, as you're not giving any references, this is all your own work?
There is a huge body of work out there on this theme, but it is scattered across many
fields. I suggest that anyone interested in pursuing this start by reading the basic
classical works of the last 100 years - Weber, Durkheim, Marx, and the
sociobiologists like Edward Wilson and Pinker. Stripped of the ideological stuff,
Marx is enormously useful because he is the first to fully understand the role of the
means of production in human behavior. That has proved to be so useful that it is a
standard conceptual tool in huge areas of the social sciences even though many are
unaware of the source. Sociobiology builds on this.
However, if you already find what I say "wildly implausible," it's quite possible you
are already too wedded to parsing the world into fragmented pieces to seriously
consider a broader context. Many people, professionals included, don't find a broader
view based on what is essentially historical ecology so implausible. That includes
Edward Wilson (you might try reading his latest book, Consilience, which explores
exactly what I am talking about).
>
===============================================================
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 : Tue May 23 2000 - 13:21:31 BST