Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA20189 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 20 May 2002 23:43:43 +0100 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.2509 Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 23:34:57 +0100 Subject: RE: New Scientist this week From: Steve Drew <sd014a6399@blueyonder.co.uk> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Message-ID: <B90F2F85.3A7%sd014a6399@blueyonder.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200205202145.WAA20000@alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk> 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
> Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 11:45:37 +0100
> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@STIR.AC.UK>
> Subject: RE: New Scientist this week
>
> <I don't buy the altruistic tack in Evo Psych. I can accept the
> argument that
>> males will do very silly and or dangerous things to mate, that1s no
>> problem..
>> Where I have trouble with this argument is that people can knowingly plan
>> their own deaths. You don't produce many kids if your dead. Secondly, the
>> argument only concerns itself with males, despite the increasing incidence
>> of female suicide bombers. Unless of course you stretch the argument to
>> suggest they are reacting in some way to a threat to their future
>> children!
>> :-) It's hard science when the theory fits the facts.>
>>
> There's another way of thinking about altruistic sacrifice- social
> status for offspring and relatives. A martyr (or a celibate monk, say), may
> die, but family members may gain in social status as a result and
> subsequently will do better in terms of survival and mate choice etc. Such
> an argument works better in social insects where they share more genes with
> each other, but when you add in cultural capital, if you like, that might be
> a strong factor in humans also. This could work as well for women as for
> men. The sisters of a female suicide bomber might have their mate chances
> improved by association.
Yes I have come across these explanations before, but am still very wary of
them. Although I am not aware of one , a lone female with no siblings or
cousins etc would tend to disprove it. Anyone hear of one? IMHO this is a
case of memes over genes. That of a tribal identity that is not based on
kinship.
>
> Apparently some 150,000 people applied to be on the 3rd series of
> Big Brother in the UK (due to start at the end of this week)- why? The
> presumed route to fame, celebrity etc. etc.
And cash!
>
> Recommended current reads (yes I managed to actually read- all the
> way through- some books I bought recently), the Douglas Adams' collection
> 'The Salmon of Doubt' (It's Douglas Adams, nuff said), and Michael Moore's
> 'Stupid White Men' (if you're after some liberal American polemic- yes,
> there is still some out there, despite the likes of John Malkovich
> threatening to have some British journalists killed for condemning US
> foreign policy in a student union debate).
Is the Adams book the one finished by his wife? Read all the rest,
obviously! Were the Kricket Wars too UK? :-)
>
> Vincent
Regards
Steve
===============================================================
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 21 2002 - 00:20:30 BST