RE: What is "useful"; what is "survival"

From: Richard Brodie (richard@brodietech.com)
Date: Fri Jun 02 2000 - 01:41:04 BST

  • Next message: Richard Brodie: "RE: What is "useful"; what is "survival""

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA09309 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 2 Jun 2000 01:43:19 +0100
    From: "Richard Brodie" <richard@brodietech.com>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: RE: What is "useful"; what is "survival"
    Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 17:41:04 -0700
    Message-ID: <NBBBIIDKHCMGAIPMFFPJEEGMEOAA.richard@brodietech.com>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
    X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
    Importance: Normal
    In-Reply-To: <3929A97D.B10F573@mediaone.net>
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Replying to some posts from Chuck. Let me ask first, Chuck, what you hope to
    gain from your participation here. Are you interested in understanding
    memetics? Are you here to campaign for an alternate theory? I think either
    is fine, but most of your posts seem to be expressing the fact that you
    don't get memetics, I think carrying an implication that there is nothing to
    get. Are you willing to consider that there might actually be something to
    get, but you don't (yet) get it?

    Here's a quote that I think illustrates your point of view well:

    <<The only way to effectively
    understand the process is by looking at a lot of historic detail that
    illustrates continuously how our society is a **necessary** response to the
    exhaustion of the pre industrial revolution resource base. It has to do with
    increasing population densities, the carrying capacity of the land relative
    to
    old technologies, an increasingly complex division of labor that is needed
    to
    exploit harder to get resources -- stuff like that. The necessity faced by
    this
    basic ecological problem of resource exhaustion is finding new efficiencies
    at
    every level.>>

    It's a very interesting study, the progression of culture based on responses
    to new challenges and so on. Since you claim to understand the process, what
    do you predict about the future?

    << That isn't to say that people who act in this broad ecological
    stage understand it as such; they don't have to.>>

    What, then, motivates them to change?

    <<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.>>

    I don't know what a "memist" is, who any of them are, or what they might or
    might not claim. Is this a misspelling of "memeticist" or a neologism you
    are coining? To whom are you referring?

    Assuming you are talking about memetics, let me ask you a question. Do you
    think every person to use steel independently invented steel in response to
    a changing ecology? Or did the idea of steel spread rapidly once invented
    once or a handful of times, filling a cultural niche?

    <<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.>>

    I don't think any memeticist would deny that the environment (physical,
    cultural, and mental) is important to the spread of memes. I tend not to
    believe you when you say that something is too complicated to understand
    without reading volumes of stuff. Richard Feynman always said that anyone
    who couldn't express the essence an idea in a sentence or two didn't really
    have a clear idea.

    [RB]
    > Frankly I've never heard anyone else on this list, other than you, express
    > distaste for technological progress.

    <<You evidently aren't reading some of the posts -- or at least not very
    carefully.>>

    This is another thing you do that lessens your credibility in my eyes. I
    believe you have a pattern that, when challenged, you tend to point to
    unspecified prior posts rather than answering the challenge directly. I
    always assume, when you do that, that you are wrong but don't want to admit
    it.

    Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com
    http://www.memecentral.com/rbrodie.htm

    ===============================================================
    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 : Fri Jun 02 2000 - 01:43:59 BST