Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id CAA16137 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 3 Jun 2000 02:46:30 +0100 Message-ID: <39381CB0.A0FAFA73@mediaone.net> Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 21:44:32 +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: Cui Bono Chuck? References: <20000602073612.76760.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Paul marsden wrote:
> >So perhaps you can explain to me why Aaron finds an advantage to memic
> >theory in explaining birth rates?
>
> Aaron is a vociferous defender of his own model, but the purchase or insight
> that he offered was that in addition to being a product of
> a) an ultimate rationale of inclusive genetic fitness
I don't understand how this is an ultimate rationale. Please elaborate.
>
> b) constraints and opportunities provided by economic relations
>
> there is a third stance or perspective
I don't see that in his explanation to me. Perhaps you can say more.
>
> c)in which cultural instructions may be understood as influencing fertility
> levels.
>
> Catholics do have more children than Protestants.
His theory looks deficient in this aspect because the historical trend is that
each generation rapidly adapts its fertility to current economic conditions. See
my comments to him in regard to why Catholics under certain conditions have
higher birth rates. Note that once the Catholics in the US move to the suburbs,
their birth rate declines to normal.
> Likewise, without
> invoking cultural influences its damned difficult to explain blood donation
> or any other anonymous charity – but a memetic theory of altruism can do
> this. See Paul Allison’s excellent account of this.
I don't see where mere imitation explains it any better. Who is Paul Allison?
>
> Although most social scientists would boggle at all this and say of course
> culture has an influence independent of genes (and more problematically
> economic relations), unless, that is, they are into crude genetic
> reductionism/determinism or economic determinism, but what memetics does is
> to bring a particular organising principle and focus into cultural dynamics:
>
> SPECIFICALLY – SOME CULTURE SELF-EMPLACES, THAT IS, ITS EFFECTS ARE
> CONDUCIVE TO ITS OWN REPRODUCTION. IN OTHER WORDS, MANIFESTING A CULTURAL
> INSTRUCTION BEHAVIOURALLY CAN MAKE THE RECURRENCE OF THAT CULTURAL
> INSTRUCTION MORE LIKELY BECAUSE THE ENVIRONMENT HAS BEEN MODIFIED IN SUCH A
> WAY TO ALLOW FOR THIS CHANGE.
>
> And no, this is not a panacea for social science, it is just one more way of
> looking at some aspects of the world to try and make sense of what is going
> on – there are many ways to skin a cat. Maybe this memetic stance doesn’t
> help you, but it has helped me understand suicide, and the peculiar
> phenomenon of suicide contagion (suicide levels jump by up to 10% following
> media coverage of celebrity suicides)
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 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 : Sat Jun 03 2000 - 02:47:15 BST