Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA20994 (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 22:26:47 +0100 Message-ID: <3939314D.DAEB2AFB@mediaone.net> Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 17:24:45 +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: Jabbering ! References: <200006032100.RAA10628@mail6.lig.bellsouth.net> 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
"
> >
> > One example is worms and other small yukies as opposed to large animals.
> > Anthropologists have told us for years that food tastes are simply "culturally
> > determined" - which meant arbitrary. But the more we know about which cultures prefer
> > what, the more we understand that the emotional preferences (disgusting vs. tasty) are
> > built on environmental possibilities. Those that eat the little yuckies do so because
> > there are no large animals. Those that eat the biggies and disdain the little yuckies
> > have chosen the former because it requires less energy. Seems obvious, but most
> > anthropologists never bothered to even think about it because of their ideological
> > biases.
> >
> There is another consideration, however. Cultures which use one
> means which exploits their situation relatively inefficiently may
> simply not have discovered better alternate methods. The idea of
> same may simply have not occurred to members of their culture.
> When there is interpermeation of different cultures in similar
> ecological situations, though, the more efficient means will
> eventually be adopted by the society previously employing the less
> efficient means, and the more efficient method will end up being
> used by both.
>
That is the case with relatively new cultures, but not traditional cultures - cultures that
have existed over several generations. I saw the former in Brazil, for example, where
peasants migrated into the outskirts of big cities and couldn't figure out in their new
context which end was up - total lack of common sense. Humans over a few generations, though,
are amazingly creative, and I can't believe that with the big fish around that could feed an
entire clan, they would for long let that resource go in favor of energy intensive small fish
- or spend the energy to collect worms when they see large animals wondering around. We know
that animals act on such efficiences, so humans could be expected to be even more cleaver.
Not much data to support that, BUT, on the other hand, what data exists is pretty definitive.
> >
> > ===============================================================
> > 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 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 - 22:27:33 BST