From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Thu 29 May 2003 - 18:16:42 GMT
> At 12:58 AM 29/05/03 -0400, Scott wrote:
>
> >>From: Keith Henson <hkhenson@rogers.com>
> >>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> >>To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> >>Subject: RE: Watches & Necklaces
> >>Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 22:47:27 -0400
> >>
> >>At 09:10 PM 28/05/03 -0400, scott wrote:
> >>
> >>snip
> >>
> >>>So would you agree with Richard that education is a parasite?
> >>
> >>No, because I don't think Richard said that.
> >(clears throat)
> >
> >After I had elaborated on symbiont relations with the aid of
> >Minkoff's text, Richard had responsed (probably snipped from the post
> >you had read along with my rather pointed questions to him):
> >
> >(bq) "It would seem easy to extend this, then, to gene-meme
> >symbiosis. Education, for example, is parasitic because it reduces
> >genetic fitness. How about them apples?" (eq)
> >
> >You may have a greater command of the English language than I do.
> >Looking over what Richard said, is he saying that education is
> >parasitic or not? Maybe he was being facetious?
>
> Not at all. But there is a difference between what you said he said
> and what Richard said. The way you restated it is simply not true
> because it implies education being a parasite on the individual where
> Richard's states a well known fact about higher education, the kind
> that takes many years. Education and wealth in western culture has
> mixed effects, statistically reducing the number of offspring while
> improving their chances to survive.
>
> Humans have their own viewpoint which is not the same as either the
> memes they have or their genes.
>
> >>Education and closely associated wealth tends to reduced the number
> >>of children you have, but it does make the ones you have more likely
> >>to survive, in bad times *much* more likely to survive. This is
> >>just an extension of the K r spectrum.
> >I happened to be the one who added the allusion to the K r spectrum
> >to the mix, in response to Richard. So maybe we are in somewhat of an
> >agreement here?
> >>
> >>Though as I noted, humans just happen to react to education and
> >>wealth this way. Our evolution could have left us with the tendency
> >>to turn wealth into more kids. To an unknown extent this may be
> >>more cultural. Consider that bin Laden has 40 some odd kids, not
> >>unusual by Saudi Prince standards.
> >Good thing Abdul Aziz conquered Arabia and then oil was discovered so
> >that those petrodollars could trickle down to bin Laden's dad and
> >family via the construction business. Otherwise, so much for Saudi
> >wealth. The fortuitiousness of the al-Saud conquest AND striking oil
> >are an historical confluence that cannot be underemphasized in any
> >analysis relating to Saudi Arabian affluence.
>
> Certainly true. I presume you have read some of Bernard Lewis on this
> subject. If not you should. He states the problems with the Islamic
> world as well as can be stated without evolutionary psychology and
> ecological views. The situation there is no better than that leading
> up to the Hutu/Tutsi conflict--with the difference that the USA is one
> of the participants.
>
> Keith Henson
>
I recommend his latest:
The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror
Bernard Lewis, ~ Modern Library 25 March, 2003 ~ ISBN:
0679642811
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 2.1.5 : Thu 29 May 2003 - 18:21:46 GMT