Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA09701 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 14 Nov 2000 16:33:00 GMT Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745B0B@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Tests show a human side to chimps Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 16:30:52 -0000 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
<Derek:
> Splitting your question into 2 parts, the answer to the above is:
> But are they so constrained?, because cultural replicators are strong
> enough
> to start pushing the genetic replicators - eg. lactose utilisation in
> humans; Europeans, Middle Easterners and many Africans are now
> _genetically_
> adapted to the _cultural_ trait of milk drinking. Culture can constrain
> genetics too.>
>
That sounds really interesting. How do we know that we're genetically
adapted to milk drinking? (I'm not disputing this, just fascinated).
<Derek:
> One brings it in for situations where it is evident that genetic variation
> is not the primary contributor to phenotypic variation, and where
> environmental variation is not enough to explain the residual. Since
> Vincent was asking about diffusion of innovations yesterday, how about
> Rogers' classic example of water boiling in Peru. Those who boil water
> have
> a survival edge over those who just drink it straight down, bugs and all.
> There is no evidence of any genetic variation that would explain this, no
> 'fastidiousness' gene, and there is no environmental explanation, boilers
> and non-boilers exist together in the same village. So what's left is
> cultural transmission, and there is the scope for memetics.>
>
But won't the net effect of water boiling mean greater survival
rates than non-boilers, over a long enough period of time, making it in the
end a form of niche construction? Either because people notice differential
health trends in boliers vs non-boilers, and make a link, or simply because
non-boilers eventually die out. Wouldn't it take one quick water-born
disease to achieve this? Of course, I'm completely assuming, with no real
knowledge at all here, that in Peru boiling water does make a positive
difference to health prospects?
I suppose this also relies on their being enough of a presence of
water boilers to witness a clear difference in survival chances, and that
doesn't explain how water boiling reached that degree of prevalence in the
community in the first place, or why some people took it up and not others.
Sounds like an interesting study. I don't suppose you have a
reference to hand do you?
Vincent
===============================================================
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 Nov 14 2000 - 16:34:30 GMT