Re: Who knew genes could get mean?

From: misy (misy@ihug.co.nz)
Date: Tue Dec 19 2000 - 22:57:02 GMT

  • Next message: LJayson@aol.com: "Re: Self-defense" 

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA14717 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:43:27 GMT
X-Authentication-Warning: smtp1.ihug.co.nz: Host p52-max1.pmr.ihug.co.nz [203.173.220.52] claimed to be ihug.co.nz
Message-ID: <3A3FE7BE.5050902@ihug.co.nz>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 11:57:02 +1300
From: misy <misy@ihug.co.nz>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; m18) Gecko/20001108 Netscape6/6.0
X-Accept-Language: en,pdf
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Who knew genes could get mean?
References: <A4400389479FD3118C9400508B0FF2300411A8@DELTA.newhouse.akzonobel.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

    Is it possible that "instincts" are in fact primitive memes, and
    therefore a babies behaviour is selected for in order to illicit as much
    parental care as is necessary in order to survive infanthood?

    Cultural, religious, and other more complex memes must have an impact on
    the genes, for the possesion of these memes by a genomic individual will
    surely influence that individuals choice of "life-style", ergo
    environment and therefore the range of possible partners?

    ===============================================================
    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 Dec 19 2000 - 22:45:21 GMT