Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id IAA19510 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 21 Dec 2000 08:10:34 GMT Message-ID: <A4400389479FD3118C9400508B0FF2300411B9@DELTA.newhouse.akzonobel.nl> From: "Gatherer, D. (Derek)" <D.Gatherer@organon.nhe.akzonobel.nl> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Who knew genes could get mean? Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 09:05:40 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
TJ:
However, if we only require that it be a unit of cultural transmission, then
to the extent that parts of our DNA are necessary for us as organisms to
participate in cultures, then are not those bits of DNA memetic?
Derek:
You have to have hands to use sign language, or ultraviolet vision and wings
to participate in a bee dance, so yes, of course culture is dependent on
genes. I think that's the core of the 'gene-meme leash' argument that
Wilson and co. made back in the early 80s. But the DNA is not culturally
transmitted, so it's not memetic. There's only one way you can pass on your
DNA. But once you succedded in that, you then have to pass your culture to
the resulting progeny. If you don't, then those individuals who inherit
your DNA may not inherit your culture. I think that the distinction between
culture and DNA is what one would call trivially true.
===============================================================
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 : Thu Dec 21 2000 - 08:12:04 GMT