Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA29664 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:21:25 GMT Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745BB1@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: DNA Culture .... Trivia? Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:19:56 -0000 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
Hi Dini,
Welcome to the list.
I think it is important to recognise that whilst memes may influence genes
over long periods of time, they do not become them.
Derek's work on the origins of religion relates to a discussion we often
return to regarding religions and belief, and whether or not they are
memetic. Derek's apparent finding that there is a strong relationship
between the mode of food acquisition and monotheism is interesting in and of
itself, but it also shows the distinction between a gene and a meme.
Thousands of years of agriculture- a cultural behaviour, a meme (or
memeplex)- in Europe and Asia has had an impact on physiological
characteristics of the general populations in those areas compared to other
parts of the world e.g. lactose tolerance. Similarly, other cultural
variances, over long enough periods of time, impact on other population
characteristics e.g. alcohol tolerances are generally higher in Europe than
say, Asia. In the former region, poor quality drinking water was coped with
by consumption of beers, whilst in Asia, tea with its own anti-bacterial
effects, was the staple drink. But in none of these situations have the
cultural practices of farming, beer or tea drinking become genetically
determined. Despite what some people may feel, no-one is born to drink
beer... (save perhaps darts players :-)).
I personally favour Derek's notion of memes as cultural artefacts and would
agree with him that you can empirically examine such things (e.g. the origin
and spread of a particular sport), whereas people cannot agree on what a
neural meme is constituted of, or even if such a thing exists.
There is one question of the polytheism/monotheism debate, however, and that
is why monotheism persists in industrialised nations. I can see some
superficial reasons why hunter gatherers would likely retain polytheism
(lots of animals to hunt, probably a lot of reverance for those animals etc.
etc.), and farmers to be monotheistic (heavy reliance on particular crops-
rice, maize etc., growth of large scale, unmoving communities, heavily
subject to the effects of weather distancing power into the sky, the
mountains etc.), but why does monotheism succeed so dramatically in
industrial societies?
I still think that ease of doctrine tranmission is a factor, especially in
later societies where communication technologies become significant. Just
sitting here thinking about the question we were milling over last year
about why Judaism didn't spread but Christianity did, again I think of the
complex rules of Judaism compared to the relative simplicity of Christianity
(e.g. all those things you can/can't eat according to Leviticus, whereas
Christianity has no such list). Again, I'm not saying that this is what
consciously attracted people to the religion, simply that it may be an
underlying factor in its success.
Anyway, I've digressed, the point is genes and memes are distinct even if
they influence each other. Despite many generations of faithful following,
people have to deliberately teach their children to follow their faith. [One
thing that annoys me that people often say something like "I was born
(insert your chosen faith here)", as if particular faiths were encoded into
our DNA]
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Dini
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2001 11:40 am
> To: MEMETICS
> Subject: DNA Culture .... Trivia?
>
> Hi there,
>
> I am a new member on this List and am greatly interested in Memes. I was
> first introduced to the concept by Douglas Klimesh (he may be on your List
> as well). After reading the letter from T.J. Olney and the reply from one
> of your other List members, I wonder if I got the idea of Memes correct.
>
> To me, genes are genes and memes are memes. I almost see the memes as the
> esoteric equivalent of genes, but NOT tied together, like the two are a
> duality. Genes get transferred the 'normal' way through reproduction,
> while I understand that memes, which are totally non-physical, get
> transferred from person to person, when people have mental contact with
> one another. For instance, me reading about memetics, whether in a book,
> magazine, letters of e-mails, sends me a lot of memes (almost knowledge).
> Just two people meeting in the street and looking at one another will
> transfer memes. Everything we learn, necessarily from others or other
> outside sources, fills us with memes. At the same time we transfer memes
> to the people we come into contact with. I used to call it "touching"
> people, and people "touching" us in return.
> This acquired characteristics (Lamarque would have loved this) become part
> of the Personality, AND MAY THEN WELL BE TRANSFERRED TO FUTURE GENERATIONS
> in the form of genes in the DNA.
> Or would they be transferred to future issue by non-physical means?
> I would love to hear your opinion,
> Dini
>
>
>
===============================================================
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 : Wed Jan 10 2001 - 13:22:54 GMT