Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA16428 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 1 May 2001 14:33:29 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745E2B@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: The Status of Memetics as a Science Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 14:29:40 +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
Just quickly- apologies to Scott for misidentifying who mentioned the
cockroaches etc.
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Trupeljak Ozren
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 9:51 pm
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: The Status of Memetics as a Science
>
> --- Scott Chase <ecphoric@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > An interesting point to consider would be that if we could be considered
>
> > dominant, where does that leave those species which benefit from our
> > existence (mostly at our expense)? Where you find human homes and other
> > buildings you might find rats, cockroaches, houseflies and fruitflies to
>
> > name a few. Have we come close to winning the battle against them? Some
> of
> > them are vectors for those pesky little microbes which try to dominate
> us.
> > When all is said and done we all wind up as worm food anyway. Maybe the
> > decomposers are at the top of the ladder? Sorry for the grim
> reflection...
>
> First, just the fact that we have so many species depending on us for
> their
> survival, signifies that we are a major force in the ecosystem. Specialy
> when
> one considers how inimical our style of life *is* to anyone else! Second,
> I
> don't think that bacteria are trying to "dominate" us. They merely use us
> for
> their own survival. The most successful ones are those that don't kill the
> host; and those that learned to live symbioticaly with us.
>
> >
> > Go outside at night and serve as a walking buffet for a cloud of hungry
> > mosquitos and tell them how dominant you are. Hopefully they don't have
> > microbial hitch hikers aboard.
>
> How many lakes and rivers have been swamped with poison in our efforts to
> kill
> of the mosqitoes? It seems that we have the capability to kill them off,
> but
> the cost is, again, too much. And can you truly say that just because they
> can
> bite us and escape unpunished (most of the time) they are a serious threat
> to
> our dominance?!
> >
> > I haven't witnessed a locust swarm but I bet that plague is a sight to
> > behold. Where bacteria evolve antibiotic resisance, isn't there a
> parallel
> > where insects evolve pesticide resistance? Does this problem impact
> humans?
> > With our great ability to alter the environment, what collateral damage
> has
> > been sustained due to DDT and other pest control measures? We think
> we're
> > intelligent when we introduce exotic species as a pest control measure.
> How
> > did the cane toad problem arise in Australia? Oops.
>
> Again, just by doing that we show exactly how much power we *do* have to
> alter
> the environment. We are like little children, playing around and learning
> through bruises. The only problem is, we have the capability to destroy
> the
> playground completely.
>
> >
> > Other exotic species are "dominating" various locales thanks to our
> > "intelligence" and "foresight", our aesthetic judgement of them, or just
> as
> > a stroke of luck by riding aboard one of our ships.
> >
> How exactly are they dominating *us*?
>
> --- Scott Chase <ecphoric@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If evolutionary ethics means looking at the evolution of ethics,
> casuistry,
> > and morality that wouldn't be too big a deal. OTOH if evolutionary
> ethics
> > means defining morality in terms derived from evolutionary biology,
> there
> > may be serious problems. Analyzing "the good" in terms of something
> else,
> > such as what one finds revealed in nature is wrought with difficulties.
> If
> > one perceives the natural state as "red in tooth and claw" or "dog eat
> dog"
> > and takes this descriptive "is" and carries over the hump as a
> presrciption
> > for morality or an "ought", that may a very flawed undertaking. I think
> this
> > is akin to the "naturalistic fallacy" of G.E. Moore, but his precise
> > arguments are far better than I could muster and are found in his
> _Principia
> > Ethica_. Others here could probably muster better than I.
> >
> I was refering to ethics derived from some of the principles of evolution
> (in
> a biological sense); but not a direct copying of the laws of jungle
> (might be
> a very good idea, though, if we did not have such high tech toys to worry
> about). Since I am no philosopher, nor do I believe I have particularly
> high
> set of morals, I will not even attempt to try developing the thought...to
> me, it
> just seemed a good idea to copy the stuff that obviously works, and modify
> it
> according to the specific needs of the local culture.
>
> It seems to me that many people equate the dominance of a species with the
> dominance of the individual of that species, in respect to all other forms
> of
> life. This is obviously not what I have been claiming to be the truth. And
> all
> of that springs from my idea that maybe the fantastic success of our way
> of
> life (civilization, that is), might be because of the unique meme-gene
> interaction that we are capable of. In fact, I would even go as far as to
> claim
> that our civilization, as such, is not designed to be the best way of life
> for
> us humans at all, but it seems to be the best way for the memes themselves
> to
> propagate, diversify, and develop new eco-systems; look at Internet, for
> example. Individual human beings, by some measurements, work harder, and
> are
> unhappier, then individuals living in "primitive" tribal societies seemed
> to.
> As a species, we have spent most of our life in tribal communities, and
> all of
> this civilization stuff is very recent; one could argue that it all
> started
> with invention of exclusive agriculture and need for precise transfer of
> knowledge that it entailed. The invention of writing was the most
> important
> step in that process, but not for us; we have lived for hundreds of
> thousands
> of years just fine without it; but for the longevity of memes. Such a
> small
> change in the rate of memetic drift (and arguably, speed of replication)
> caused
> such huge consequences!
> Anyway, just some more fuel for fire...;)
>
> N.Sh.Z.
>
>
>
> =====
> There are very few man - and they are exceptions - who are able to think
> and feel beyond the present moment.
>
> Carl von Clausewitz
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
> http://auctions.yahoo.com/
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 14:38:28 BST