Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id EAA28282 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 8 Feb 2002 04:41:52 GMT X-Originating-IP: [199.183.183.47] From: "Grant Callaghan" <grantc4@hotmail.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: ply to Grant Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 20:36:10 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <LAW2-F13879xavjrRZ10000a419@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Feb 2002 04:36:10.0772 (UTC) FILETIME=[220A2540:01C1B05A] Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>
>Microsoft does indeed appear to be the fittest around at the moment, in
>terms of its ability to survive in the market place. To go back to your
>analogy with Ford. I recall that he said *you can have any colour you like
>so long as its black*. The only cars that i have owned have been neither
>Ford, nor Black. The computer i own is Apple as is the software. If it
>wasn't it would be Linux. Only the past is a guide to what is fit. If it is
>in the past it wasn't fit. The definiton of most fit to me is
>circumstantial, and subject to change without notice. (A point we can agree
>on?). The horse was used as an example of a succesful species in the past
>despite the fact that in its place of origin, the USA, it became extinct
>and
>that essentially, the horse existed only on the sufferance of man because
>we
>found a use for it in Eurasia. (See Stephen. J. Gould's - Life's Grandeur).
>regards
>
>Steve
>
Again, we seem to be talking about different things. I'm looking at
evolutionary fitness, which is defined in terms of survival, no matter how
they achieve it. You seem to be talking about fitness in terms of one
product or animal being better for some purpose than another. You may find
the Mac a superior computer for your uses, but as far as propagation and
evolution are concerned, the IBM PC and Microsoft Windows have managed to
pervade a larger portion of the space available than their competitors. It
isn't a strike against the horse that it survived by striking a symbiotic
relationship with people. There are more of them now than there ever were.
That's success in my book.
The concepts about manufacturing that Ford invented and were built on by his
successors and associates still pervade the automobile manufacturing culture
and that applies around the world. That's a viable measure of success from
an evolutionary point of view. We're still making cars pretty much as Henry
made them, but with lots of new features added. Whether you like Henry or
not, the culture he built was successful. It still exists. It exists now
in other cultures besides America. Despite the fact that other men came
along and made cars better than the Ford factories made, they still used the
principles of manufacturing that Ford created first. They used the same
distribution system and ideas about making the car affordable for the common
man. That was a relatively new idea when Ford set up his system. Many car
makers thought it wouldn't work.
Anyway, I'm trying to show how a culture devloped by a person made the
billions I've been talking about. Other people, using his ideas or memes,
also made millions and billions of dollars. The company still carries his
name and his children and grandchildren are still involved in it. In a
young species like we are, that's a pretty good record of survival of the
fit, if not the fittest.
Grant
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
===============================================================
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 : Fri Feb 08 2002 - 04:59:53 GMT