Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980327164654.0091d1d0@voruta.vu.lt>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 16:46:54 +0200
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: Kastytis Beitas <kastytis.beitas@gf.vu.lt>
Subject: Re: memetic engineering and superstition
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19980326110739.007a0a60@pop.netaddress.com>
At 11:07 1998.03.26 +0100, Josip wrote:
>Valuably for WHO? Nature or technology? Technology is only a bad copy of
>Nature. What is the point of "synthesizing" it with Nature? Is it not
>better to "engineer" technology in such a way to be "coexistive" with Nature?
I'm afraid there are to much of polemical heat.
It is not exact way to characterize technology as 'technology is only a bad
copy of Nature'. Technology and Nature are different systems, they solve
different problems.
For example, walking systems (insectal hexopodic or vertebrate tetrapodic)
seem very sophisticated, but the wheeled systems are better on smooth
horizontal surfaces. And walking 'legged' systems are more universal in
very rough terrain.
In case of evaluation of technological systems not only as 'producing
systems', but as 'non-interfering to natural ecosystems' also,
technological systems are badly integrated or nonintegrated at all
("non-coexistive").
But best integrated technologies were of primeval hunters and gatherers.
All their wastes (with excluding of flint chips) were easily naturally
destructible. And maybe extinction of some species (for example, American
horses and camels, Eurasian mammoths etc) was human-enhanced but quite
natural events.
>>>The tracks or grooved ways are something good; but if nobody were willing
>to walk besides the tracks, we would know little of the world.<<
>It is OK while we are only walking and sightseeing and trying to UNDERSTAND
>the countryside besides the tracks. The problems arise when we start to
>build and "synthesize" our engineered structures in it.
The problem is that every alive individual (human, other mammal, fungus
etc) in world changes this world (may be he changes another world in
afterlife too : - ) ). The problem is to find the acceptable level of
induced changes.
>>>The memetic structure of education adapts to the memetic structure of
>individuals's consciousnesses. This is a perfect example of memetic
>engineering. By actually understanding people and understanding
>institutions we improve them.<<
>
>Education is only the mean for the forced integration of individuals in a
>particular society or group. If the individual does not follow the
>educational "grooved ways" it is punished with bad grades. I believe that
>education is more adaptation of the individual`s memetic structure to the
>educational one that, as you state, the reverse.
The education of children is adaptive augmentation of individual's memetic
structure. And education of adults is more similar to 'adaptation of the
individual`s memetic structure to the educational one'. It is more
effective in 'Army version' and not so effective in penitentiary system.
You can improve
>institutions (by improving the people who guide them?), but how can you
>improve people if they don`t want to be improved.
>Are today native American
>Indians maybe improved comparing with their social state before the
>continent was discovered by technologically more "evolved" (rational,
>conscious) people.
But their adaptability to Western civilization is better (in comparison to
adaptation to 'uneducated life' in wild prairies, forests etc).
It is another big problem to guess about the possible alternative
AmerIndian civilization and it's technologies. In the case of
non-colonization of America and 'any-genocide'...
Kastytis
===============================================================
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