Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id CAA26610 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Sat, 16 Feb 2002 02:58:27 GMT From: "Richard Brodie" <email@example.com> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: RE: draft abstract Sex, Drugs and Cults Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 18:53:22 -0800 Message-ID: <JJEIIFOCALCJKOFDFAHBKEOGEFAA.email@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
clear benefits to those who host them, i.e., learn behaviors or
information. They are passed from generation to generation because of the
benefits (ultimately to the genes of their hosts) they provide.
But a whole class of memes have no obvious replication
So by "no obvious replication drivers" you mean "no obvious benefit to human
<<Of course, the really interesting
thing is why people of high wealth don't spend it all on having a dozen
children. At one time they did, and in some cultures, particularly Islamic
they still do.>>
>From the wealth's point of view, it would only make sense to have lots of
children if it would replicate the wealth rather than diluting it.
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 16 2002 - 03:07:59 GMT