RE: draft abstract Sex, Drugs and Cults

From: Richard Brodie (
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 - 02:53:22 GMT

  • Next message: Keith Henson: "RE: draft abstract Sex, Drugs and Cults"

    Received: by id CAA26610 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 02:58:27 GMT
    From: "Richard Brodie" <>
    To: <>
    Subject: RE: draft abstract Sex, Drugs and Cults
    Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 18:53:22 -0800
    Message-ID: <>
    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: <>
    Importance: Normal
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
    Precedence: bulk

    Keith wrote:

    <<they provide
    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.

    Richard Brodie

    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