RE: draft abstract Sex, Drugs and Cults

From: Keith Henson (
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 - 03:22:53 GMT

  • Next message: Keith Henson: "Re: Words and Memes"

    Received: by id DAA26659 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 03:25:56 GMT
    Message-Id: <>
    X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
    Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 22:22:53 -0500
    From: Keith Henson <>
    Subject: RE: draft abstract Sex, Drugs and Cults
    In-Reply-To: <>
    References: <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
    Precedence: bulk

    At 06:53 PM 15/02/02 -0800, you wrote:
    >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

    Yes. Those which do have benefits are easy to explain why they are passed on.

    ><<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.

    There was a time when children *were* wealth. You could use their labor to
    have more children yourself and to make the tribe resistant to being attacked.

    Times have changed.


    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 - 03:35:26 GMT