Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA05603 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:22:15 GMT Subject: RE: Rumsfeld Says He May Drop New Office of Influence From: Ned Wolpert <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> References: <email@example.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-aiGZVbASM0EWLWj2+vyZ" X-Mailer: Evolution/1.0.2 Date: 12 Mar 2002 08:18:35 -0700 Message-Id: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, 2002-03-11 at 09:24, Keith Henson wrote:
> At 08:21 AM 10/03/02 -0700, Ned Wolpert <email@example.com> wrote:
> >I too have the same problem. On one hand, I accept that evolution
> >exists, and accept the base principles of genetics. I can also agree
> >that the 'meme' does exist and that thoughts/ideas are viral and merely
> >desire replication. I have a problem when us humans (the vehicle of
> >both genes and memes) decide we can manipulate either.
> Hmm. Any time you look at domestic dogs you see evidence we can and have
> manipulated genes for thousands of years.
Its not that we _can't_ manipulate them, I have trouble with us actually
doing that. (see below)
> >As we look at
> >eugenics (active or passive) the ease for a 'culture' to develop
> >destructive traits, like the Nazis, seems too easy. And what about
> >eugenics of the mind? (meugenics?) Does one try to kill religious
> >thought like the Marxists of USSR?
> Been done. There are other ways, but killing all the carriers of a meme
> does the trick. You might note that while we have plenty of other problem
> memes around, the Thuggee meme is not among them.
This is my point from above. I have trouble with eugenics as a method
of 'controlling bad memes and genes'. Too much power to cause too much
damage. (Especially in the fact that us humans (memeplexes) would be
deciding what other memes/genes survive.) Thanks, but no. There must
be a better way.
> >I think the problem is that people believe that evolution is geared to
> >go toward a 'perfection', or if it doesn't then they try to push it
> >toward a 'perfection'.
> If you actually study evolution, you can make a better case that it
> evolution is geared to producing dead end parasites. At least there are
> more such examples.
So then, all humans are not much better than a virus... including the
ones making the eugenics decisions? That I can buy.
(What says that evolution is 'geared' to do anything but help
replication? That being true, we have always been viri....)
Virtually, Ned Wolpert <firstname.lastname@example.org> 4e75
1024D/5DEA314E: 7FFB 99C3 BF90 6135 12F4 07B8 0B23 2E5C 5DEA 314E
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
=============================================================== 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 : Tue Mar 12 2002 - 15:32:41 GMT