From: Van oost Kenneth (email@example.com)
Date: Mon 01 Mar 2004 - 11:21:34 GMT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Van oost Kenneth" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: Between groups.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Francesca S. Alcorn" <email@example.com>
> > My understanding is that there is
> > a high correlation between genetic relatedness and the degree of
> > social cohesion in a group. Which explains racism, but makes me
> > wonder what we will do if the Global Village becomes a big "melting
> > pot" and as a species we become more genetically similar (lose our
> > biodiversity.
> Hm, what can be streched as being a ' group ' can proceed roughly
> along the following lines,
> " A group is a certain number of people which are involved with
> eachother and communicate a common interest. "
> [ social- psychological they call this, ' some inter- activs '.
> A groupevent asks " certainly a number of people which communicate
> in order to do something, but the number of people will be determinated."
> Moreover, the people don 't have to be genetical related to eachother.
> There isn 't any, at least not in economics, proove that the cohesion
> increases if the people are related_ or you have to count for the notion
> of being human in the first place. In that case of course we 're all '
> related '
> to eachother, but I don 't think that this is your point of view.
> The cohesion- factor depends on what goal the group sets for itself,
> pasttime, companionableness,...who is being part of that group, who
> is chairman [ is he strong or not], the common attractiviness, the
> common involment, the common involment towards the leader and
> the fear of being left out are some elements you have to consider...
> If the group ' evolves ', convidence between members will increase,
> sympathy and frienships will arise and behaviour and opinions that
> one cannot bear will be shuffled aside.
> I can 't imagine if all of this is being part of the antheap, some is,
> but most is not.
> And in regard to your explanation for racism let me add the
> following, racism is a form of political indistigation of which the
> elements are visible and recognizable, like the colour of your
> skin, language, tongue, religion, surnames, and/ or place of
> birth, land of origin. That in contrast with what is called uni-
> versal elements like socialism, libaralism, democracy,... where
> thus elements aren 't that easy to recognize.
> It is far more easy to see that one is Chinese than it is to know
> if the guy is a democrat, a socialist or whatever.
> Again, I don 't think genetical relateness have anything to do
> with racism. What is true however is that the clear definition
> of what is being p.e; American can stand the test of time...
> people are indisputable New Yorker, but far from a good
> father, an intellectual,...but all speak English and stand for
> the American dream....
> The mean reason for racism lies in its simplicity, " we speak
> all English and that is a higher standard ".
> All the other languages we treat racisticly.
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 2.1.5 : Mon 01 Mar 2004 - 11:22:28 GMT