RE: The Status of Memetics as a Science

From: Scott Chase (
Date: Fri Apr 27 2001 - 21:11:34 BST

  • Next message: Scott Chase: "RE: The Status of Memetics as a Science"

    Received: by id VAA08346 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 21:15:54 +0100
    X-Originating-IP: []
    From: "Scott Chase" <>
    Subject: RE: The Status of Memetics as a Science
    Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:11:34 -0400
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Apr 2001 20:11:34.0379 (UTC) FILETIME=[41C2B3B0:01C0CF56]
    Precedence: bulk

    >From: Vincent Campbell <>
    >To: "''" <>
    >Subject: RE: The Status of Memetics as a Science
    >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:24:44 +0100
    > >> So, my questions are: What do you mean by dominance, firstly,
    > >> then,
    > >> secondly, how could/would memes per se allow for that dominance?
    > <Well, first and foremost, the purely physical capabilities to
    > > I think there is no question that we are the dominant life form on the
    > > planet in that aspect.>
    > >
    > It depends what you mean by destroy. Should an airborne version of
    >Ebola (OK,a virus, but still a very simple organism compared to us) get
    >of Africa it could decimate most of the planets population. Just because
    >our increased medicinal capacity it does not prevent the likes of the Black
    >Death, or the Flu epidemic occuring again (am I right in remembering the
    >death toll of the flu outbreak in the 1910s was higher than that of WWI?).
    >Perhaps this is a slightly pedantic point, I kinda know what you mean.
    > <Second, the energy production/usage levels that
    > > a life form has control over.>
    > >
    > OK, I suppose this sounds reasonable.
    > <Third, our ability to adapt (either us to
    > > enviroment, or enviroment to us).>
    > >
    > Well, certainly human's capacity for altering environments is
    >extensive, but our capacity for adapting to environmental change (including
    >those we cause) aren't physiologically any better than other mammals
    >particularly. I suspect bacteria could survive the worst conditions that
    >global warming might produce- would we (acknowledging the first bit of your
    >other comment below)?
    > <These were my main criteria for
    > > claiming human dominance. Note, that I am not claiming any sort of
    > > permanence for that dominance; I am not talking about future, or the
    > > past, just now...
    > > As for bacteria, none of the reasons for their bid for dominance make
    > > any sense on (my) that scale. So what if they have been around longer?
    > > Dinosaurs have been around longer then us, and look at them now. So
    > > what if they live on places on this planet that we don't; taking aside
    > > the factors of size, the only thing actually stopping us from living in
    > > these places is that we have gotten the better territory (in a manner
    > > of speaking) and that we have no need to fill the other niches. (yet)>
    > I think this is disingenuous to bacteria. Living, for example, in
    >the extreme conditions of Siberia is very difficult indeed even with our
    >technological capacities (e.g. petrol freezing in the fuel tank, machinery
    >not coping with the cold etc.).
    > <And extermination of bacteria has never been our primary goal.
    > > are easy ways for doing it, but the cost (and I am not talking about
    > > money) would be unacceptably high; what good comes from eradicating
    > > them all anyway?
    > > If you are refering to the continual fight of antibiotics against more
    > > and more resistant bacteria, then you shoudl be aware that as long as
    > > our computational capabilities are higher then the equivalent mutation
    > > capabilities for bacteria, we win. We can stand on quicksand, if we
    > > paddle fast enough. >
    > >
    > Except we don't. We're always behind the game as a report in New
    >Scientist recently suggested, one new antibiotic still not in widespread
    >yet already has bacterial strains that are resistent to it. I doubt we
    >could eradicate them all if we did indeed want to (and we certainly
    >want to eradicate those that with live with symbiotically, like the ones in
    >our gut).
    > >> Surely memes are related primarily to culture, thus does having
    > > > >complex cultural capacity has a significantly positive impact on
    > > survival?
    > >
    > <It seems that it does. At least so far. The more complex cro-magnon
    > > culture seems to have been able to completely take over the niche
    > > previously shared by a number of other (proto?) human societies, all
    > > with markedly less complex and (arguably) less developed culture.>
    > >
    > Hmm.... yes, quite possibly. Physiologically of course neanderthals
    >were better adapted to the then pretty cold European climate. As such
    >cro-magnon needed other kinds of advantages, of which better language
    >were arguably a part. Still that's only a survival advantage in relation
    >human species, not in relation to other organisms per se. There's also the
    >issue of niche construction though- that cro-magnons were simply more able
    >to utilise different kinds of environmental resources than neanderthals,
    >to the former's greater intellectual capacities. Language/culture needn't
    >be the only factor, nor even the key factor.
    > >
    > <Look at a bunch of recent articles in Nature (and similar
    > > about the beginnings of culture noticed among different chimpanzee
    > > groups in Africa. We just might be the very first complex culture of
    > > this magnitude to rise on this planet (since we do not seem to have
    > > found any remains of the previous ones), and we sure seem to be
    > > dominant enough.>
    > >
    > Well, again, I'm not sure you're basis for dominance is necessarily
    >that sound. Having, apparently the most complex culture, makes us dominant
    >in the sense of having the most complex culture, but that's pretty
    >tautological. With no other complex cultures in other animals to compare,
    >it's difficult to judge. It's not like the Roman circus where one could
    >a lion up against a tiger to see which wins.
    An interesting point to consider would be that if we could be considered
    dominant, where does that leave those species which benefit from our
    existence (mostly at our expense)? Where you find human homes and other
    buildings you might find rats, cockroaches, houseflies and fruitflies to
    name a few. Have we come close to winning the battle against them? Some of
    them are vectors for those pesky little microbes which try to dominate us.
    When all is said and done we all wind up as worm food anyway. Maybe the
    decomposers are at the top of the ladder? Sorry for the grim reflection...

    Go outside at night and serve as a walking buffet for a cloud of hungry
    mosquitos and tell them how dominant you are. Hopefully they don't have
    microbial hitch hikers aboard.

    I haven't witnessed a locust swarm but I bet that plague is a sight to
    behold. Where bacteria evolve antibiotic resisance, isn't there a parallel
    where insects evolve pesticide resistance? Does this problem impact humans?
    With our great ability to alter the environment, what collateral damage has
    been sustained due to DDT and other pest control measures? We think we're
    intelligent when we introduce exotic species as a pest control measure. How
    did the cane toad problem arise in Australia? Oops.

    Other exotic species are "dominating" various locales thanks to our
    "intelligence" and "foresight", our aesthetic judgement of them, or just as
    a stroke of luck by riding aboard one of our ships.

    Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

    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 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 21:19:17 BST