Re: Perpetual change

From: Kenneth Van Oost (
Date: Sat Apr 28 2001 - 21:21:02 BST

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Re: Perpetual change"

    Received: by id UAA10073 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 20:46:22 +0100
    Message-ID: <001a01c0d020$d66ef260$8906bed4@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <>
    To: <>
    References: <[]>
    Subject: Re: Perpetual change
    Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 22:21:02 +0200
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
    Precedence: bulk

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Wade T.Smith <>
    To: memetics list <>
    Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 3:29 PM
    Subject: Fwd: Perpetual change

    Thanks Wade for this. I know you should not be the right person to review
    the comments below, but as the one who posted it, I let you do the honours.
    After reading this several times I had a wrong feeling, not with those
    scientists their work, but with their conclusions and pre- suppositions.

    > In particular, the scientists say that, in industrialised societies,
    > behavioural traits that cause women to have children earlier are becoming
    > more common.

    << I always have thought that it was quit the opposite, but that is not
    my major concern. I have problems with the passage, " to have children
    earlier are becoming common. "
    What have exactly changed here !?
    50 years ago children came all the time early, there were no contra-
    ceptives, no careers to protect !
    So again, what changed !?

    Genes they say. Ok, which genes were involved !?
    The genes that determine the age at which woman had their first child,
    they say, 23 % of the variation in age was down to genes, and this trait
    was in fact genetically inherited.
    So, how do we than explain the existence of a career- woman !?
    IMO, that is due to the simple fact that the age at which they will have
    their first child is genetically inherited... Bullshit !! ( Sorry)
    If we take this seriously, than a career- woman is a lucky devil, she is
    one of a kind... her genes did fix her up with a trait that she will have
    children on a later date. Fine genes !!
    Genes, in fact did/ do choose some fine fit woman to have a career, fine

    And would genes do that !? Where is the catch !? Those genes probably
    determine psychological or behavioural traits that make woman more
    likely to start having children younger, they say !? How !?
    Genes in control over memes !? And this should be the process by which
    woman are getting the urge to get their children at a earlier age !?
    But, the age is genetically inherited, they say ! There is here a
    If this thrait was/ is genetically inherited or not, 50 years ago all the
    came early, I repeat myself, I know..but woman were than fit as they could
    be !! No environmental stresses, none contraceptives, everytime boem
    boem and bingo !! And of course they got a lot of children,... if they
    survived !!

    In those days there was no distinction between early or later, career or
    not, in the former there were no preservatives and in the latter there were
    none, or rather very few, careers to protect.

    And the scientists warn us, that the biological urge to get children early
    will get stronger. We should have been warned if they published this !!
    IMO, and in the way I understand this stuff, and if I am wrong, I am
    sorry, very sorry,... but in a sense genes, or biology overpowered some-
    how our " preservatives ", and that makes me worried.
    Genes, in a way overpowered a social trait by changing and determining
    psychological or behavioural traits which somehow diminished the
    psychical/ psysical ability to have lots of children.
    Genes, in a way, weeded out the social behavioural trait of using condoms
    and the pill !?

    Genes, in a way, over a vague period of time, changed society 's wishes
    that woman have their children later, into a urge which woman can 't deny.
    And I always thought that genetic variation took time...and does not have
    forsight or purpose for that matter !?
    There is an urge to reproduce, the age when this will happen is fixed,
    ( genetically inherited),... and woman can 't deny this !?

    I don 't know, and again I could be mistaken completely, but IMO this
    sounds more and more like an attempt of some dark conservative out-
    post to get woman back again behind their stove.
    They found a " gene " for homosexuaity, well now they found some
    " evolved" genes which declare war at the woman and their careers.

    And what about those ' career woman' who did in the early sixties and
    seventies the early steps to get an equal chance in society !?
    What were their genes doing !? If, in respect, that we know now that their
    age to get the first kid was than already genetically inherited !?
    Where was the urge, where was the conflict than when the woman shouted,
    NOT with my body, you won 't !! The rhythm method, or no sex at all !?
    Feminism, a lucky strike of evolution or a total faux pas !?
    That is the question which can be asked...
    IMO, there is something fundamental wrong with this, but I can 't pin point
    it,... or is it me !?

    Help me or shoot me !



    ( I am ) speechless

    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 Apr 28 2001 - 20:49:47 BST