Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA14650 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Mon, 30 Apr 2001 20:38:29 +0100 Message-ID: <002301c0d1b2$1464ad20$9d05bed4@default> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> To: <email@example.com> References: <F92mrvoGdKO8FNpyLAP00002957@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: The Status of Memetics as a Science Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 22:13:18 +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 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Chase <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 11:07 PM
Subject: RE: The Status of Memetics as a Science
Hi Scott, you wrote,
> If evolutionary ethics means looking at the evolution of ethics,
> and morality that wouldn't be too big a deal. OTOH if evolutionary ethics
> means defining morality in terms derived from evolutionary biology, there
> may be serious problems. Analyzing "the good" in terms of something else,
> such as what one finds revealed in nature is wrought with difficulties> is
<< My general conviction is that we, in a sense, suppress our inner-
instincts. It would be better to say, we ought to be, because we see
tru' the consequences_ we have learned this partly due to trying and
But, we all know that sometimes we can 't control those instincts, due
to psychologicals disorders, social stresses, etc or due to specific
circumstances.. family matters, provocation etc.
Society in general makes it so that everyone is committed to control
himself_ we have to show responsibility for our own actions and deeds.
But, like I said, sometimes we can 't do this.
Than are genetical, memetical, psychological thus biological (f)actors
of such a nature that they can 't be controlled.
In those cases the urge to murder, to abuse etc is so great that it becomes
really a matter of life and death.
Of course, you and I understand perfectly that society can 't let that
On the other hand, society is not willing ( not yet anyway) to meet
those people halfway, that due to aspects derived from fear, ignorance
Problems would be serious, like you rightly mentioned if you define
morality in terms derived from evolutionary biology, only if you let
morality run loose. That is, total freedom.
You can 't have that, unfortunely, you have to apply some constrains
to get your society safe and stabile.
( OTOH, that is not my personal point of view, but we can't always get
what we want, isn 't it)
A solution, and IMO a very positive and conclusive one, is to look
for a ethical system wherein the fundamental memetical bias, in a
sense that is the bias for the real ' you' , acts as the bias for that
Each of us is so memetical different from another, that we have specific
needs and urges. In a society like ours today, those urges are most of
the time denied or are getting suppressed.
In my view that will be no longer true. Each of us is free to act
accordingly his or hers inner- urges and needs.
No problem there, at least in the general sense.
Problems begin when we talk about psychopaths, murderers and abusers
of the worst kind. Those have needs and urges too, but letting them run
loose, will give problems.
To give to them what 1) they really deserve, and that is a full satisfaction
of their needs and 2) a possibility to do what they want to do in their
place and circumstances, you need somekind of substitution- system.
Like I said Holodeck technology and cyberdolls like Lara Croft and
Now you have two new problems, 1) this is not really ' freedom ' in the
sense as we have put our system together, those people are not ' really
free '. They have biological urges colored by theirs inner- instincts, but
they may or can 't enjoy them in full freedom.
And 2) They are stuck with something that is not the " real thing ".
A stalker who wants to get Pamela Anderson in his bed, may not be
content with a three- dimensional cyber- puppet.
A solution for the former consist out ' to learn them that ' freedom' is
on the other levels of the society not 100 % also. Subtle coercion
would be an option... but than again, this is not coherent with the general
A solution for the latter is in a way trying that those people ' believe '
that the Pamela they are chasing is the real thing. The puppet has to be
perfect,... but this will be not for this year I think.
But for both, there is still a lot of work to do , not in the least to
the general public...
( I am, because we are) ' good '
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 : Mon Apr 30 2001 - 20:41:56 BST