Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id HAA04281 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Wed, 9 Jan 2002 07:45:38 GMT To: email@example.com Message-Id: <AA-D73012B6EC9738F3D6C343CFB71F101C-ZZ@homebase1.prodigy.net> Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 02:41:36 -0500 From: "Philip Jonkers" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: playing at suicide Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
>>I do too believe that memes are adopted
>>only when deemed valuable or fitness increasing as
>>I have put it in one of the hypotheses submitted to
>Adopted by whom?
Hi Wade, `adopted' refers to whoever...
>The child, indoctrinated into a religious overview,
has no opportunity to
>deem this valuable.
Interesting remark. But mind you I only use fitness
in an analyzing abstract way. I do not expect people
to explicitly think in terms of fitness increasing
potential when adopting memes. Children are the last
category I expect to do that. And yet they do have at
least a vague notion I believe.
Suppose for some reason a kid rebels against his
religious parents and tries to run away from sunday
school, masses and the lot. He will raise
the wrath of his parents who will quickly try to
correct him to comply to the wishes of the almighty
god. He is promised hell and damnation, social
exclusion and what not, if he persists in his
obstinacy. The naive kid is bound to fearfully and
eagerly change his mind and will be glad to adopt
religious memes. If not he will experience a genuine
fitness decrement in that he seriously faces social
expulsion (possibly by his own family!).
I once again return to one of the true
(practical) values of religion, a social glue.
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 : Wed Jan 09 2002 - 07:52:11 GMT