Re: ply to Grant

From: Jeremy Bradley (
Date: Thu Feb 07 2002 - 06:23:45 GMT

  • Next message: Jeremy Bradley: "Re: Words and memes"

    Received: by id HAA23886 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 07:56:45 GMT
    X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be green-machine
    Message-Id: <>
    X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
    Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 17:23:45 +1100
    From: Jeremy Bradley <>
    Subject: Re: ply to Grant
    In-Reply-To: <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
    Precedence: bulk

    At 06:30 AM 6/02/02 -0800, you wrote:
    >>At 07:18 AM 5/02/02 -0800, you wrote:
    >> >So, yes, the engineering of cultural change IS worth billions to both the
    >> >individuals who do the engineering and to the populations that adopt his
    >> >ideas.
    >> >
    >> >Grant
    >> >
    >>Is this about the survival of the fittest or the fattest Grant. What about
    >>intergenerational equity?
    >I thought we were applying the survival of the fittest to the memes here,
    >not people we like or dislike. And what's intergeneraltional equity got to
    >do with whether a new technology makes money or not? I don't even know what
    >you mean by intergenerational equity. Are you talking about generations of
    >memes or generations of people? And what kind of equity? Equity between
    >what and what? The culture of Henry Ford's manufacturing process has
    >certainly survived for several generations of both humans and memes. That
    >of Bill Gates looks to keep going while many others drop by the wayside. So
    >I'm not sure what your question was meant to imply.

    OK Grant
    I admit that I have no respect for greed or greedy people, but what has
    making money got to do with whether fitness to survive exists or not?
    Surely you don't think that a few generations of financial 'success'
    indicates superiority or 'fitness.
    Intergenerational equity is a term on which 'The Precautionary Principle'
    is based. It refers to the idea that future generations (our kids and their
    kids ad infinitum) have as many rights to an unspoiled environment as the
    present generation does. The precautionary Principle, theoretically, guides
    development in the 'civilised' world. In brief it states that if we can't
    prove that no damage will result from an action, then we should not
    undertake that action. Needless to say, though it sounds nice, corporate
    heavyweights, like ENRON, find ways to pervert its high ideals.
    My question was to do with the relative nature of fitness. It is the same
    as my questioning of other subjective dichotomies.
    I hope that I have made myself more clear this time Grant

    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 : Thu Feb 07 2002 - 08:05:48 GMT