Re: ply to Grant

From: Steve Drew (
Date: Fri Feb 08 2002 - 19:21:21 GMT

  • Next message: Steve Drew: "(no subject)"

    Received: by id TAA00516 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 19:27:03 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: []
    From: "Steve Drew" <>
    Subject: Re: ply to Grant
    Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 19:21:21 +0000
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Feb 2002 19:21:21.0801 (UTC) FILETIME=[CAAE0790:01C1B0D5]
    Precedence: bulk

    Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 20:36:10 -0800
    From: "Grant Callaghan" <>
    Subject: Re: ply to Grant

    Again, we seem to be talking about different things.  I'm looking at
    evolutionary fitness, which is defined in terms of survival, no matter
    they achieve it.  You seem to be talking about fitness in terms of one
    product or animal being better for some purpose than another.  You may
    the Mac a superior computer for your uses, but as far as propagation and
    evolution are concerned, the IBM PC and Microsoft Windows have managed
    pervade a larger portion of the space available than their competitors.
    isn't a strike against the horse that it survived by striking a
    relationship with people.  There are more of them now than there ever
    That's success in my book.

    The concepts about manufacturing that Ford invented and were built on by
    successors and associates still pervade the automobile manufacturing
    and that applies around the world.  That's a viable measure of success
    an evolutionary point of view.  We're still making cars pretty much as
    made them, but with lots of new features added.  Whether you like Henry
    not, the culture he built was successful.  It still exists.  It exists
    in other cultures besides America.  Despite the fact that other men came
    along and made cars better than the Ford factories made, they still used
    principles of manufacturing that Ford created first.  They used the same
    distribution system and ideas about making the car affordable for the
    man.  That was a relatively new idea when Ford set up his system.  Many
    makers thought it wouldn't work.

    Anyway, I'm trying to show how a culture devloped by a person made the
    billions I've been talking about.  Other people, using his ideas or
    also made millions and billions of dollars.  The company still carries
    name and his children and grandchildren are still involved in it.  In a
    young species like we are, that's a pretty good record of survival of
    fit, if not the fittest.


    I was trying to get the point across that what constitutes success in
    evolutionary terms is not how many, but whether. I agree with your many of
    your comments but think that what constitutes success and fitness is whether
    a *thing* exists or not. Humans are still extant and therefore a success ie
    fit. Many other species are no longer around. Therefore no longer fit or
    successful. The quantity or size of an object, IMO, has no baring on its
    fittness or success, merely whether the species or idea is still around.
    Anything else is a judgement call and dependant on future conditions.

    Yes, individuals and their ideas can have enormous effects on their culture.
    I just have a tendency to look at the effects that the idea may have rather
    than the idea itself. Hope i have clarified myself a bit.



    Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:

    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 Feb 08 2002 - 19:42:01 GMT