Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id AAA16345 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Wed, 13 Feb 2002 00:03:01 GMT X-Originating-IP: [184.108.40.206] From: "Grant Callaghan" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: RE: ply to Grant Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:57:23 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <LAW2-F98Lm3OFk8nmxk0000a2d0@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Feb 2002 23:57:23.0955 (UTC) FILETIME=[04252C30:01C1B421] Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> There's a difference between viewing social change critically, which
>is an essential requirement to properly evaluate change, and viewing it
>negatively (or positively for that matter). Besides, as a lecturer in
>studies, for me to argue against social change involving technology would
>a bit rich. Indeed, as my anti-media effects stance should indicate, I'm
>particularly pro-technologies that, IMHO, are socially progressive and not
>harmful as many people have thought (and still think) about all media
>I, of couse, think the media collectively are a pretty good set of
> In many ways, I'd call myself a bit of a futurist looking forward to
>those changes, and this for me is the key, that are in the public interest.
>The facts though suggest that corporate control of key features of
>contemporary life, such as in transportation, involves the deliberate and
>continual denial of technologies (cleaner running cars for example) because
>such technologies would kill those corporations.
> In media too, the myth of the 'free marketplace of ideas' is widely
>demonstrable. Only today I've been reading bits of Richard McCord's 'The
>Chain Gang' about Gannett, the US's largest newspaper chain (over 90
>across the US, and which also owns Newsquest in the UK, which controls 300
>local papers), and how the company aggressively attempted, sometimes
>successfully, to put rival papers out of business leaving communities with
>'marketplace' of one paper.
> Of course capitalism is an ideology, and ideology is one for the
>memes in minds fraternity.
Memes are in competition with each other for survival. What makes them
survive is how useful they are to the people who use and propagate them.
They don't exist in a vacuum. They exist in the minds of people engageed in
living lives -- trying to survive in competition with each other. How
people spend their time is the key to how memes propagate and survive.
People who work and run companies are reading Sun Tze these days. He wrote
The Art of War. That is how most companies think of themselves (at least
the people who are leading them) at war with other companies in a zero-sum
game to win the whole market -- worldwide. This is what causes most of the
problems you talk about.
Governments are competing for control of the land and companies are
competing for market share. But it doesn't have to be a zero-sum game.
Culture is not zero-sum. Cyberspace knows no boundaries. There is room for
infinite growth there. Unfortunately, the land we live on is finite. If
the population keeps expanding, there is no other game in town but the
zero-sum. And right now, we're on the edge of being too many for the land
we live on to support us.
The question is who will live and who will die? Many people think the guy
with the most guns will win. Other people think it will be the people with
the best ideas. But as the population continues to grow, a lot of people
will have to die so the rest can survive. I don't see any way to save us
all. Two more doublings of the population will bring us all down. The
biosphere can barely tolerate the numbers it suffers under now.
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
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 Feb 13 2002 - 00:32:34 GMT