Re: Packages, Buttons, and Content (was RE: Memes are Interactors)

Rollo Whitehead (
Wed, 13 May 1998 18:58:16 -0700 (PDT)

Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 18:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rollo Whitehead <>
Subject: Re: Packages, Buttons, and Content (was RE: Memes are Interactors)

---Aaron Lynch <> wrote:


> I believe that Richard Brodie may have been trying to
follow his own advice
> on emulating Lady Godiva when he decided to discuss sex
taboo memes in his
> book. However, it is not just the packaging that
generates immune
> reactions, but indeed the severely scientifically flawed
> Consider, for instance, his idea that sex taboos spread
as a mechanism for
> a person's genes to thwart reproduction of other
people's genes. This
> requires first of all an exception to the principle of
kin selection,
> because such taboos are often spread within families--or
indeed to people
> who would happen to carry the same genes. The hypothesis
also runs contrary
> to data about large family sizes in sexually repressive
sects such as
> traditional Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Protestant
> Hassidic Jews, etc. Finally, the hypothesis does not
take into account the
> fact that sex acts with the least potential for
reproduction are often the
> most severely taboo.

Why only consider the "Taboo" sexual practices? A much
stronger way to thwart the passing on of others genes can
be found in practices that are more "advanced" (i.e.,
exclusive to those who go through rigorous discipline)!

For example, there is the very common idea among both
Tantric & Taoist internal arts practicioners that spilling
the semen causes a loss of energy in the person. This loss
of energy can be debilitating and is causes undesirable
consequences. Hence, many Tantric masters learn to hold
back their emissions. This goal of achieving the lofty
"state" of being a 'master' is much more successful at
stopping the spread of others' genes because its
participants will only be those who are most willing to
NOT spread their seed. With taboos, just about anyone can
violate them or keep them. Even if they WERE acts which
could pass on the genes, it's still much more random and
unmeasurable...therefore, unreliable. But focused
internal disciplines, voluntarily applied, are probably
much more "successful" at thwarting the spread of others
genes because the amount of energy put into learning this
will be equal to the amount of "faith" in its validity,
and hence its desirability. You would be less likely to
try it if you weren't sure you wanted it.

Now, this may stop the genetic spread of a very small
group of people, but it is more dependable. Taboos can
reach more people, but (as was said above) they are not
usually aimed at procreative acts...but if they were, they
would still be unreliable.

Get your free address at

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)