RE: Rumsfeld Says He May Drop New Office of Influence

From: Ned Wolpert (
Date: Tue Mar 12 2002 - 15:18:35 GMT

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Re: Cultural traits and vulnerability to memes"

    Received: by id PAA05603 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:22:15 GMT
    Subject: RE: Rumsfeld Says He May Drop New Office of Influence
    From: Ned Wolpert <>
    In-Reply-To: <>
    References: <>
    Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-aiGZVbASM0EWLWj2+vyZ"
    X-Mailer: Evolution/1.0.2 
    Date: 12 Mar 2002 08:18:35 -0700
    Message-Id: <>
    Precedence: bulk
    Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

    On Mon, 2002-03-11 at 09:24, Keith Henson wrote:
    > At 08:21 AM 10/03/02 -0700, Ned Wolpert <> wrote:
    > >I too have the same problem. On one hand, I accept that evolution
    > >exists, and accept the base principles of genetics. I can also agree
    > >that the 'meme' does exist and that thoughts/ideas are viral and merely
    > >desire replication. I have a problem when us humans (the vehicle of
    > >both genes and memes) decide we can manipulate either.
    > Hmm. Any time you look at domestic dogs you see evidence we can and have
    > manipulated genes for thousands of years.

    Its not that we _can't_ manipulate them, I have trouble with us actually
    doing that. (see below)

    > >As we look at
    > >eugenics (active or passive) the ease for a 'culture' to develop
    > >destructive traits, like the Nazis, seems too easy. And what about
    > >eugenics of the mind? (meugenics?) Does one try to kill religious
    > >thought like the Marxists of USSR?
    > Been done. There are other ways, but killing all the carriers of a meme
    > does the trick. You might note that while we have plenty of other problem
    > memes around, the Thuggee meme is not among them.

    This is my point from above. I have trouble with eugenics as a method
    of 'controlling bad memes and genes'. Too much power to cause too much
    damage. (Especially in the fact that us humans (memeplexes) would be
    deciding what other memes/genes survive.) Thanks, but no. There must
    be a better way.

    > >I think the problem is that people believe that evolution is geared to
    > >go toward a 'perfection', or if it doesn't then they try to push it
    > >toward a 'perfection'.
    > If you actually study evolution, you can make a better case that it
    > evolution is geared to producing dead end parasites. At least there are
    > more such examples.

    So then, all humans are not much better than a virus... including the
    ones making the eugenics decisions? That I can buy.

    (What says that evolution is 'geared' to do anything but help
    replication? That being true, we have always been viri....)


    Virtually, Ned Wolpert <> 4e75

    1024D/5DEA314E: 7FFB 99C3 BF90 6135 12F4 07B8 0B23 2E5C 5DEA 314E

    Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

    =============================================================== 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) see:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 12 2002 - 15:32:41 GMT