>I did not notice it in the 20th-22nd April messages; I now see how it
>might be interpreted from what you wrote. I did not make that
>interpretation at the time.
>I blew right past it in your message of the 24th. "Goodbye any altruistic
>gene they may have carried". I'm not sure I ever explicitly said there
>was any possibility of an altruistic GENE until the 25th; I was
>considering altruistic memes, and said so then, so if I was unclear I
>apologize.
I had considered the "gene for altruism" a necessary precursor. I'll
follow up on it next week.
>Alright, now it appears we are questioning whether the existing meme of
>altruism is "real" in the sense that the motive is genuine or "false" in
>the sense that those practicing it are deluding themselves that they are
>behaving unselfishly when they are in fact behaving in their own
>interest. I do not find this determinable.
Agreed. But we may be able to determine the most likely answer.
>>Oh, I think I see now. The current times of relative surplus (in terms
>of
>>survival) are a short-termed phenomenon? [JW]
>
>>No, I'm afraid you don't see yet and I don't have time to go over the
>>ground again.<[M]
>
>As you wish.
Sorry. That was needlessly curt of me. I genuinely don't have time at
the moment but I'll collect my thoughts and post them soon. You can
respond to them if you're inclined to.
-- Martz martz@martz.demon.co.ukFor my public key, <mailto:m.traynor@ic.ac.uk> with 'Send public key' as subject an automated reply will follow.
No more random quotes.