Re: virus: Is morality a meme? and some implications of an affir

Gifford, Nate F (giffon@SDCPOS3B.DAYTONOH.ncr.com)
Mon, 4 May 1998 10:17:30 -0400


>C.A. Cook writes:
>Nathan wrote:
>> Can morality, and the entire system of ethical behavior within a given
>>religion or culture, be considered a meme?

>Yes. The most important thing to remember when analyzing memes and
>meme-complexes is who is spreading the meme. Unfortunatly, a great
>deal of meme are transmitted just because they transmit. These memes
>might not have any basis in fact, but they spread well, and so survive.

With respect, Nathan is asking if the entire canon of ethics is a meme ...
you answer yes, but
point out that canon is really a COLLECTION of memes. I think this point
has bearing on Nathan's next <naively offensive in my mind> statement:

>>As AIDS becomes more common, it occurs to me that morality
>>may become more traditional and restrictive due to the
>>counterselection of memes.

Rather than make a blanket statement such as this why not try to directly
identify and track memetic effects:
1) Examine statistics for teen sex, premarital sex, divorce rate.
2) Identify and classify how sex is portrayed in the media...which is
where memes are propagated after all. Compare and contrast Seinfeld with
Love American Style for instance. It seems to me that sex is actually more
casual on Seinfeld then what was portrayed on TV in the swinging seventies.

>I certainly hope not! Actually, I'm not too worried about it. I don't
>think that we will ever go back to that horrid set of so called 'morals'
that
>were propogated by the various offshoots of Christianity.

I would suggest that "the Christian morality" that Mr. Cook objects to is
the particularly odious, simple minded, and intolerant morality propagated
by the American Heartland and the media machine that feeds it. A quick scan
of the literature will show that pre-marital, extra-marital, and homosexual
sex was not invented in 1965 ...

Nathan then writes:
>>Homosexuality (and the subtle influences which promote it, both genetic
>>and due to environmentally transmitted memes i.e. contact with
>>homosexuals) would now be selecte4d against for multiple reasons.

May I suggest that Nathan read "The Naked Civil Servant" the autobiography
of Quentin Crisp. Aids is a light weight selective pressure compared to
what society brought to bear in the first half of this century. I think
that Aids may actually increase tolerance .... since an overtly homosexual
individual can protect themselves from "Fag Bashing" by screaming "I Have
Aids" and spitting.

Mr Cook writes:
>I doubt this strongly. Homosexuality isn't the largest spreader of AIDS.
>Promiscuity and needle swapping are. These two behaviors will probably
>be selected against. Although, it seems that the promiscuity drive might
be
>able to overcome the survival drive. There are definite cases of the smack
>drive overcoming the survival drive.

I believe Mr. Cook is comparing Apples and Oranges here. From the Needle
Swapping point of view: Its not clear to me that Aids kills any quicker
than the addict lifestyle ... let me refer you to a book called "The
Corner" for a description of the pressures that cause heroin addiction
despite the 80's war on drugs.
I would contend that promiscuity does not immediately follow from
homosexuality ... any more than it follows from heterosexuality. If you
were going to get fired from your job, ostracized, and perhaps incarcerated
for having heterosexual sex do you think you'd be able to establish a loving
monogamous relationship?

The advantages of evaluating culture in terms of natural selection
<memetics> is that

1) The standard for morality becomes measurable.
2) Morality is acknowledged to be relative while behavior is
acknowledged to be objective. <Know what I mean ... Wink Wink Nudge Nudge,
Say no more.>.

Note that both of these advantages are currently denied by America's moral
majority.