Group Selection is bunk because.... ?
I read The Selfish Gene, but I still cannot complete the sentence "Groups selection is bunk because..." I do need to re-read the book, as my ability to absorb information from books is still not up to scratch. Right now though, I can say that I read Dawkins arguments and I believe I take his points, but I still don't see how group selection is not a valid means of evolutionary culling.Still, as I see it, genetic groups go extinct regularly, and memetic groups do indeed compromise their potential for perpetuation by drinking the kool aid.
Similarly - and this is something that has bothered me for some time - memetic mutations such as a certitude that 'we' have an obligation to convert or eliminate all who are 'other' do arise, and tend to eliminate milder memes.
I notice that throughout the history of humankind, resource strapped populations have two options; learn to exist within the existing resource limits or expand territory to obtain more resources. To my knowledge, populations which find a sustainable balance are inevitably overwhelmed by an expansionist culture. I can see no way for humankind to break out of this cycle - peoples who would expand their territory do so by subsuming those who move toward sustainability. Yes, some of the genes and the memes for striving for balance and sustainability will persist, but with each iteration, be more scarce. I fear that the closer we get to the end game, the more violent and bloody minded the victors will have to be, therefore the less well adapted the victors/survivors are likely to be for reaching a sustainable equilibrium amidst what remains of the world. Am I wrong?
I have a vivid image of waves in my uneasy mind. Waves descend filled with power and foaming chaos, but are quickly subdued by the sand. As they lose their impetus and soak into the sand, finally edging back toward equilibrium, another wave rushes over the top and it as though the previous wave never was.
I wonder if what I see as waves are simply analogue of Dawkins' game theory experiments oscillations? I don't expect the stillness of a mill pond, but if boring, ordinary oscillations are heralded by genocide... it feels very dire and doomed.
Similarly - and this is something that has bothered me for some time - memetic mutations such as a certitude that 'we' have an obligation to convert or eliminate all who are 'other' do arise, and tend to eliminate milder memes.
I notice that throughout the history of humankind, resource strapped populations have two options; learn to exist within the existing resource limits or expand territory to obtain more resources. To my knowledge, populations which find a sustainable balance are inevitably overwhelmed by an expansionist culture. I can see no way for humankind to break out of this cycle - peoples who would expand their territory do so by subsuming those who move toward sustainability. Yes, some of the genes and the memes for striving for balance and sustainability will persist, but with each iteration, be more scarce. I fear that the closer we get to the end game, the more violent and bloody minded the victors will have to be, therefore the less well adapted the victors/survivors are likely to be for reaching a sustainable equilibrium amidst what remains of the world. Am I wrong?
I have a vivid image of waves in my uneasy mind. Waves descend filled with power and foaming chaos, but are quickly subdued by the sand. As they lose their impetus and soak into the sand, finally edging back toward equilibrium, another wave rushes over the top and it as though the previous wave never was.
I wonder if what I see as waves are simply analogue of Dawkins' game theory experiments oscillations? I don't expect the stillness of a mill pond, but if boring, ordinary oscillations are heralded by genocide... it feels very dire and doomed.
posted by Jac | 11:29 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home