On 8 Sep 2001, at 21:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >So, with the vagueness (or dynamicism, perhaps) of community a little
> >more in mind, I'd like to suggest that within any given community,
> >there is knowledge of altruistic cooperation as much as competition.
> >In fact, I think one could make a good argument that without it,
> >there would be no community, since communication with a community
> >requires agreement on media, symbols and so forth, even if we talking
> >about the cells in our bodies communicating information chemically.
You can only really talk about whole organisms for behavoir...it can
be said that uit is selfish for your body to work properly togeather
because it has a 100% genetic relatedness to itself :P So kinda
makes a nonsense of community arguments...
> That said, your statements make sense and I agree with them when you
> refer broadly to human systems and inter-relationships.... but not
> necessarily when they apply to other species or to smaller sub-systems
> within our own bodies.
right.
AT the smalest levels, you can look at our gut bacteria for a
mutralistic relationship. We get vitamen K and the protection them
simply being there (they prevent colonisation by pathogenic
bacteria), and they get protection and nutrients from what we eat in
return. Is it both good for both and selfish for both in this context.
<snip>
> orphaned young behind. They may act selfishly, but they do so without
> cognizance. Your genes certainly don't communicate with each other on
> anything approaching a cognizant level either.
> More on this later.
Right, you're talking about instinctive reactions. Human instinctive
reactions are the same, running from danger, protecting our
children, etc. Intinctive reactions are inherently selfish.
> > It seems to me that the world needs a theory of the role of
> > collaboration in the emergence of order to complement the existing
> > theories that describe the role of competition in the emergence of
> > order, lest we continue to model human systems excessively on the
> > latter.
>
> I agree with this statement when referring to human communities. A
> potential model would be a set of social rules based on basic human
> biological concepts.
I argue, that what we need is a single theory, one of memes. We
need to study how memes change and evolve. The simplest form,
of course, of a rapidly changing meme is the one we get when you
play a game of telephone...
> Also, a meme is a concept or behavior that spreads throughout a
> culture from person to person. (again, without the websters!) Since
> a meme seems to be a learned behavior, rather than a genetic one by
> definition, I think the above argument would seem to be comparing
> evolutionary (Darwinian) genetics to a concept that seems more
> Lamarckian?
Right, memes are learnt. Of course, not everyone underrstands the
same meme to mean the same thing.. *rolls eyes* (kinda complex
isn't it..)
> Can someone provide a strict definition of 'selfish gene' also? I was
> always under the impression that this was a rather vague concept that
> meant the ultimate purpose of any organism is to survive and
> propagate, and therefore perpetuate the species. What you're saying
> seems to be something else, and I want to get my facts straight!
Read Dawkin's _The Selfish Gene_. It's a great book, and it is
designed for the educated layman.
Andy
Dawn Falcon
