Keith Henson wrote:
> > I'm not sure I agree, but I like the biological parallels
> >here!
>
> Ghod knows I have been making them long enough. My first article on this
> subject was published in Analog Aug 1987.
>
...
> > Taking your last point first, I'd say that it would now be
> >more useful to have a safe religion as a "cult agonist", blocking
> >the religion receptor site, than it was in the past. For there
> >are many more cults around now than there were in ages past,
> >which increases the danger of infection.
>
> You might be right on this point, but there were a lot of dangerous cults
> about in the past. For example the children's crusades in 1212 resulted in
> a few tens of thousands dying.
So the claim would be that during the Dark Ages in Europe
(Hi, Damon!), when the Catholic church was the only religion, that
people were more susceptible to cultic memes, just as monocultured
plants are more susceptible to pests and diseases? (The reason
being that diseases which do successfully attack individuals can
more easily spread throughout an homogenous population.)
The Flagellantes seem to be a cult that was optimized to spread
through the climate of the time.
> >(Although if all one
> >needs to do is block a receptor, the blocking does not have to
> >be done by a religion. I seem to use a dogma-free amalgam of
> >several religions as a blocker. : ) )
>
> My favorite is the Church of the SubGenius--which is distantly related to
> (of all things) scientology.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_SubGenius
No, the Church of "Bob" doesn't work for me, since it
seems too obviously a joke. (Your link does not seem to give
any connection between "Bob" and "L. Ron Hubbard".)
> > You might get more mileage out of an analogy between cults
> >and diseases, rather than parasites. A cult would be like a germ
> >that was too virulent, and killed its host. A religion would be
> >like a chronic/harmless infection, which did not interfere too
> >much with the life of its host.
>
> There is a reason to use the parasite model. As I mentioned in the clip
> above, it is a common progression over evolutionary time for a parasite to
> become a mutualistic symbiote. Disease and parasites are often the same
> thing, malaria for example.
Got me, what is the difference between disease organisms
and parasites? If the individuals are sufficiently large, we
call them parasites, and if they are small enough, we don't?
...
> >Most
> >apocalyptic cults turn inward a bit before the predicted
> >apocalypse. This seriously interferes with their ability to
> >recruit more members. And so on...
>
> Correct, but *after* the date some of them get more into recruiting. The
> JWs are an example.
I think the more common behavior is pushing back the
predicted date of the apocalypse. But I guess one can only do
this so many times.
---David
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
