Here is what I wrote a few nights
ago on the back of one of my calculus assignments:
Is there a logical proof of genetic replicators'
obsoleteness possible? Let M=Meme and G= Gene. If M undergoes a more rapid
evolution, exhibiting higher degrees of fidelity, fecundity, and longevity,
M will overtake G. Furthermore, any outlaw meme reducing artificial vehicles
and promoting genetic vehicles will be countered due to the fact that memes
promoting the survival of genes must counter other memes that can attatch
to "gang up" on an outlaw promoting genetic replicators. When memes are
competing with genes for a similar niche, memes will win, outlaw memes to
save genes will be kicked out in the interest of faster replicators.
Instructions for making buildings will latch
on to the idea that a building must be built. If there are several buildings
vying for a niche, all share the common meme that a building should be built.
In this way, buildings are like the big X chromosome modifying any proposals
by the Y chromosome?
I'm not sure if any of this is right though. I would like to try and delve
further into the idea of a mathematical proof that memes will one day completely
overtake genes, but I am not sure if I can do that, or if it can be done.
I think some of my ideas above that I wrote earlier are wrong because it
is memetic replicators that are competing for niches such as parks and forest
preserves, so really, the slow genetic replicators should compete well if
they latch on to memetic replicators. I also don't think that my X Y chromosome
analogy works out well, or it is at least far more complicated than what
I stated, and I will need to think about the subject a lot more. At one point,
I felt way over my head with all of it, so I posted this on
Martin's forum:
Memetics have taken over a lot more than it
would, at first, appear. Because parks and forest preserves are kept green
by influence of memetics, shouldn't parks and preserves also be considereded
a sort of mixed phenotype between memes and genes? Kind of in the way that
a snail's shell is a sort of phenotypic combination of snail and fluke genetic
material? If it weren't for the memetic influence, wouldn't the lot of forests
be overrun by memetic vehicles? (not that many aren't already).
If this makes any sense, I wonder exactly how
much of earth exists with organic life purely because of genetic competition?
If there were no memes that promoted the survival of various ecosystems,
how different would the earth look?
Note that memes and genes are not in any sort
of grouped competition, but when two replicators are competing for a similar
niche, I see no reason for differentiating between the two replicators (whether
they be genes or memes). Memes promote me weeding the garden, genes promote
the growth of weeds, memes tell me to put off weeding the garden; the phenotype
of the garden is the result of all of the replicators' effects, nature doesn't
descriminate between two competing replicators just because they come in
different forms (though one form might be more successful than the other).
What's interesting to me now though is that
the more successful weed genes are, the more successful memes are that promote
weeding the garden. I wonder how many weed genes are selected based on their
ability make their vehicle look inconspicuous.
The only feedback that I received was a mention that an effective strategy
for weed genes against weeding memes is for weeds to grow back continually
after being ripped by their roots.
