I
wrote this essay for my Expository writing class in my
senior year of high school, and I have shown the idea to various
personalities with varying opinions and insights.
This paper advocates a new way of looking at artifacts incorporating
the
ideas of memetics. After reading this essay,
the reader should, as is the intent, find a new way of looking at the
world by
replacing the assumption of human's creative design with a more
evolutionary viewpoint in which artifacts are produced by the same
evolutionary algorithm as biological machines. |
|
| “Personally
you did not create even the
smallest microscopic fragment of the materials out of which your
opinion is made; and personally you cannot claim even the slender merit
of putting the borrowed materials together. That was done
automatically--by your mental machinery, in strict accordance with the
law of that machinery's construction. And you not only did not make
that machinery yourself,
but you have not even any command over it.” --Mark Twain |
|
Order, though relative, is something we find and quite often expect in
everyday life. On my shelf is a simple example of order; about a dozen
books are lined up from left to right in order of size. The
reason for the order of the books is not overly interesting. The
arrangement happened to be aesthetically pleasing to me at the time I
was ordering the shelf. I noticed that a few other bookshelves around
my room were
arranged in a similar fashion, and more disheveled bookshelves were
often
corrected to display a nice downward slope from left to right.
Bookshelves
with books arranged from left to right in order of size have a good
chance
of surviving in my room. This logic can be advanced further onto the
books
themselves, for the only fiction books that can usually be found on my
shelves are those by the authors Carl Sagan or Douglas Adams. Usually
any
other type of fiction will be moved to a different room. This example
is only a simple example of order in my room. There are the items
themselves;
some of these items I even had a part in constructing. Some may say
this
result was the product of my own creative mind, but I would like to
explore
a different possibility.
In the late nineteenth century, a revolution in biology
came about. Naturalist Charles Darwin brought forth an incredibly
powerful idea. The idea, in the most basic form, is a mathematical
algorithm stating that “non-random reproduction, where there is
hereditary
variation, has consequences that are far-reaching if there is time for
. . . [the variations] to be cumulative” ( Dawkins, Watchmaker xv). The
algorithm was derived by biologists after Darwin had observed
evidence for evolution in biological organisms around him and concluded
that “from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most
wonderful
have been and are being evolved” (223). Darwin’s idea has become the
backbone of modern biology explaining the complexity of biological
organisms around us, but what about things such as artifacts? The
obvious answer is that material items are man made; they are created by
an intelligent being and thus require no other explanation, but I
believe there is a better underlying answer.
In 1976 Richard Dawkins, in an attempt to show the power behind the
Darwinian algorithm, suggested another type of replicator to aid in his
readers’ understanding of the subject. This new type of
replicator was grasped by a small collection of scientists,
philosophers, and anthropologists, and the idea of the meme was
extended to cover aspects ranging from culture to consciousness, but
the idea must not stop there. Often in Dawkins’ writings, Dawkins
describes organisms as “survival machines” for their replicators,
genes, and I will use this term
in a similar way to explain artifacts in the science of memetics, the
study of memes. Memetics may be viewed with artifacts recognized as
“survival machines” for memes; despite suggestions against such an
idea, artifacts are best viewed as phenotypes of memes based on several
examples found
in our environment.
Although the idea of the meme was proposed in 1976, in my personal
experiences, the science is not well known among the populace, and
therefore I think there is a good reason to review some background
information on the meme. Those who are familiar with the concepts of
memetics may still profit from a quick overview. The replicators we are
dealing with in memetics “are, roughly, ideas: Not the
‘simple ideas’ of Locke and Hume . . . but the sort of complex ideas
that
form themselves into distinct memorable units” ( Dennet, Consciousness
201). A simpler definition of the meme would be a “Unit of cultural
inheritance” as defined in the glossary of Dawkins’ The Extended
Phenotype (297). Having started, roughly, less than twenty five years
before the turn of the
century, memetics is “a new and primitive science” (“A New Key” 7). In
fact, the biggest explosion of memetics just started around the turn
of the century. The word meme came along because Dawkins started with
the word “mimeme,” so the word would have a Greek root, but Dawkins
also
decided that he wanted “a monosyllable that sounds a bit like ‘gene’”
(Dawkins, Selfish 192). Thus the “meme” meme was born.
The concept of memes was quickly recognized by scholars
such as Daniel Dennet, and the idea became clear that memes could
“replicate at rates that make even fruit flies and yeast cells look
glacial in
comparison” ( Dennet, Consciousness 205). A good analogy
for a meme’s speed and ability to replicate would be a popular
children’s
game called “telephone.” In this game, children sit in a circle, and
the
first messenger passes a phrase to the person next to them who then
relays
the same message to the person next to them. The process continues
until
the phrase has reached the starting point again. By this time the
phrase is often greatly distorted. In this example, we see the quick
spread and
mutation of the phrase. Jokes are also examples of the results of
memes.
As most of us know, a good joke is hard not to pass along to the next
person
we see, but often times the joke we hear may be repeated differently or
to
a different audience. In these cases, we may get different reactions
when
the humor is presented; these reactions are determined by the meme’s
properties
that ultimately can determine whether the joke is reused or forgotten.
There are many important properties of memes that should be examined.
Originally Dawkins described memes as “Fashions in dress, diet,
ceremonies and customs, art and architecture, engineering and
technology” ( Dawkins, Selfish 190). Though this statement seems to fit
at first, the idea creates a misunderstanding. Dawkins has mistaken the
replicator, the meme, for the resulting phenotype. All the things
described that we observe are merely phenotypic effects of the
underlying replicator. The items mentioned that we see are not
replicating entities; a work of art cannot directly produce another
work of art, and this concept is important to understand in recognizing
artifacts as “survival machines.” Professor Dawkins corrects this idea
later by stating that “the phenotypic effects of a meme may be in the
form of words, music, visual images, styles of clothes, facial or hand
gestures” (Dawkins, Extended 109). With this correction, we can examine
an important property of evolution that applies to memetics. In
biology,
and evolution in general, “all life evolves by the differential
survival
of replicating entities” (Dawkins, Selfish 192). This powerful idea is
the framework for biology. The Darwinian algorithm states, roughly,
that if there exists a set of replicating entities that produce some
slight
variation in replication and those variations are selected upon, the
variations that are best able to survive and reproduce in the given
environment
will become the most plentiful. In practice, the Darwinian algorithm is
a mathematical principle that, when set in motion, “must produce an
outcome”
(Dennet, Dangerous 120). The replicators of memes operate as any other
replicator
and are selected based on their survivability, whatever that may be. In
this way of operating, memes truly “have a life of their own” (Dawkins,
“Selfish Meme” 52). This “life” for memes, a brutal battle for survival
not unlike their genetic parallels, takes place primarily in the human
mind. The fact that memes compete in the human mind does not mean that
memes replicate for our benefit, and we must be aware that “there is no
necessary connection between a meme’s replicative power, . . . [the
meme’s]
“fitness” from . . . [the meme’s] point of view, and . . . [the meme’s]
contribution to our fitness (by whatever standard we judge that)”
(Dennet, Dangerous 363 and Consciousness 203). As stated in the
Darwinian algorithm, replicators that have the power to survive and
reproduce will become numerous in their environment. For memes, this
algorithm can produce a variety of
effects that may be considered negative. Memes that result in email
viruses
or chain letters can spread like wildfire through host computers. Memes
for certain political ideologies may spread by utilizing propaganda and
thus spread through a wide range of a population. A parallel to genetic
biology may be seen here when a virus infects an organism, or a gene
that
alters the behavior of an organism is successful at spreading through a
population.
A conflict among those who study memetics exists concerning where
exactly the memes themselves reside. This conflict is important because
the environment that houses memes will determine what sort of artifacts
are expected to survive based on where the replicator
will be selected upon. There are several environments for memes to
replicate in; memes “can propagate themselves from brain to brain, from
brain to book, from book to brain, from brain to computer, [and] from
computer
to computer” ( Dawkins, Watchmaker 158) . Evidence also exists
that memetic transmission is exhibited in British tits; these are birds
that “learned to poke open the foil cap on milk bottles, [sic] and to
drink
the cream, and this behaviour spread throughout Britain and into
continental
Europe” (Laland and Odling-Smee 130). This behavior may be considered
the
results of memetics because the crafty way of obtaining a drink was
learned
by imitating other tits; imitation is a remarkably rare skill in the
animal
kingdom, but the talent “comes naturally to us humans” (Blackmore 3).
Blackmore
goes so far as to say that “what makes us different [from other life
forms]
is our ability to imitate” (Blackmore 3). Imitation is clear cut in the
example
of the British tits, and the obvious conclusion is that memes travel,
in
this case, from brain to brain, but in the case of artifacts, the idea
gets
more complex. The common example for the transfer of memes is the wagon
that “sheds wagon-memes like manna in all directions, just waiting to
be
picked up by passers-by, because the idea of a wagon is embodied in its
outline” (Aunger 281-282). Aunger has a good point, but what if the
idea
is turned around? A wagon, when viewed, is sending light that strikes
an
observer’s eye. To a horsefly, this light would mean little, but to a
human
the idea of a wagon leaps out. What is important is not the information
the
wagon sheds, but how that information is received. The perception of
the
human brain is what enables one wagon to spark the creation of another
wagon.
This idea brings me to one of the most important concepts for looking
at
artifacts as survival machines.
With biological organisms, we are accustomed to the underlying
replicators, the genes, being selected in their environment of earth.
Though the environments within the planet may be quite different,
genetic replicators have survived or failed in their history based
on their ability to survive throughout earth. Memes, on the other hand,
have not been endowed with such a large space to replicate. The success
or failure of a meme is almost entirely based on the meme's ability to
survive and replicate inside of human minds. There is good evidence for
memes replicating almost entirely in the mind in the simple fact that
the artifacts around us all seem to pertain to human activity in some
way. Memes that code for artifacts with relevance to humans have a much
better shot at survival, for the brain is the “haven all memes depend
on reaching” ( Dennet, Dangerous 365). Of course, if these memes
are truly replicators producing “survival machines” as artifacts, we
should
see some sort of evolution in different types of artifacts produced,
and
there is some definite evidence that artifacts evolve in similar ways
that
species of genetic organisms do.
If artifacts are all the result of the Darwinian algorithm, any
artifact selected should work as an example, and, if my idea
holds weight, every artifact should have an evolutionary lineage that
can be traced back through time. Aunger stresses a similar point in
stating that “evolutionary theory should have to account for the
existence
of things like computers . . . [because] computers and other artifacts
show evidence of complex design and inherited features” ( 276).
Aunger uses the example of a computer in his argument, but I would like
to start off with something much simpler such as a common dining fork.
The fork, being rather simple, is an ideal example to show the basic
evolution of an artifact. The common utensil that is used daily by
billions of people evolved from “a two-pronged spear to something on
which it was easier to ferry peas from plate to lip” ( Forbes 8) .
Actually the evolution of the fork can be traced back even earlier.
Originally dining was done with a single lone knife. This haphazard and
often inefficient process leaves definite room for more successful
memes to be selected. In Henry Petroski’s book, The Evolution of Useful
Things, Henry Petroski describes the evolutionary lineage of the fork
beautifully but makes no mention of memetics. Obviously, in the case of
the lone knife, a more successful strategy arose, and “refined people
came to
employ their knives in some customary ways” by using an additional
knife
to eat (Petroski 5). Even this strategy had difficulties such as “in
holding meat for cutting”; this shortcoming finally “led to the
development of the fork” (Petroski 7-8) . The important point to stress
here is that the fork was not made completely from scratch; the fork
evolved out of
earlier ideas and materials. Memes for forks with “two prongs or tines”
were not entirely original; these memes were simply mutated knife memes
(Petroski 8) . The mutated memes created the phenotype of a two-pronged
fork for dining that survived for quite some time. The newly evolved
utensil easily held onto food with the extra tine. This notion does not
mean that the concept of the two tined fork arose only once. The idea
likely sprouted in several places independently; the point is that the
idea of the two
tined fork needed to have been built off something. The fork, however,
still had more room for improvement. Diners often had problems when
“loose
pieces of food fell through the space between the tines” (Petroski 11).
The problem was solved when a third tine was developed for the common
dining
fork. The third tine was, and perhaps still is, effective for the
fork's
environment, but memes for four tines thereafter began to spread as
well
and soon beat out their three tine precursors. Apparently “four tines
were
even better” at filling their ecological niche (Petroski 11). In modern
times, the standard dining fork has four tines.
This path finally brings us to the four tined fork that we use every
day. This version of the fork appears to be the
most fit for the fork’s environment, for any more tines are not
necessary and would likely make the fork too large. Thus having four
tines is the best evolutionary stable strategy for a fork. First
proposed by John
Maynard Smith, an evolutionary stable strategy, or ESS, “is a strategy,
or phenotype, that is stable in the sense that, if most members of a
population adopt that strategy or have that phenotype, no alternative
mutant strategy can invade the population” (198). Smith's idea of the
Evolutionary Stable Strategy works for artifacts as well as organisms,
and the concept is important to understand for memetics as well.
Another good example to use for the evolution of artifacts is the
common paper clip. A paper clip is also fairly simple, but the artifact
is especially interesting because, unlike the fork, the paper clip has
been used for a variety of other functions. Examples of these functions
include “toothpicks; fingernails and ear cleaners; makeshift fasteners
for nylons, bras and blouses; tie clasps; chips in card games; markers
in children's games; decorative chains; and weapons” (Petroski 51). The
paper clip is a curious example of how artifacts can survive by filling
a variety of ecological niches in their environment. The wide uses of
the paper clip, in this case, even strikes question
to the artifact’s survival ability in being used for only the
“intended”
function. Perhaps the result of having such a widespread list of
functions
is why “few artifacts have been more formed, de-formed, and re-formed
than
the common paper clip” (Petroski 51). A wide range of ecological niches
made the paper clip able to take on so many forms, for no matter how
the
paper clip is bent, the artifact still can carry out several functions
for
survival with a some quick manipulation. Still, even with a great
wealth
of examples found in Petroski’s book, the paper clip has seemed to
settle
down into an evolutionary stable strategy of what is common today.
So far, the examples for the “survival machines” of memetics have been
very basic; a more complicated examination of artifact evolution can be
found in the field of architecture, and an interesting breakdown of
architectural styles exists in the Journal of Memetics online. Nikos
Salingaros and Terry Mikiten explain that every design in architecture
“competes in the mind of the designer with other conceived
possibilities, and the fittest ones . . . survive to the next
generation” ( online). Examples of architectural memes may be found
throughout most any town. As of late, the “modernist style of
architecture . . . has been the overriding building style from the
1920s until now” (Salingaros & Mikiton online). Though the memes
that ultimately designed these structures were in the minds of the
architects, “the same principles of competition and selection might be
said to apply to the general public in accepting
architecture” (Salingaros & Mikiten online). Memes in the minds of
the
general population can support or inhibit the survival of memes for the
building
of certain architectural styles. Often we may find that the “spread of
architectural styles depends strictly on factors governing meme
propagation in a society” (Salingaros & Mikiten online). Because of
the change in architecture and the principles of the Darwinian
algorithm, Salingaros and Mikiten
concluded that the “process of design in architecture parallels
analogous
generative process in biology and the natural sciences” (online).
Indeed
we can see a definite evolutionary process in the history of
architecture. Buildings are continually subject to change especially as
other technology improves. Memes for luxuries such as central heating
or indoor plumbing
are just some minor innovations that may change buildings as a whole.
In
this way, buildings may take on different forms or be built with
different
materials.
Certain buildings, such as banks or fire stations, perform specific
roles in their environment, so different buildings may fill their own
ecological niches. Military structures have an especially interesting
evolution in that they have been made “throughout the ages to construct
deliberately uncomfortable environments” ( Salingaros and Mikiten
online). Through the many examples in architecture, we can see
an amazing variety of different structures made by competing memes, but
I believe the most powerful example will come from an artifact that has
been an example for the origins of order for over two hundred years.
The watch has been used frequently in the past to explain the mysteries
of biology, so I feel there is poetic justice in ending with the watch
as a final example of memetic evolution. In a book “published in 1802”,
the watch was used by theologian William Paley in attempt
to explain biological origins by intelligent design ( Dawkins,
Watchmaker 4). William Paley was clear that he “had a point to make, he
passionately believed in it, and he spared no effort to ram . . . [the
point] home clearly” (Dawkins, Watchmaker 4). Although the argument
Paley
proposed was powerful, a better explanation of biological origins was
yet
to come. This explanation “had to wait for one of the most
revolutionary
thinkers of all time, Charles Darwin” (Dawkins, Watchmaker 4). The
example
of the watch was used again later by Richard Dawkins in a case for the
Darwinian algorithm. Dawkins mentioned some differences in biological
machines and mechanical machines and said that a “true watchmaker has
foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their
interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind’s eye” (Dawkins,
Watchmaker 5). Like
William Paley, Dawkins makes a passionate argument for his case, and I
share the feelings of both men in a quest to understand the natural
world,
but I feel the analogy of the watch can show that the artifact is much
closer to a biological organism than what has previously been
assumed.What is important to note with Dawkins’ example is that the
watchmaker does
not start from scratch; the watchmaker already has the instructions for
making a watch that have been passed down for generations much like
genes
for biological organisms. The person constructing the watch must have
these
ideas passed into the brain before anything like a watch is possible to
create. Imagine if the watchmaker had “never considered the passage of
time
– perhaps the earth does not rotate – and timepieces have not been
invented”
(Silby online). If the watchmaker had not received any of the necessary
information for the construction of the watch, the watchmaker would
likely
have similar odds to those of a monkey sitting down and randomly typing
Hamlet. The person constructing a watch must have watch-making memes in
their mind. Thus we may conclude that the watch’s creator is nothing
but a medium that watchmaking memes use to build a watch. That is not
to say, of course, that memes have any purpose or foresight, but the
natural selection
of ideas has produced memes that result in the making of watches. The
true credit for the existence of the wristwatch goes back to the
Darwinian
process. This process through “years of memetic transfer resulted in
the memes that comprise the modern wristwatch” (Silby online). When the
synthesizer of the watch was putting the pieces together, his “mind was
buzzing with memes relating to previous versions of time pieces” (Silby
online). The watchmaker certainly did not start with a blank slate.
All of these examples can serve as a reason for looking
at memetics from an ecological perspective. Through this perspective we
can see that “artifacts are not the result of creative thought –
rather, the creative process can more accurately be described as the
execution of an evolutionary algorithm” ( Silby online). In this way,
we can explain the ordered world in terms of dynamics between two sets
of replicators; both of these replicators, memes and genes,
can produce different sorts of “survival machines.” Objects in houses,
books in libraries, cities, towns, and parks are all environments for
memetic life. In a diversity of places such as these, we can see “an
ecology
of memes, a tropical rainforest of memes, a termite mound of memes,”
and
many other types of ecosystems for memetics (Dawkins, Unweaving 307).
From the pencils we write with to the machinery that makes up our
computers, the details are all guided by replicating ideas that have
somehow survived. In this way, the assumption of “creative design can
be replaced with
an evolutionary picture” (Silby online). I believe this deduction is
an important concept to understand in biology and philosophy. Biology
has already explained how humans came to exist, and now, if I am
correct,
memetics can explain why technology and artifacts exist.
Some people may have arguments against the view that artifacts, like
organisms, are the phenotypic results of replicators. There are some
ideas given by others that suggest the idea of a type of coevolution
between memes and artifacts. Professor Aunger describes this idea in
part of his book, The Electric Meme, stating that because “both memes
and artifacts obviously evolve, and also interact, it is fair to say
that memes coevolve with artifacts” ( 297). Aunger makes some
great progress in memetic theory in his book, but here I believe he is
mistaken. Memes are replicators, like genes, so they do not evolve;
only
the phenotypic results of replicators can evolve. The nature of a
replicator is to replicate occasionally producing some errors or
variances in replication. When a mutation arises in any set of
replicators, the mutated version can either be better at survival and
replication than the mutated replicator’s predecessor, or the mutated
replicator will be worse at survival and replication than the mutated
replicator’s predecessor; the latter will not last long. For the sake
of argument, the mutated version could be exactly as good
as surviving as the mutated versions predecessor, but this occurrence
is fairly rare. Over time, a gradual change may be seen in phenotypes
of
replicators based on the mutations of the underlying replicators. This
is how artifacts evolve.
Amongst critics, there are also those who may point out difficulties in
the direct study of meme/artifact relations. More specifically, the
point has arisen that “we cannot identify the unit of the meme”
(Blackmore 53). Although this may be true for now, there was also a
time when
the gene was unknown as the exact unit for replication in biological
organisms. We do know that ideas can replicate; the process can be
observed
every day as news and ideas spread from person to person. The exact
process
may be a bit unclear, so we must be cautious in what to expect, for “we
must not fall into the trap of thinking that memes can only work if
they
are like genes in other ways” (Blackmore 16). Indeed parallels will be
seen, but there may be different effects due to different properties
of each replicator. What is more important is that both replicators
must undergo the mathematical algorithm of Darwinism. The final
category
of critics that I will address are those who object to the idea of
memetic
ecology based on personal morality. Indeed the idea that one’s
creativity
and ingenuity may be the result of a mathematical algorithm can be
quite
humbling, but this is an argument of emotion and not an argument based
on logic or evidence. Accepting the idea of artifacts as the results of
memes may even have the potential to aid in ethical and philosophical
understanding.
Any scientific hypothesis should be able to make basic predictions
based on the concepts of the idea. Although the logic and mathematics
of the hypothesis of memetic ecology should speak for itself, there are
some definite conclusions we can make about artifacts based on this
idea. Because artifacts obey the same principles as their biological
counterparts, we should always see the evolutionary lines of artifacts
as gradual. In other words, an artifact must have had something to
build off of as far as things such as material, structure, and general
function. No artifacts should spring up without ideas (memes) to direct
their construction, and these ideas must have been selected by some
process. Another prediction is that all artifacts should continue to
evolve based on their selective environment that is primarily, at this
time at least, the human brain. Artifacts will survive because memes
for the construction of those artifacts survive well. If artifacts
became abundant that correspond to memes that can be proven to be poor
at survival in their environment, the idea of artifacts
as survival machines for memes does not hold weight.
The concept of artifacts as the results of a Darwinian process is a
powerful one because, much like genetic evolution, memetic evolution
resulting in artifacts may change the way we look at the world around
us. Artifacts are “survival machines” for memes, and there are a world
of examples that show this concept. From garbage dumps, to space
stations, to museums filled with works of art, these amazing products
of a relatively short evolutionary history can be observed. Now we can
see even more of the power behind the Darwinian algorithm, and we can
finally unite organisms and artifacts under the common roof of biology
with the ecology of memetics.
Works Cited
Aunger, Robert. The Electric Meme: A New Theory of How We
Think. New York, NY: The Free Press, 2002.
Blackmore, Susan. The Meme Machine. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1999.
Darwin, Charles. The Illustrated Origin of Species. Comp.
Richard E. Leakey. New York: Hill and Wang, 1979.
Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1989.
Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker. 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton
& Company Inc., 1996.
Dawkins, Richard. Unweaving the Rainbow. New York: First Mariner Books,
1998.
Dawkins, Richard. The Extended Phenotype. 2nd ed. Oxford:
Oxford UP, 1999.
Dawkins, Richard. "The Selfish Meme." Time 19 Apr. 1999: 52-53.
Dennet, Daniel C. Consciousness Explained. New York: Simon &
Schuster, 1995.
Dennet, Daniel C. Darwin's Dangerous Idea. New York: Simon
& Schuster, 1995.
Forbes, Leslie. "Arts: The Past is Another Pantry Food is
One of the Most Culturally Significant Aspects of Human Life. A
New Exhibition of the
British at the Table Over Four Centuries Reveals the Surprisingly Rich
Variety of our Consuming Passions." The
Independent 8 July 2000, Foreign ed.: 8.
Laland, Kevin, and John Odling-Smee. "Darwinizing Culture: The Status
of Memetics as a Science." The Evolution of the Meme. Ed. Robert
Aunger. Oxford:
Oxford UP, 2000.
Mikiten, Terry, and Nikos Salingaros. "Darwinian Processes and Memes in
Architecture: A Memetic Theory of Modernism." Journal of Memetics
(2002). 21 Nov. 02 .
"A New Key to Behavior." The Los Angeles Times 20 Feb. 1999.
Petroski, Henry. The Evolution of Useful Things. New York: Vintage
Books, 1992.
Silby, Brent. Evolution of Technology. 2000. Department of Philosophy,
University of Canterbury. 12 Nov. 2002 <http://www.geocities.com/persistentmemes/evolution_of_technology.html>
.
Smith, John M. "The Games Lizards Play." Nature 21 Mar. 1996: 198.
Works Consulted
Aunger, Robert. "Culture Vultures." Sciences Sept. 1999: 36-42.
Best, Micheal L. "Models for Interacting Populations of Memes:
Competition and Niche Behavior." Journal of Memetics (1997). 20 Sept.
2002 .
Bradie, Michael, and Susan Blackmore. "Do Memes Make Sense?" Free
Inquiry 2000: 42-44.
Design and Business Classic: The Paper Clip. 21 June 2000. Corporate
Design Foundation. 14 Nov. 2002 .
Gardner, Martin. “Kilroy Was Here; The Meme Machine By Susan J.
Blackmore; Oxford University Press: 264
pp., $25." Los Angeles Times 5 Mar. 2000: : N. pag.
Lienhard, John H. No. 769: The Paper Clip. University of Huston. 11
Nov. 2002 .
Marks, Jonathan. "Darwinizing Culture: The Status of Memetics as a
Science." American Anthropologist Mar. 2002: 341-342.
Nettle, Daniel. "The Elusive Science of the Meme." Current Anthropology
Apr. 2002: 344-346.
Rothstein, Edward. "The Mysterious Meme, A Seductive Metaphor." The New
York Times 3 Aug. 2002: : 9.
Schmidt, Stanely. "Applied Memetics." Analog Science Fiction & Fact
Feb. 2000: 4-8.
Williams, Ann. "A Brief History of Time." Asian Business Dec. 1998:
62-69. |
|