Elitism and Nazism

Well, in fact, they were not. There is more than enough evidence in Bible as well as Koran to prove that EVERY MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION IS BY DEFINITION AGRESSIVE, INTOLERANT AND HOSTILE TOWARDS OTHER BELIEFS. Utmost elitism is also an important part of every monotheistic religion. The only reason why we do not have crusaders and inquisition nowadays is that Christian churches lost their power. Give them back the absolute power and medieval Dark Age is back as well.
Spaniards, puritans, Americans as well as South-African white supremacists used passages from Bible to justify mass murders of indigenous people of America and Africa.
Quakers were one of the rare examples of really non-violent and pacifistic church.But there is one very interesting aspect about this discussion. The human society is really strange phenomena. Natural selection does not work here in its original or pure form any more. "The strongest (by physical power, momentary political power, money, intellect etc.)" does not necessarily have to be the "fittest" - i.e. the one who survives. In most occasions the "fittest" is the one who goes with majority.
There is also some kind of paradox - people tend to be highly individualistic in their natural behavior, but they are forced to make compromises because they cannot live without some kind of community. So there are always conflicts of interests on both sides - to what extent can society suppress individual rights for common welfare? To want extent is individual willing to give up his/her rights in exchange of protection and other advantages of community live? This paradox also influences the "evolution" of our society.
Another paradox is that of "democracy" versus "meritocracy". Meritocracy leads to rule of few over majority and consequently to severe suppression of basic human rights. Democracy in its present form leads to "regression towards average", which result in focus on material wealth, consumerism, overproduction and large scale destruction of environment. It also enables some people to get enormously rich, gain a political power through their wealth and consequently to influence politics towards their own interests (so it leads to some kind of stealth meritocracy).------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.

Well, I think that historically monotheists killed much more people than polytheists, but it is only my estimate. I do not have any data to support it, so I will not argue about it. But in my post I was after something else:Monotheistic religion just needs to be intolerant and hostile to remain monotheistic. Just imagine YHWH saying instead of: "I am the God who loves jealously" something like: "Well, I am the only God, but if you feel comfortable worshipping other gods as well, OK. I have no problem with it. They do not exist anyway, so what's the point?" Aggressiveness is secondary, but it is logical result. If you are intolerant and hostile, you feel threatened. And the best defense tactic is assault... My apology for oversimplification. I was not talking about physical survival of one individual, of course. Your example is also oversimplified, because it is only about survival in one generation. You can have as much as children you can, but they must survive and beget children as well. And than their children and their children...
So the best definition is that the fittest is the one whose genes will survive. Because selfish genes are what matters, not man - am I right?
But if we went so far, it seems appropriate to say that in human society survival of genes is not always primal. Sometimes it seems that survival of one's memes is more important in the life of individual. Let's take a variation of you example - who is genetically more successful - housewife or female top-manager? Housewife, of course. So what is the point of feminism? It is quite "anti-darwinistic". But top-manager has much greater chance to spread her memes than housewife. And it is quite understandable that for women especially memes are sometimes more important than genes. How many children can average woman have? Not too much. But she can spread her memes to millions of people if successful enough (take Madonna - the singer, not Jesus’ mother - as an example).
And by this meme principle we can explain also the aggressiveness of monotheistic religion. The only objection here would be why polytheistic religions are not that aggressive? They also want to spread their memes Well, there is actually just one polytheistic religion with many cults. In other words — all polytheistic cults are memes within one huge memplex. There might be competition between cults, but there is always also a cooperation. Monotheistic memeplexes are exclusive — either one or the other.------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.

Well, I didn't say it is, did I? I just said feminism is pretty anti-darwinistic, which - in its consequences - is - or not? I do not mind about tags too much, but I think meme theory is still considered as part of neo-darwinism - or not? I do not know whether I understood you properly, but - there is no "instinct" for meme propagation, of course. Why there should be one? Memes have mechanisms of their own. And it is quite evident (IMO) that they are able to override our biological instincts.------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.

I see. We just do not understand each other properly. I used feminims only as an example of a phenomena which leads to human behavior darwinism cannot explain. So I introduced memes like possible explanation for that.
BTW: Feminism is not a political ideology. Some political ideologies are or can be part of feminism, but feminism is not sufficiently defined to be an ideology. Feminism is in fact very loose term for all kinds of differents movements which quite often contradict each other. Oh, I do not think they are just "metaphor" and yes, I am quite convinced that they can be used for formulation of scientific models. But yes, you are right - meme theory is is still to young, so as far as I know there is no "full fledged theory". But is that a problem? Are we in our thinking limited only to well established theories? Can't we create theories of our own? Those "full fledged theories" were also formulated by someone. And if they are not sufficient to explain something, we are free to come with new ones - IMO.
Of course - there are still a lot of problems with meme theory. But personally I believe that it has a "great future" ahead.------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.

Crashfrog, please - I am becoming rather unhappy with this discussion. I believe that the ultimate goal of good dialogue is to reach consenus - not to persuade the other party. Also understand that I am little bit handicaped by the fact that English is not my first language and I learned it by myself (we had Russian in school). So it is quite possible that sometimes I am not able to express myself clearly enough. So please, be patient and try to understand what I am trying to say. Of course. But I suppose idea that every creature is biologicaly pre-programmed to fight for survival and reproduction is one of the basic principles of darwinism. So if some "animal" decides not to "obey" this principle, it is at least interesting.Feminism and memetics - you are right, they should be both discussed in separate threads. Are you for it? which forum? Free for All, Miscellaneous, Coffee House? If you like the idea, feel free to start them. I'll join as soon as possible.------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.

And here we are! It was this very Dawkins and exactly this book, where he for the first time introduced the concept of memes. Simply because he was not able to explain everything he wanted by his "selfish gene" theory, so he came to conclusion that something like the second replicator is present.------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.