Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Elitism and Nazism
The General
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 125 (53628)
09-03-2003 1:49 AM


1.ELITISM
Freidrich Nietzsche, one of the founders of modern existentialism was fascinated by the moral implications of the theory of natural selection, as proposed by Darwin. From Darwin's beliefs about the survival of the fittest, Nietzsche believed that a higher species would one day come to rule the planet. Now Darwin never stated what Nietzsche did in such clear and provocative terms, it follows to that he must have believed that as we continue to evolve a more perfect race of people will emerge and possibly one day a perfect race would emerge. When Darwin wrote of the strong surviving and of their offspring becoming even stronger, he was saying that the strong would dominate. When he stated that the weak would either die or produce even weaker offspring, he was saying that the weak would eventually die out. Thus, a race of superman or superior species is sure to emerge. So just for the record Darwin and Nietzsche were in fact on the same page. Nietzsche predicted that out of the human race would emerge individuals whose strength, abilities and intellectual capacity would mark them as representatives of the new stage in evolutionary development.
Unfortunately, some of Nietzsche's followers came to view themselves as these representatives. They fancied themselves as elite individuals. Suffering from illusions of grandeur, these elitists viewed themselves as "beyond good and evil." (Those were Nietzsche's words when describing the race he believed would soon emerge).
Of course I don’t have do explain how dangerous this belief of elitism is. Nietzsche would have been horrified had he lived to seem the damage that these "elitists" would cause. However, he should have known better. If God is dead, as Nietzsche claimed, then evolution is the law of the universe. In such a universe, the most powerful survive and POWER becomes the basic human drive. Evolutionists insist on natural selection, or "survival of the fittest"(according to Herbert Spencer). Natural Selection justifies, among other things, fascist values and the belief that the higher breed are free to conquer and breed as they please. (Of coarse most believers in natural selection today would shudder with everyone else at such thoughts. But does that change the theory?)
2.NAZISM
Among those who used Nietzsche's thoughts to serve his own purpose was Adolf Hitler. Hitler institutionalized Nietzsche as a kind of official philosopher. The soldiers in Hitler's army were forced to carry copies of Nietzsche's "Thus Spake Zarathustra" in their knapsacks as they went in to battle.
Adolf Hitler was influenced by the writings of Charles Darwin. His treatment of the Jews at least in part can be attributed to his belief in evolution. To quote P.Hoffman who wrote Hitler's Personal Security, "Hitler believed in struggle as a Darwinian principle of human life that forced every person to try to dominate all others." Darwin also believed in this constant struggle for survival.
Sir Arthur Keith, a well-known evolutionist, says that Hitler was only trying to apply the principles of Darwinian evolution to his treatment of Jews. "The means Hitler adapted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood... Such conduct is highly immoral as measured by every scale of ethics, yet Germany justifies it; it is consonant with tribal or evolutionary morality. Germany has reverted back to its tribal past, and it is demonstrating to the world, in their naked ferocity, the methods of evolution."
So, from the mouth of a prominent evolutionist we hear that Hitler was only being consistent in his treatment of Jews. He was simply applying the principles of Darwin's natural selection.
This is frightening that such a theory could be used to justify the attempted elimination of a type of people.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by PaulK, posted 09-03-2003 3:30 AM The General has replied
 Message 3 by Mammuthus, posted 09-03-2003 7:02 AM The General has not replied
 Message 4 by helena, posted 09-03-2003 8:33 AM The General has not replied
 Message 6 by Dr Jack, posted 09-03-2003 8:53 AM The General has not replied
 Message 13 by joz, posted 09-05-2003 7:18 PM The General has not replied
 Message 80 by Admin, posted 09-12-2003 8:58 AM The General has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 125 (53634)
09-03-2003 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by The General
09-03-2003 1:49 AM


Well this is another propaganda piece which fails to make any real point.
Even if the Nazis actions WERE consistent with evolutionary theory that would only tell us that the natural world is full of violence and death and does not form a good basis for human morality.
And it is far from clear that Hitler was applying evolutionary theory. He had no clear scientific program. His racial ideas came from writers whose work preceded Darwin's, such as Gobineau. Christians had been massacring Jews for centuries without any "evolutionary" justification, and the legacy of that hatred almost certainly contributed more to the Holocaust than evolution ever did. Indeed, the resort to mass slaughter indicates that Hitler had no trust that *natural* selection would produce the result he wanted.
Even if Keith were correct - and I disagree - it does not follow that evolution formed a genuine justification for the holocaust and even if it did it would be no criticism of the theory. An unpleasant truth is still a truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by The General, posted 09-03-2003 1:49 AM The General has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by The General, posted 09-05-2003 2:19 AM PaulK has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 3 of 125 (53646)
09-03-2003 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by The General
09-03-2003 1:49 AM


quote:
Of course I don’t have do explain how dangerous this belief of elitism is.
Yes it certainly is dangerous when fundamentalist christians consider themselves and elite group above all others in the world and then try to ram this down everyones throat...it has cost millions of people their lives.
quote:
Natural Selection justifies, among other things, fascist values and the belief that the higher breed are free to conquer and breed as they please.
Nice unsupported stupid assertion The General...ok how about this, christianity justifies among other things slavery, fascism, and the denigration of women?
In any case, please show where I can find such justification in Darwin's writings or in a modern evolution textbook...I am interested how the change in allele frequencies observed in L. africana when one moves from the Savanah to the forest justifies fascism.
quote:
Adolf Hitler was influenced by the writings of Charles Darwin. His treatment of the Jews at least in part can be attributed to his belief in evolution. To quote P.Hoffman who wrote Hitler's Personal Security, "Hitler believed in struggle as a Darwinian principle of human life that forced every person to try to dominate all others." Darwin also believed in this constant struggle for survival.
Acutally Hitler was a christian (Catholic) who was heavily influenced by a bizarre reading of the bible.....what he wrote about evolution and heredity in particular in Mein Kampf is almost as bizarre and full of errors as your posts in the Natural Selection thread...and regarding the christianity part...millions of christian Germans, French, Swiss, Austrians, Italians etc. were more than happy to help Hilter along his violent path...or are you going to show us the armies of Darwin in the trenches in Stalingrad
quote:
So, from the mouth of a prominent evolutionist we hear that Hitler was only being consistent in his treatment of Jews. He was simply applying the principles of Darwin's natural selection.
Actually, Hitler was being consistent with the ideas of Francis Galton who began the formal eugenics movement. Even Darwin himself told Galton his misreading of the definition of fitness was flawed i.e. Galton attributed wealth and upbringing to fitness which Darwin never did....thus, Hitler was never consistent with the principles of the theory of evolution.
quote:
This is frightening that such a theory could be used to justify the attempted elimination of a type of people.
It is frightening that someone could misrepresent history, have such a profound lack of understanding of the theory of evolution, and yet be a such a self righteous ass as to infer that anyone who accepts the theory of evolution is a nazi...if anyone represents the dangers of elitism and nazism it is todays fundamentalist christians who operate exactly the way the nazis did in the 30's and 40's.
[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 09-03-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by The General, posted 09-03-2003 1:49 AM The General has not replied

  
helena 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5844 days)
Posts: 80
Joined: 03-27-2008


Message 4 of 125 (53653)
09-03-2003 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by The General
09-03-2003 1:49 AM


quote:
This is frightening that such a theory could be used to justify the attempted elimination of a type of people.
Isn't it frightening that Christianity could be used to justify the crusades?
regards,
Alex
P.S. Wasn't there an unofficial rule that anybody who brought up Nazis in a debate automatically loses it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by The General, posted 09-03-2003 1:49 AM The General has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Mammuthus, posted 09-03-2003 8:48 AM helena has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 5 of 125 (53657)
09-03-2003 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by helena
09-03-2003 8:33 AM


quote:
Wasn't there an unofficial rule that anybody who brought up Nazis in a debate automatically loses it?
Hi Alex,
The unofficial rule is that those who post baseless assertions, mischaracterizations, and outright lies lose....but that does not keep The General from continuing to post

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by helena, posted 09-03-2003 8:33 AM helena has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 6 of 125 (53658)
09-03-2003 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by The General
09-03-2003 1:49 AM


The text of Mein Kampf is available on-line, try reading it. You'll find many, many references to God, and just one to Evolution - and even then it is not talking about biological evolution.
Try again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by The General, posted 09-03-2003 1:49 AM The General has not replied

  
The General
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 125 (53962)
09-05-2003 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by PaulK
09-03-2003 3:30 AM


Responding to Critics
Paul the piece certainly isnt propoganda. I did not add it for your enjoyment but for your benefit. Now you know. Also, you have several 'even if's' in your response which tells me that possibly you are having trouble disputing my very short piece. The purpose of the piece was to ask the question "What did Darwin or Nietczche think would happen as a result of their beliefs of survival of the fittest and of the super-race?" What happened is Elitism and Nazism.
Mammathus, I am not an Elitist, a fundamentalism and I am certainly not ramming any thing down anyone else's throat. In fact this web site has a great number more evolutionists who believe strongly than it does creationists, so that ramming accusation can go both ways. If you dont like my pieces so much, simply stop reading them. Also your accusation that Christianity justifies slavery, facism, and denigration of women is unsupported by any evidence, unlike my presentation stating the harmful affects of Dariwinian and Nietzcheian thought.
Hitler may have been born Catholic but that is pretty much where his Christian life ends. Many Christian did support Hitler. This is unfortunate, however much of this support came while his policies towards the Jews were still widely unknown. In any event the support was still unfortunate. Many Christians did not support him though and died fighting against him (Bonhoeffer).
Also fitness was and is not all to evolution and I believe I more specifically mentioned natural selection. Hitler was consistent with the beliefs of natural selection, and more particularily with Herbert Spencer's 'survival of the fittest.' I really believe Darwin would have opposed Nazism but my question is from his theory, how could he not forsee something along the lines of Nazism?
I also disagree with your last statement for I have never seen modern Christianity even begin to compare with Nazism. Please in the future if you only wish to blurt out mindless insults, go somewhere else.
Alex you raise an interesting point. It does not bring into question what I am saying, but I do see what you are getting at. The only diffence is there is nothing in Christian literature (i.e. New Testament) that would justify senceless killing. Elitism and Nazism is different and I gave evidence in first article. No need to repeat it.
Mr. Jack that may be true (I do not know the numbers off the top of my head). I did not quote from Mein Kamph. If you wish you can re-look at the evidence I gave and then ask again if you are wondering where I got certain assertions.
General

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by PaulK, posted 09-03-2003 3:30 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 09-05-2003 3:38 AM The General has not replied
 Message 9 by Mammuthus, posted 09-05-2003 3:53 AM The General has replied
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 09-05-2003 3:59 AM The General has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 8 of 125 (53970)
09-05-2003 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by The General
09-05-2003 2:19 AM


I really believe Darwin would have opposed Nazism but my question is from his theory, how could he not forsee something along the lines of Nazism?
Because natural selection - the survival of the fittest - isn't a goal or a moral, but an explanation. Darwin didn't say "the fittest - aka the strongest or best - should be made to survive while the weak should be swept away", he said "those that survive are, by definition, fit."
You can't use natural selection as a justification for action. Darwin knew this. Any attempt to use NS to justify war or slaughter is perverting the original observation to one's own end, as much as the Crucades or the Inquisition were perversions of Christian doctrine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by The General, posted 09-05-2003 2:19 AM The General has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 9 of 125 (53973)
09-05-2003 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by The General
09-05-2003 2:19 AM


Re: Responding to Critics
quote:
Mammathus, I am not an Elitist, a fundamentalism and I am certainly not ramming any thing down anyone else's throat. In fact this web site has a great number more evolutionists who believe strongly than it does creationists, so that ramming accusation can go both ways.
There are probably more evolutionists here than creationists POSTING, who knows what the composition of lurkers acutally is. As to ramming down ones throat, you have been making wild unsupported accusations towards people who work in a scientific field and claiming it as fact and essentially calling for the end of science in favor of your personal mythology. Your statements regarding your own beliefs, your utter lack of knowledge about science, your historical revisionism and your dismissal of the crimes perpetrated in the name of your own religion firmly puts you in the camp of fundamentalist christian so I do not retract that statement.
quote:
If you dont like my pieces so much, simply stop reading them.
..or I could do like you in the Natural Selection thread and just ignore challenges to my arguements as you did.
quote:
Also your accusation that Christianity justifies slavery, facism, and denigration of women is unsupported by any evidence, unlike my presentation stating the harmful affects of Dariwinian and Nietzcheian thought.
If you actually want to know why your "presentation" regarding Darwinian thought is utter tripe you should ACTUALLY read what REALLY started the eugenics movement and who the key players are...
Daniel Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics.
It has nice summary of the history of the origins of the eugenics movement including Darwin's conflict with the instigator of the eugenics movement Francis Galton.
Christianity and slavery: http://etori.tripod.com/slave-justify.html
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Ethical Aspect of Slavery
Hitler, Franco, name your dictator in South America were all Christians...using your logic as applied to the ToE and Darwin, Christianity supports facism...see how stupid your logic sounds when it is used against you?
Denigration of women: http://www.jpnordin.com/christianity/sex/antiwomen.htm
quote:
Hitler may have been born Catholic but that is pretty much where his Christian life ends. Many Christian did support Hitler. This is unfortunate, however much of this support came while his policies towards the Jews were still widely unknown. In any event the support was still unfortunate. Many Christians did not support him though and died fighting against him (Bonhoeffer).
How do you know? Hitler spoke of religion throughout his life. It is a revisionist myth that the majority of people did not know that the jews were being exterminated here....again the support was unfortunate.
But applying your logic, those who used completely distorted versions of the theory of evolution which even Darwin thought was wrong makes me studying allele frequencies in mammoths over time guilty of genocide? Whereas the christians, especially the Catholic churce, aided the near eradication of jews in Europe but christians and christianity are blameless..strange double standard and strange way of thinking about things.
quote:
Also fitness was and is not all to evolution and I believe I more specifically mentioned natural selection.
Uh, you do know what fitness is don't you...that you have now separated natural selection and fitness from one another strongly suggests you really do not know what you are talking about.
quote:
Hitler was consistent with the beliefs of natural selection, and more particularily with Herbert Spencer's 'survival of the fittest.' I really believe Darwin would have opposed Nazism but my question is from his theory, how could he not forsee something along the lines of Nazism?
I just saw a paper on the distribuiton of alleles for multiple loci in different human populations....and guess what? Allele frequencies are different....better run to the bomb shelter..the nazis are coming
Please do a side by side comparison of references to Darwin and natural selection in Mein Kampf compared to references to god and christianity....you will be enlightened.
quote:
I also disagree with your last statement for I have never seen modern Christianity even begin to compare with Nazism. Please in the future if you only wish to blurt out mindless insults, go somewhere else.
Look who is talking? You are accusing us of being like nazis with unsupported drivel and lies yet dismissing the crimes of your co-religionists...you are a hypocrite.....and by the way, there were those nice witch burnings, crusades, and the participation of the catholic and protestant church in the extermination of jews during WWII that I can accuse you of.
You should focus on whether you understand the theory of evolution and where exactly you can show scientific fault with it and in addition propose and support an alternative that better explains what is observed in nature and spend less time on blathering your fundie bigotry...I doubt you have the capacity to take that advice..but one never knows.
[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 09-05-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by The General, posted 09-05-2003 2:19 AM The General has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by The General, posted 09-09-2003 1:31 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 10 of 125 (53974)
09-05-2003 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by The General
09-05-2003 2:19 AM


Re: Responding to Critics
It isn't propaganda ? Then what was the point of it ? It certainly wasn;t for my benefit since I already knew more than was in the essay. Looks to me like it was an attempt to attack evolution by linking it to the Nazis . With plenty of spin and selective reporting. That spells p-r-op-a-g-a-n-d-a to me.
A proper understanding of Darwin, doesn't lead to the idea of as super-race, and Nietsche would hardly have regarded anti-semitic German Nationalists as superior.
Now if you want a real example of racial elitism consider th Biblical idea of the Chosen Race and the Promised Land. Look at the current violence in Israel and Palestine - and the glorification of genocide in the Bible. Why don't you use that as your example of the dangers of elitism ? It's better in every respect - apart from not being convenient for your propaganda.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by The General, posted 09-05-2003 2:19 AM The General has not replied

  
Raha
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 125 (54004)
09-05-2003 9:15 AM


crashfrog writes:
as much as the Crucades or the Inquisition were perversions of Christian doctrine
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 09-05-2003 6:42 PM Raha has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 12 of 125 (54082)
09-05-2003 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Raha
09-05-2003 9:15 AM


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.
I guess I give ideology the benefit of the doubt. After all ideology doesn't kill people. People kill people.
Honestly as many people were killed by polytheists as monotheists. How many gods you believe in - if any - is no indication you're about to go kill some other people.
In most occasions the "fittest" is the one who goes with majority.
You're making the same mistake the General is, and anyone else who misunderstands Darwinism - equivocating on the word "fittest". Darwin's intent was not to say that the fittest should survive. It was his intent to define fitness as those who survive and reproduce.
So, the only answer to "who's the fittest human?" is "the one with the most kids." It's true - the fat guy in the trailer park with no job or education, but who's the father of 20, is far more fit than the childless bodybuilder with the Ph.D. If you want to compare these two people in other ways, that's fine, but there won't be anything Darwinistic about any other comparisons beyond their respective survivng children.
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-05-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Raha, posted 09-05-2003 9:15 AM Raha has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 125 (54093)
09-05-2003 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by The General
09-03-2003 1:49 AM


This will sound bad but.... So what?
Just for grins and giggles lets say nazism was based on evolutionary thought (though I honestly don't think so)....
How in hell does that effect TOEs validity?
Sure it might lead to some morally messy conclusions but wishing something wasn't so doesn't make a difference....
Example you just jumped out of an aeroplane pulled the cord and your parachute failed to open, at this point you personally have a real problem with gravity but as hard as you wish otherwise you are still gonna make a big mess when you reach the floor......
So basically even if nazism was based in evolutionary thought so what...
It certainly leads to some nasty moral issues but it affects its scientific validity not one iota.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by The General, posted 09-03-2003 1:49 AM The General has not replied

  
Raha
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 125 (54100)
09-05-2003 7:32 PM


crashfrog writes:
I guess I give ideology the benefit of the doubt. After all ideology doesn't kill people. People kill people.
Honestly as many people were killed by polytheists as monotheists. How many gods you believe in - if any - is no indication you're about to go kill some other people.
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...
crashfrog writes:
So, the only answer to "who's the fittest human?" is "the one with the most kids." It's true - the fat guy in the trailer park with no job or education, but who's the father of 20
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 09-05-2003 7:40 PM Raha has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 15 of 125 (54101)
09-05-2003 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Raha
09-05-2003 7:32 PM


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).
Well, I guess you could think this way, but just so we're clear, it's not Darwinism you're talking about.
Plus how could there come to be a biological basis for an instinct for meme propagation? Although I guess there wouldn't have to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Raha, posted 09-05-2003 7:32 PM Raha has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024