Back in the Rim: language, censorship, religion, rationalism

[aramis]

Originally posted by Drakon:
You lost me here Aramis. I have not read "The Selfish Gene" I have read a lot of stuff about it, including a presentation of Dawkin's theory of memes. Are you saying that Dawkin was arguing that his mememics has a physical structure, like genes? I find that very hard to believe.

No. Dawkins "Selfish Gene" and other works are about genetics. He puts the unit selection pressure not on the Organism as Organsim, but on Gene as carried by organism; the organism is a vehicle for the multitudingous genes; genes are not to be confused with aleels (sp?), nor with memes. Likewise, a Gene's success is its continnuance in the pool, not its expression in organism. Therefore a gene's goal is to reproduce itself, using its parent organism to do so. Likewise, a harmful gene still is able to replicate itself, simply by remaining non-dominant. His premise also points out that under Darwin, ants make no sense (If selection is based upon the organism, non-breeders are a waste of effort), but if the genes themselves are 'desiring' propagation, colonial populations and aiding one's siblings children are useful traits for the genes, even tho they reduce the reproductive viability of the individual organism (whcih is not addressed directly by Darwin, and is counterintuitive to Darwinian style selection models).

Dawkins then applies, in an appendice, his theory of genetic-style selection upon memes, as being equivalent to genes, and that the organism is merely a carrier for the meme. But it's a trivial and irrelevant-to-the-rest-of-the-book appendice (and isn't in all printings, either!).

 

[Straybow]

When the Solomani expand to other planets, they'll take their religions with them. The religions don't have to compete, they can isolate themselves from competition.

Taking a page from 2300, if the Saudis have a colony it will be a Sunni Muslim colony of the Wahabi sect. They will not welcome non-Muslims into their communities, and will barely tolerate other Muslim sects among them.

Look at what's happening in present day India. The nationalists have restricted many activities of minority religions. If they start up a colony they will impose the same kind of restrictions and more, probably barring non-Hindus from emigration.

In strict Hindu Nepal conversion is outlawed under the 1990 Constitution. Native Christians are sometimes jailed under suspicion of proselyting just for carrying literature.

 

[aramis]

Many religious states only allow conversion to the State religion, and members of other faiths, or even non-mainstream subsects, are forbidden to recruit nor even wear distinctive symbology...

SUpposedly,many zoroastrians fled from the middle east to England post WWII, as it was one of the most accepting of divergent religion... likewise Jews fled Europe to the US in droves, due to social discrimination no longer backed by law, but just as powerful.

Some religious colonies will be havens for majority religion "Pure-faith" colonies...

Religious colonies are as likely to be minority separatists taking "undesirables" of minority faiths to slightly harsh, but clearly livable, worlds as a method of non-genocidal ethnic/religious cleansing.

I can easily see the US finding its colonial ships filled by hopeful self-separatists desiring monoreligious colonies... Unfortunately, cultists are as likely to be separatists. I can see a "Pennies for purification" campaign to help the moonies, hari krishnas, certain separatist fundamentalist movements, and neonazis afford to get off world and "Away from our children". I in fact know of a buisinesman who'd donate a million if it would get the "Damned heathens" out of Alaska...

Also remember that in most areas, there is also a visible ethinic divergence amongst religious subsets in many areas, so the religious arena becomes an aspect of "ethnic cleansing" policies.

 

[Drakon]

Sadly, I think both of you are right. There will be a flight of "pure faith" colonies out there. And as long as we are talking a vaste universe, not banging into other sophants, this might not be a bad thing for a while.

But eventually, the more tolerant societies are going to advance further technically than their less tolerant cousins. Which will mean possible increase in their populations and a need to expand. Competition for trade and resources will end up playing themselves out again, just as they have in Earth's past.

The problem gets worse when one looks at choke points in the star maps. Realizing that these choke points are dependent on technology, (The Jump 3 choke points are far different and fewer than say, Stutterwarp or Jump 2) trying to maintain your isolation in a choke point system, a system that is the only route between say Earth and the rest of the galaxy, ain't going to work. (Ross 156, or AX Microscopi are examples of stutterwarp choke points. Wolf 359 opens up to Sol only around Jump 3, (2.386 parsecs) but then is connected to about 5 or 6 other worlds.)

Either the system is going to have to be tolerant, to some extent of strangers, or else they are going to get removed. This may be as simple as maintaining a starport from which no travellers or strangers can leave, a way station.

So if you are going to have an isolationist community, you are going to want to pick a world that is 1)off the beaten track and is 2)relatively poor in all essential materials or resources. You will want less or no trade to avoid contamination, which in turn is going to stunt technical development.

Which in turn leaves you in a weaker position for a more advanced agressive technical culture. But then, being more agressive is hard if you are more tolerant.

As for Dawkins: I do hope his talk of genes having "goals" or "desires" is a bit of pedagogal rhetoric and not something that he actually believes. And I would argue that even under Darwin, ants do make sense, as a subservient class takes a lot of the survival pressure off the breeders. They can go out and get the food, defend the colony, and build things, while the breeders breed. Division of labor is hardly anti-Darwinian. Of course having a smaller number of breeders does put the colony at risk, since if they get wiped out, the colony and the species ends up dead.

And I do see the concept of memes and how they function among sophants, the only species that can have memes in the first place, as being extremely important, in a "missing piece of the puzzle" kind of way. Whether it was Dawkin's appendix, something he threw in at the last minute or not, is beside the point.

 

[Drakon]

One other point. Both Strawbow and Aramis have a historical example to cite. The founding of Liberia in Africa.

 

[aramis]

Ah, yes... don't even go there.... (Liberia)

Dawkins posits that genetically, the individual traits get selected for, and effectively, the body is a carrier for a great many more traits than it expresses, and that this tendancy i both important, and in fact, the unit at which selection works, rather than the species being the expression. under classic genetics, where individuals are not breeding, they are thus "illogical" to have as part of a species. Likewise, bad gentics should be weeded out fairly easily... unless the selection pressure is upon genes themselves, rather than the species/individuals.

Y'see, it is not the individual with the fittest genes overall who stays in the pool, but the individual with the expressed genes that best adapt the organism to reproduce the genes in question. that (apparently) more than 50% of our genetic makeup lies dormant means that that genetic coding carries some successfull, but still not expressed, genes.

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Ah, yes... don't even go there.... (Liberia)

Is this a travel advisory, or do you feel that bringing up Liberia would be a bad argument?

Y'see, it is not the individual with the fittest genes overall who stays in the pool, but the individual with the expressed genes that best adapt the organism to reproduce the genes in question. that (apparently) more than 50% of our genetic makeup lies dormant means that that genetic coding carries some successfull, but still not expressed, genes.

Hmm...but if a gene is not expressed, and therefore neither aids nor hinders the individual's reproductive and survival chances, in what sense does it really exist? The code is there, but for some reason it ain't working. In a lot of cases this can be a good thing, in that expression of the gene could kill off their "host". So it sounds like to me that all these 'stealth genes' are surviving by not being there, essentially and effectively they don't exist.

And I am still unclear if he is arguing that genes have wills of their own, a desire to survive that they manifest by not screwing up the host organism. They 'free ride' on the more useful genetics that does manifest. And they free ride by not making their presense known, by not doing a damn thing.

Yes, I can see from a technical standpoint an un-manifested gene is still there, still part of the genetic code. Its a piece that does not work, and provides no other usefulness to the organism that I can see. But unless it manifests itself, it is leaving its survival in the hands of other more useful genes. It is not playing any role in the development of the individual. Its not being selfish, its being lazy.

 

[robject]

I don't understand the full workings of DNA and genes, so forgive my ignorance.

My understanding is that the expression of genes can be a complex interworking as well -- a synergy of components in certain places. Do un-expressed genes influence expressed ones, and if they were in a different combination [I'm not using correct terminology, bear with me], would they express themselves, and would they cause other genes to express themselves differently? In other words, they influence peoples' development differently based on how they rest in relation to other genes?

 

[aramis]

robject, Drakon:

It matters not if individual genes affect others. From the point of view of Gene as unit of selection, if a gene is carried forth, it is successful. If it isn't carried forth, it fails. Dawkings points out that putting the level of selection to the gene level (rather thanthe genome level), many things that don't fit the organism models (to wit, care for cousins and nephews and nieces, single breeder per colony species, bitches raising whelps of other bitches in most group canids, extensive display strategies).

It is the hardest change in perception of the nature of evolution, that the individual is effectively immaterial, but the multiplicity of copies of individual traits survive best by spreading temselves with limited effect. Go read the book. It will make better sense of it than I can put forth.

 

[Drakon]

While what you say may be right and accurate, I also feel that it is irrelavant. I am a human being. Not a gene, and I will strongly argue that any person is more than just the collection of their genetic material. I am concerned with what provide and improves MY survival. My genes are just along for the ride, one of many tools I have available to improve my life and my happiness.

A focus solely on the gene level misses this very important point, as to why the study of genetics is important. Genes don't think, nor feel. People do. Genes are chemical and mechanical, they are not players in the universal game. The reason why the study of genetics is important to me, is because the affects such efforts have on my life as an individual sophant human being.

And again, the memetic appendix seems more valid and important to me and my efforts to survive this world seems far more important than reducing sentience out of the individual.

 

[aramis]

The genes which cause us to be sentient seem fairly succesfull. There are an awful lot of individual copies of them running around...

that it appears similar intelectual genes have found their way into several different species, but never as fully realized as with the human genome, shows brainbower is advantaeous to the carrier, and thus enables the carrier organism to replicate the gene.

 

[Drakon]

Yes they do. And exactly what combination of genes led to human beings is a fasinating subject.

[As a side note, it gets a bit tangled. If we did not have the genes for brains, we would not be thinking about this kind of stuff. So there is an anthropomorphic principle at work here]

But brainpower is not the only road to success, or "fitness" as proven by the plethora of species out there. Granted none have the capabilities humans have, nor ever will if we have any say in it. (Which we do.) But plenty of species have thrived, despite having no brains at all.

Yes, if you want to pilot a starship (or even build the bloody thing) you need brains. If you want to defend against an asteroid impact, brains come in very handy. But I doubt most species would recognize it if you left Earth to its fate, built your starship and left.