What is Evolution? What is Evolution by Natural Selection? What is the difference between the two? What is survival of the fittest?
Evolution by itself simply means change. In this context we are talking about slow change in the common characteristics of species.
Evolution by Natural Selection means change through the filter of survivability in the natural world. It is confusing because the word "Natural" carries the assumption that humans are somehow not a part of Nature, a leftover from the Medieval anthropocentric point of view.
A given species can contain a great deal of variation. Most species breed through sexual reproduction which mixes genes from each of the parents in a chaotic fashion, creating further variation. Others breed through cloning themselves, but they are usually smaller short-lived organisms where the variation is between the various strains any of which can die out without threatening the survivability of the species as a whole. Other variation occurs through changes in gene expression, mutation, and incorporation of bacterial and viral DNA. I use the term meme for this reproductive data rather than gene because some of this variation is contained in data that is not genetic.
Some explanations of evolution are confusing. "Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that makes it seem that it might be the organism's survival that is at stake. Of course it is not. It is the memes survival that is at stake. Look at Sickle Cell Anemia in humans. The genetic trait responsible for it may have evolved as a defense against Malaria, but it can cause illness and death as a side-effect - hardly matching the description of "Survival of the fittest". As long as the reproductive memes can be replicated it doesn't matter if the instances of an organism containing those memes appears fit or unfit.
"Natural Selection" makes it seem like there might be someone or some supernatural being doing the selection of which individuals or strains survive - despite the word "Natural". Evolution by Natural Selection arbitrarily precludes intentional intervention as in the case of the breeding of domesticated animals. This distinction clouds the issue. Hence I recommend dropping the term "Evolution by Natural Selection".
Instead, Evolution can be described as being a filtration process where some of the variation is filtered out because individuals carrying the memes simply didn't reproduce for some reason. The reason can be anything: infertility, chance, intentional intervention, and most importantly a statistical likelihood of the memes not making the individual survive in its particular circumstance. The result is those particular memes simply dying out and leaving other memes that might lead to a better chance of survival.
Evolution is best described as "Evolution by Meme Filtration" rather than "Evolution by Natural Selection" or "survival of the fittest".
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Women's Empowerment Meme Getting Filtered Out By Natural Selection
Is the meme for women's empowerment getting filtered out in the process of natural selection in mainstream Secular/Humanist traditions?
I personally am in favor of women's empowerment, however the Universe itself is impartial and this very recent meme may not be cut out for survival in its current form.
The basic hypothesis is that in the short-lived Western Secular/Humanist mainstream tradition, women have the right to choose who they marry, when or if they should have children or have a career, and are free to divorce or leave a partner. This is having the effect of reducing the number of offspring these women have - both genetically and memetically. Statistically, the wealthier and more empowered the woman, the less likely she is to have the 2.1 kids required to replace them and their partner. Add to that the fact that they tend to have them later in life when genetic damage has accumulated.
Most of the transfer of memes from generation to generation occurs between parent and child, though the spread of popular culture accounts for a lot of meme transfer also. Hence the memes for women's empowerment are not replicating fast enough to replace themselves and should be dying out.
Facts to back up this hypothesis are: most of the wealthy Western Secular/Humanist nations as well as Japan are declining in population. Non-Secular traditions where women are not fully empowered are increasing in population.
The only mitigating factor appears to be media such as TV, books, magazines and movies from Western popular culture. These memes and belief constructs such as Democracy, Human Rights can spread to the youth of societies where women are statistically not empowered and change them slowly and subtly.
Further evidence that this issue has been recognized can be seen in incentive programs offered to families to have children.
The only reason the USA maintains or slowly grows its population is the influx of migrants and the relatively large number of women who are not fully empowered.
Perhaps cultures where women are empowered will finish the job of liberating women by making this empowerment sustainable. This might require incentives and compensation to women for child-bearing and rearing, some of which we see in European countries.
I personally am in favor of women's empowerment, however the Universe itself is impartial and this very recent meme may not be cut out for survival in its current form.
The basic hypothesis is that in the short-lived Western Secular/Humanist mainstream tradition, women have the right to choose who they marry, when or if they should have children or have a career, and are free to divorce or leave a partner. This is having the effect of reducing the number of offspring these women have - both genetically and memetically. Statistically, the wealthier and more empowered the woman, the less likely she is to have the 2.1 kids required to replace them and their partner. Add to that the fact that they tend to have them later in life when genetic damage has accumulated.
Most of the transfer of memes from generation to generation occurs between parent and child, though the spread of popular culture accounts for a lot of meme transfer also. Hence the memes for women's empowerment are not replicating fast enough to replace themselves and should be dying out.
Facts to back up this hypothesis are: most of the wealthy Western Secular/Humanist nations as well as Japan are declining in population. Non-Secular traditions where women are not fully empowered are increasing in population.
The only mitigating factor appears to be media such as TV, books, magazines and movies from Western popular culture. These memes and belief constructs such as Democracy, Human Rights can spread to the youth of societies where women are statistically not empowered and change them slowly and subtly.
Further evidence that this issue has been recognized can be seen in incentive programs offered to families to have children.
The only reason the USA maintains or slowly grows its population is the influx of migrants and the relatively large number of women who are not fully empowered.
Perhaps cultures where women are empowered will finish the job of liberating women by making this empowerment sustainable. This might require incentives and compensation to women for child-bearing and rearing, some of which we see in European countries.
Is There a Correlation Between Recent Advances in Average Nutrition and the Recent Upsurge in Incidence of Autism?
If a correlation could be found that would be ironic. For millions of years humans have been struggling to get sufficient nutrition or even enough calories and fat to survive. New studies have shown that autism may be related to a lack of pruning of neural connections around the time of birth. Its long been known that humans in fetus form have far more connections (and neurons too?) than will be required later in life. Its possible that an overabundance of neurons and connections is causative in autism.
What if the great abundance of nutritious food that mothers and infants get these days has the unfortunate side-effect of causing the connections (and extra neurons) to stay around for longer than they are needed. That might lead to autism being a side-effect of the rich calories and nutrition seen in wealthy nations in the last 50 years.
I have not dived into researching this myself nor can I cite any any study to this effect. Its an original hypothesis as far as I know. I hope to see it tested by a study of demographic data. I am not suggesting that expecting mothers and infants be starved or fed only white rice. There has been a enough trouble already with badly-supported notions of cause and effect in Autism, such as the purported vaccine correlation.
There are plenty of other examples of bad side effects: Obesity, Diabetes, Cancer. Variety of food may have have side-effects regarding mental health for example Casein, and Gluten.
Finally, severely restricted calorie diets have been shown to increase longevity in lab animals. Why not at least research the possibility that a restrictive nutrition diet might stave off Autism?
What if the great abundance of nutritious food that mothers and infants get these days has the unfortunate side-effect of causing the connections (and extra neurons) to stay around for longer than they are needed. That might lead to autism being a side-effect of the rich calories and nutrition seen in wealthy nations in the last 50 years.
I have not dived into researching this myself nor can I cite any any study to this effect. Its an original hypothesis as far as I know. I hope to see it tested by a study of demographic data. I am not suggesting that expecting mothers and infants be starved or fed only white rice. There has been a enough trouble already with badly-supported notions of cause and effect in Autism, such as the purported vaccine correlation.
There are plenty of other examples of bad side effects: Obesity, Diabetes, Cancer. Variety of food may have have side-effects regarding mental health for example Casein, and Gluten.
Finally, severely restricted calorie diets have been shown to increase longevity in lab animals. Why not at least research the possibility that a restrictive nutrition diet might stave off Autism?
Genes Are Memes
Meme is more general term than gene hence genes are a form of memes. Around the universe there most certainly a zillion ways that life encodes its data. They are probably different enough that one might not call them genes since genes refer to arrangements of DNA, yet they are all memes.
In OOP software source code Meme would be the base class inherited by Gene etc.
In OOP software source code Meme would be the base class inherited by Gene etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)