The Short Version

I recently had the unfortunate experience of saying something to a friend that she found inappropriate. Hopefully that lapse of sensitivity will make me more vigilant in the future–I have no wish to cause other people discomfort–but the episode brought into focus how difficult it would be for anyone to say something to me that would offend my own sense of propriety. 

The study of history and anthropology is wonderful in giving a broadened perspective on the vast range of words and behaviors that people have considered appropriate in different cultural contexts. Depending on where and when you were born, almost anything goes, and it becomes clear that anything I might do, given the right culture, is OK.

Of course, we have to deal with the values of the society we are currently living in if we are to prosper in that setting, regardless of how limited that range might be, but we don’t have to identify with those values. Getting along without identifying is something we all do in varying degrees, as we move from work, to recreation, to family environments; but somewhere among all those different value sets we find those that, for reasons of personal history, we call our own.

The problem with identifying with any particular set of values is that, for one thing, it sets us up for the possibility of being offended. More importantly, it creates us-them boundaries–people who are like us, and therefore acceptable, and those who are different, and therefore available for disdain, reproach, disgust, and at the extreme, violence.

My preference is to understand that all such distinctions are accidental and arbitrary, and to identify myself as a human being: capable of saying or doing anything given the right circumstances. No one can offend me, because they are just “me” in another guise. If you do offend me, it gives me the opportunity to inquire how I came to hold the value that makes such an offense possible, to examine my personal history for the influence that put that item in place.

It’s been some time since I felt the emotion of self-righteousness, but I welcome it as a chance to learn something new.

Email: norm@normbear.com

That’s Disgusting! 

	Enter your search terms
	Web www.rentine.com Submit search form

I’ve been a fan of Susan Blackmore since I read her book, The Meme Machine, several years ago. She recently gave a TED talk called “Memes and ‘temes.’” In writing about the talk on her web site, she said, “Earth now has three replicators - genes (the basis of life), memes (the basis of human culture) and temes (the basis of technology).” She emphasized that the emergence of a new replicator is “dangerous”: There are prospects of self-replicating machines in the not too distant future, and there is the possibility that they may replace human beings.

It’s interesting to speculate on how the interaction of these evolutionary processes might unfold, but what I found really interesting was the sense of alarm that human beings could disappear in a conflict with the products of their own invention. Our very survival as a species could be at risk–but this is not news. 

Few of us would prefer, at the present moment, to “shuffle off this mortal coil,” although we know it’s inevitable at some point. It’s also inevitable that human beings are not going to be around forever, at least based on our current understanding: the sun is going to wipe us out in a few billion years–if we’re still around–unless we find a way to colonize other solar systems. Even then, the Universe is slated for dissolution sooner or later, and we are, in any case, a short-lived phenomenon on the scale of eternity. 

If we were realistic, we would already have adjusted to the idea that this is a temporary gig, but then, being comfortable with reality has never been a human strong point. It is, however, an aspiration of mine–to be in touch and at ease with the way life is–so I offered a comment on Blackmore’s talk to  hopefully assist in our adaptation to the future:

Genes don’t have any way of caring about whether they survive or not, and most species don’t have any way of knowing or caring if their species survives or not. The only way we human beings are able to care about our survival is because we host memes that identify us as human beings, as members of biological families, social groups, races, etc. 

So whether or not the survival of the first replicator–genes–can be cared about depends on the second replicator–memes.

What memes are you host to? If all races disappeared as distinguishable entities and we all became a homogeneous latte color, would you care? If so, why? How did you come to harbor a meme that says race is important?

If world culture became homogenized as well, so that we all shared the same language, values, and technology, would you be sad? Why?

If all nations became subsumed under some super union so that national boundaries were no more than administrative districts, would you lament the loss of the USA, France, Japan, etc.?

Suppose we lost the meme that says it’s important for human beings to survive, and instead of identifying with a particular instance of biological evolution–human beings–we became identified with evolution itself in whatever form it takes: animal, vegetable, or mineral. If computers become more intelligent than we are, and self-reflective, and capable of propagating themselves more efficiently than we can, would you lament that we were being replaced by products of evolution, in the same way that we have replaced previous species? 

We have a particular biology because of accidents in mutation–variation. We harbor particular memeplexes because of accidents of exposure. So which set of accidents are you going to identify with, and why?

We certainly are an amusing species. 

Email: norm@normbear.com

My Future Replacement 

	Enter your search terms
	Web www.rentine.com Submit search form