Is it just me, or does the whole concept of sociobiology come across
as potentially (or just overtly) racist?
About memetics: Did Dawkins intend that his memetic theory be
inextricably linked to genetic theory (and thus, sociobiology)?
I know that there are a bunch of people out there who very
seriously buy into the whole gene-culture coevolution thing,
but I'm not certain as to whether or not Dawkins was one of
these.
The source of my conundrum: I just finished rereading ch.11 of
_The Selfish Gene_ ("Memes: the new replicators"), Lumsden and
Gusherts' "Gene-Culture Coevolution", Ruse's "Evolutionary
Epistemology", and Sober's "Methodological Behaviorism".
Lumsden lumps Dawkins in with the "Classical Sociobiologists"
(thus making him out to be a solid genetic determinist). Yet
Ruse and Lumsden (and Wilson) all subscribe to a lesser form
of genetic determinism (the one based on epigenetic rules).
In the meanwhile, Sober states that memetic theory (as put
forward by Dawkins) is "cultural evolution as a process that
is entirely autonomous from Darwinian evolution."
So...er...was memetic theory (as originally formulated by
Dawkins) intended to be viewed as autonomous from genetic
evolution, or was it inextricably linked with it, or were they
seen as dialectically affecting one another?
Not that I'm confused about this at the moment :) I'm just
trying to intelligently formulate my opinion on the subject
of memetics. I can tell you (quite clearly) what I think of
sociobiology, but not without several derogatory expletives
just yet ;>
So, anyhoo, I know that some of y'all are into this sort of
thing, so I figgered there was no harm in asking :)
- Deb