>Sure, this is the implict Darwinian model introduced by Dawkins. I think
>it's a useful way of thinking about things. What do you mean when you
>say "genes and memes don't really have interests".
Same thing Dawkins means when he says genes aren't really "selfish",
we are not supposed to infer that genes (or memes) think.
>If I argued that "genes" and "memes" sound like amoral angels and devils
>what would be your counterargument?
Right.
On the other hand it is useful (or at least entertaining) to think of
memes when other people talk about angels and devils. "The devil
made me do it!"
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/