Re: Meme-gene coevolution (Was: Static memes question)

--- In [email protected], "hibbsa" <hibbsa@...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> --- In [email protected], David Deutsch <david.deutsch@> wrote:
> >
> > On 13 Jun 2013, at 22:41, hibbsa <hibbsa@> wrote:
> > 
> > > --- In [email protected], David Deutsch <david.deutsch@> wrote:
> > >> 
> > >> Genes and memes do sometimes co-evolve, though.
> > > 
> > > Oh say? What sort of scenario are you thinking of?
> > 
> > One example is that the hardware we use for speaking co-evolved with the evolution of languages.
> > 
> > An interesting one that was pointed out to me recently was that genes in dogs for following the direction of a human's gaze co-evolved with the human behavior of keeping dogs.
> > 
> > -- David Deutsch
> >
> 
> So do you accept that memes can dominate a group by defining the in-group rules and behavious. While also dominate that in-groups exploititive attitude toward out-groups? 
> 
> Or are you still saying something like group level evolution is criticized. 
> 
> But 'group' is just a world. If a meme can dominate a society and make it static, then a group and its in-members is a society.
>

Point being Prof. Deutsch, aren't you already allowing for a group - that group being a society - to be both static and essentially dominated by static or anti-rational memes? 

Otherwise, there would have to be some special status of a 'society', in which case what would it be. 

Bearing in mind societies interact with other societies. Therefore, a group of societies could be seen as the same thing as a set of groups within a society. 

Or...by what real distinctions would this be disallowed?