The Meme Machine

30 THE MEME MACHINE
Whose advantage?
We can now see that many theories of cultural change use evolutionary ideas but
they are not the same as memetics. There are two fundamental differences.
First, most do not distinguish general evolutionary theory from the specifics of
biological evolution. This means they are unclear about the relationship
between biology and culture and easily fall foul of the obvious differences
between genetics and cultural evolution. Second, they do not introduce the idea
of a second replicator such as the meme. This means they do not see cultural
evolution as proceeding in the interests of a selfish replicator.
This last issue is most important and I want to pursue it. The whole point of
memetics is to treat the meme as a replicator in its own right, operating entirely
for the benefit of its own selfish replication. If there is no second replicator, and
you are a committed Darwinian, then somehow or other everything must come
back to the genes – to biological advantage. If there are two replicators (or
more) then there will inevitably be conflicts of interest – circumstances in which
the interests of the genes pull in one direction and those of the memes in the
opposite direction. These examples are very important for memetics because
they would not be predicted by a purely genetic theory. If they occur, they
prove that we need a theory of memes – or at least a theory involving some kind
of second replicator. This is what distinguishes memetic theory from other
theories of cultural evolution.
Dennett (1995) makes the same point when he asks ‘Cui bono?’, who
benefits? He says ‘The first rule of memes, as it is for genes, is that replication
is not necessarily for the good of anything; replicators flourish that are good at . .
. replicating! . . . The important point is that there is no necessary connection
between a meme’s replicative power, its “fitness” from its point of view, and its
contributions to our fitness (by whatever standard we judge that)’ (Dennett
1991, p. 203, italics in the original).
Dawkins explains:
As soon as the primeval soup provided conditions in which molecules could
make copies of themselves, the replicators themselves took over. For more than
three thousand million years, DNA has been the only replicator worth talking
about in the world. Fur it does not necessarily hold these monopoly rights for all
time. Whenever conditions arise in which a new kind of replicator can make
copies of itself, the new replicators will tend to take over, and start a new kind of