richard_dawkins_-_the_god_delusion
T H E R O O T S OF RELIGION 197'memeplexes'. As usual with memes, we gain understanding bygoing back to the genetic origin of the analogy.For didactic purposes, I treated genes as though they wereisolated units, acting independently. But of course they are not independentof one another, and this fact shows itself in two ways.First, genes are linearly strung along chromosomes, and so tend totravel through generations in the company of particular other genesthat occupy neighbouring chromosomal loci. We doctors call thatkind of linkage linkage, and I shall say no more about it becausememes don't have chromosomes, alleles or sexual recombination.The other respect in which genes are not independent is verydifferent from genetic linkage, and here there is a good memeticanalogy. It concerns embryology which - the fact is often misunderstood- is completely distinct from genetics. Bodies are notjigsawed together as mosaics of phenotypic pieces, each one contributedby a different gene. There is no one-to-one mappingbetween genes and units of anatomy or behaviour. Genes'collaborate' with hundreds of other genes in programming thedevelopmental processes that culminate in a body, in the same kindof way as the words of a recipe collaborate in a cookery processthat culminates in a dish. It is not the case that each word of therecipe corresponds to a different morsel of the dish.Genes, then, co-operate in cartels to build bodies, and that is oneof the important principles of embryology. It is tempting to say thatnatural selection favours cartels of genes in a kind of groupselection between alternative cartels. That is confusion. What reallyhappens is that the other genes of the gene pool constitute a majorpart of the environment in which each gene is selected versus itsalleles. Because each is selected to be successful in the presence ofthe others - which are also being selected in a similar way - cartelsof co-operating genes emerge. We have here something more like afree market than a planned economy. There is a butcher anda baker, but perhaps a gap in the market for a candlestick maker.The invisible hand of natural selection fills the gap. That is differentfrom having a central planner who favours the troika of butcher+ baker + candlestick maker. The idea of co-operating cartelsassembled by the invisible hand will turn out to be central to ourunderstanding of religious memes and how they work.
198 T H H GOD D E L U SIGNDifferent kinds of gene cartel emerge in different gene pools.Carnivore gene pools have genes that program prey-detecting senseorgans, prey-catching claws, carnassial teeth, meat-digestingenzymes and many other genes, all fine-tuned to co-operate witheach other. At the same time, in herbivore gene pools, different setsof mutually compatible genes are favoured for their co-operationwith each other. We are familiar with the idea that a gene isfavoured for the compatibility of its phenotype with the externalenvironment of the species: desert, woodland or whatever it is. Thepoint I am now making is that it is also favoured for its compatibilitywith the other genes of its particular gene pool. A carnivoregene would not survive in a herbivore gene pool, and vice versa. Inthe long gene's-eye-view, the gene pool of the species - the set ofgenes that are shuffled and reshuffled by sexual reproduction - constitutesthe genetic environment in which each gene is selected forits capacity to co-operate. Although meme pools are lessregimented and structured than gene pools, we can still speak of ameme pool as an important part of the 'environment' of each memein the memeplex.A memeplex is a set of memes which, while not necessarily beinggood survivors on their own, are good survivors in the presence ofother members of the memeplex. In the previous section I doubtedthat the details of language evolution are favoured by any kind ofnatural selection. I guessed that language evolution is insteadgoverned by random drift. It is just conceivable that certain vowelsor consonants carry better than others through mountainousterrain, and therefore might become characteristic of, say Swiss,Tibetan and Andean dialects, while other sounds are suitable forwhispering in dense forests and are therefore characteristic ofPygmy and Amazonian languages. But the one example I cited oflanguage being naturally selected - the theory that the Great VowelShift might have a functional explanation - is not of this type.Rather, it has to do with memes fitting in with mutually compatiblememeplexes. One vowel shifted first, for reasons unknown - perhapsfashionable imitation of an admired or powerful individual, asis alleged to be the origin of the Spanish lisp. Never mind how theGreat Vowel Shift started: according to this theory, once the firstvowel had changed, other vowels had to shift in its train, to reduce
- Page 146 and 147: W H Y T H !• R E A I. M O S "I" C
- Page 148 and 149: extravagant God hypothesis and the
- Page 150 and 151: W H Y T H K R K A L VI O S I C E R
- Page 152 and 153: W H Y T H H R B A L M O S T C E R T
- Page 154 and 155: WHY T H E R K A L. M O S T C R R T
- Page 156 and 157: W H V T H t R t A I M O S T C E R T
- Page 158 and 159: WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GO
- Page 160 and 161: W H Y T H E R i ; A L M O S T C E R
- Page 162 and 163: T H E R O O T S OF R K 1. i G I ()
- Page 164 and 165: THE ROOTS OF RELIGION 165themselves
- Page 166 and 167: THE ROOTS ()1 ; R fc L I G I O N 16
- Page 168 and 169: T H 1-; R O O T S O F R E I 1 C 1 O
- Page 170 and 171: T H E R O O T S OF R E L I G I O N
- Page 172 and 173: T H I', R O () T S OF R K I. I G I
- Page 174 and 175: THL R O O T S OF R E L I G I O N 17
- Page 176 and 177: T H E R O O T S OF R I: I. I (i I O
- Page 178 and 179: T 11 E R O O T S O F R K L 1 (. 1 O
- Page 180 and 181: THE ROOTS OF RELIGION 181psychologi
- Page 182 and 183: THE R O O T S O F R E L I G I O N 1
- Page 184 and 185: THE R O O T S O F RELIGI O N 185boo
- Page 186 and 187: T H E ROOTS OF RELIGION 187Breakfas
- Page 188 and 189: T H E R O O T S O F R E L I G 1 0 N
- Page 190 and 191: T H E R O O T S O F R E L \ G I O N
- Page 192 and 193: T H E ROOTS OF RELIGION 193the prob
- Page 194 and 195: T H E R O O T S O F R E L I G I O N
- Page 198 and 199: T HE ROOTS OF RELIGION 199ambiguity
- Page 200 and 201: T H E R O O T S OF R E L I G I O N
- Page 202 and 203: T H E ROOTS OF RELI G I O N 203They
- Page 204 and 205: T HE R O O T S O F R E L J G 1 O N
- Page 206 and 207: T H E R O O T S O F R E L 1 G I O N
- Page 208 and 209: THE R O O T S OF M O R A L I T Y :
- Page 210 and 211: T H E R O O T S OF M O R A L ! T Y
- Page 212 and 213: T H H R O O T S O F M O R A L I T Y
- Page 214 and 215: T H K R O O "I S O ! ; M O R A M T
- Page 216 and 217: T H F , R O O T S O F M O R A L I T
- Page 218 and 219: \ I i') K A I I M : \V 1 ! \ A i d
- Page 220 and 221: R (> O I S (i I Y1 O l< A I I I "I
- Page 222 and 223: R O t ' i l s O F M d l t A I I'I'V
- Page 224 and 225: K O O I S O! M O R A I . I H : «
- Page 226 and 227: K O O I S O I V! (> R A 1 1 T Y : W
- Page 228 and 229: 1K O O I \ < ) i VI O K A I . i l >
- Page 230 and 231: HO I s o r M (.> R A ! I ! Y : \\ I
- Page 232 and 233: O O K \ \ i> 'Mil Xi I'H ,\ j / J.
- Page 234 and 235: T H E ' G O O D ' B O O K A N D T H
- Page 236 and 237: H E ' G O O D " B O O K A N D T H E
- Page 238 and 239: THE ' G O O D ' B O O K AND T H E M
- Page 240 and 241: T H E ' G O O D ' B O () K A N D T
- Page 242 and 243: T H E ' G O I H ) ' B O O K AN l> T
- Page 244 and 245: T H E ' G O O D ' BO O K A N D T H
198 T H H GOD D E L U SIGN
Different kinds of gene cartel emerge in different gene pools.
Carnivore gene pools have genes that program prey-detecting sense
organs, prey-catching claws, carnassial teeth, meat-digesting
enzymes and many other genes, all fine-tuned to co-operate with
each other. At the same time, in herbivore gene pools, different sets
of mutually compatible genes are favoured for their co-operation
with each other. We are familiar with the idea that a gene is
favoured for the compatibility of its phenotype with the external
environment of the species: desert, woodland or whatever it is. The
point I am now making is that it is also favoured for its compatibility
with the other genes of its particular gene pool. A carnivore
gene would not survive in a herbivore gene pool, and vice versa. In
the long gene's-eye-view, the gene pool of the species - the set of
genes that are shuffled and reshuffled by sexual reproduction - constitutes
the genetic environment in which each gene is selected for
its capacity to co-operate. Although meme pools are less
regimented and structured than gene pools, we can still speak of a
meme pool as an important part of the 'environment' of each meme
in the memeplex.
A memeplex is a set of memes which, while not necessarily being
good survivors on their own, are good survivors in the presence of
other members of the memeplex. In the previous section I doubted
that the details of language evolution are favoured by any kind of
natural selection. I guessed that language evolution is instead
governed by random drift. It is just conceivable that certain vowels
or consonants carry better than others through mountainous
terrain, and therefore might become characteristic of, say Swiss,
Tibetan and Andean dialects, while other sounds are suitable for
whispering in dense forests and are therefore characteristic of
Pygmy and Amazonian languages. But the one example I cited of
language being naturally selected - the theory that the Great Vowel
Shift might have a functional explanation - is not of this type.
Rather, it has to do with memes fitting in with mutually compatible
memeplexes. One vowel shifted first, for reasons unknown - perhaps
fashionable imitation of an admired or powerful individual, as
is alleged to be the origin of the Spanish lisp. Never mind how the
Great Vowel Shift started: according to this theory, once the first
vowel had changed, other vowels had to shift in its train, to reduce