That is the intended idea, yes. “Genetic”—under such usage would mean—“to do with heritable information”—and NOT the nucleic-acid centric “to do with heritable information stored in DNA”.
This would make all transmissible human culture “genetic”. If memes are a type of gene which is not made of DNA, then that throws quite a spanner into the terminology of many “genes” vs “environment” debates.
But their genes can’t reasonably be treated as our genes. The life-cycle is wrong.
Indeed—though that is actually the position of major theorists in the area, Boyd and Richerson.
They think that culture is part of the human extended genotype—despite, as you say, their life-cycles being totally different.
In: “Culture is Part of Human Biology Why the Superorganic Concept Serves the Human Sciences Badly”—where they lay out their philosophy—they say:
Culture is a part of human biology, as much a part as bipedal locomotion or thick enamel on our molars.
That is the intended idea, yes. “Genetic”—under such usage would mean—“to do with heritable information”—and NOT the nucleic-acid centric “to do with heritable information stored in DNA”.
This would make all transmissible human culture “genetic”. If memes are a type of gene which is not made of DNA, then that throws quite a spanner into the terminology of many “genes” vs “environment” debates.
Indeed—though that is actually the position of major theorists in the area, Boyd and Richerson.
They think that culture is part of the human extended genotype—despite, as you say, their life-cycles being totally different.
In: “Culture is Part of Human Biology Why the Superorganic Concept Serves the Human Sciences Badly”—where they lay out their philosophy—they say:
I think this is a pretty crazy position—relatively speaking.