It is standard practice to regard some meme-gene conflicts as cases of pathogenic infections. See, for example the books “Virus of the Mind” and “Thought Contagion”.
Similarly with malfunctions: a suicidal animal has gone wrong—from perspective of the standard functional perspective of biologists—just as much as a laptop goes wrong if you try and use it underwater. Biologists from Mars would have the same concepts in these areas.
The point of the reproductive analysis is that it explains the status seeking and attention seeking—whilst also explaining the fees paid for IVF treatments and why ladies like to keep cute puppies. It is a deeper, better theory—with firm foundations in biology.
The point of the reproductive analysis is that it explains the status seeking and attention seeking—whilst also explaining the fees paid for IVF treatments and why ladies like to keep cute puppies. It is a deeper, better theory—with firm foundations in biology.
Evolutionary analysis can if used properly. But evolutionary analysis is properly identifying adaptations, not:
people’s desires should be nailed down as hard as possible to those things that lead to raising good quality babies.
It never said that was the whole of evolutionary theory. It seems like a reasonable 1-line summary of the point I was trying to make—if quoted in context. Your 1-line summary seems to have some flaws too—there is a lot more to evolutionary theory than identifying adaptations.
It is standard practice to regard some meme-gene conflicts as cases of pathogenic infections. See, for example the books “Virus of the Mind” and “Thought Contagion”.
Similarly with malfunctions: a suicidal animal has gone wrong—from perspective of the standard functional perspective of biologists—just as much as a laptop goes wrong if you try and use it underwater. Biologists from Mars would have the same concepts in these areas.
The point of the reproductive analysis is that it explains the status seeking and attention seeking—whilst also explaining the fees paid for IVF treatments and why ladies like to keep cute puppies. It is a deeper, better theory—with firm foundations in biology.
Evolutionary analysis can if used properly. But evolutionary analysis is properly identifying adaptations, not:
It never said that was the whole of evolutionary theory. It seems like a reasonable 1-line summary of the point I was trying to make—if quoted in context. Your 1-line summary seems to have some flaws too—there is a lot more to evolutionary theory than identifying adaptations.