I feel like there might be some confusion here? Richard Dawkin’s argued in his book that Meme’s DON’T need to be tied to genetic advantages. A piece of art, song, story etc. Doesn’t have to serve evolutionary purposes, they exist for their own sake. In fact a Meme could detrimental to someone’s evolutionary survival. You might think genetics would destroy a Meme like that, but what if it’s impossible to create an intelligent brain that can solve problems and think abstractly that is also not interested in art or religion ?

On the other hand Meme’s may often be tied to genetic advantages, which is why it might not make sense to just reject old religious traditions. I guess that’s part of what makes it odd that Richard Dawkins decided to go on some weird anti-religious crusade in his old age ? Eh I don’t get it.

One thing that’s interesting is that modern humans who are religious, they have more babies than secular people by far, so presumably they could eventually swamp the rest of the population. (regardless of what *should* happen).

• This reply was modified 5 months ago by indigo81.