Here’s the idea at the heart of this book in a nutshell. For the best part of a century now we’ve become used to the picture (or many of us have anyway) of the four-billion-year history of life on this planet having been driven by a single kind of self-replicating entity, the gene. The result has been biological evolution. But in fact, all this may be only one very specific example of a more general, a more universal, principle—other kinds of self-replicators also being possible. Recently, with the emergence of human beings, a second kind has indeed appeared—the “meme”—and the result in this case is not biological evolution, but cultural: as is the gene to biology, so is the meme to sociology and psychology.
    It’s not a new idea (has been around for decades) but Susan Blackmore’s is a particularly clear summary. It explains what memes actually are: concepts of all kinds, ways of doing things, stories, myths, works of art and music, fashions, advertising slogans…you name it—all the assorted quality and trash which makes up our culture. It explains their method of replication (imitation) and some of the questions they may help answer, such as the puzzling size of the human brain, or the origins of language. There are also the differences between genes and memes: whereas genes need to deal squarely with reality at all times (or the plant, fungus or animal dies) this is not the case with memes; memes can be incorrect beliefs, misconceptions, urban myths, fantasies, pure nonsense or outright lies. Memetics “explains the spread of untrue, bizarre, and even harmful ideas…memes do not need to be true to be successful.”
    Like everything else I’ve read by Blackmore, this is exceptionally well-written—she’s a natural, a superb communicator of even the trickiest details; and although I did finish it as sceptical as I started out (i.e. mildly sceptical, no more) one thought did cross my mind. Many physicists have suggested that the basic “stuff” of the universe isn’t matter, or even energy, but information; and as for biologists, that’s what genes are too—the basic “stuff” of biology is also information. And once you look at the world that way, this “meme” idea doesn’t seem nearly so much of a stretch. ( )

Mixed thoughts on this. I think Ms. Blackmore has some good substance to her memetics theory, but there are points where she gets too fuzzy, and her explanations didn't convince me completely of its merits. She compares the replication of memes to that of genes, requiring fidelity, fecundity and longevity. I haven't bought off on their fecundity, much less the fidelity of memetic replication, but as this is not my field, I'll just keep thinking.

It took me mulling over the whole when near the end to nail what should have been obvious to me earlier: she restricts her memetic theory to humans because, she contends, only humans can imitate. [As an aside, something like that is direly ripe for religious picking (to counter the dreaded evolutionary genetic theory). And I'm surprised it hasn't to my knowledge been picked.] I just read Frans de Waals' The Bonobo and the Atheist and I wonder if he would agree - I suspect not.

I also think she imparts too large an impact to her theory:

Evolutionary theory faced enormous opposition because it provided a view of humans that humans do not like. The same will probably be true of memetics.

Not really. How is any of what is in this book something humans will not like? Moreover, how many people actually know anything about it? Or care? My observation above hints at no conflict with their religious thoughts on human evolution (or non-evolution.) By limiting such a theory to humans only, one shouldn't be comparing to genetics - genes are in every life in our tiny world, but memes are limited to one highly developed primate? ( )

Benzersiz taklit yetenekleriyle insanlar, sıra dışı varlıklardır. Fikirleri, alışkanlıkları, becerileri, davranışları, buluşları, şarkıları ve hikayeleri birbirlerinden kopyalarlar. Bunların hepsi birer "mem"dir. Mimik kelimesinden türeyen mem kavramının temel özelliği bunların gelecek kuşaklara taklitle aktarılmasıdır. Genler kendilerini moleküler düzeyde kopya ederek çoğalırken, memler toplum içinde taklit edilerek hayatta kalırlar. Hoşa giden bir müzik parçasının, bir ressamın tablosunun taklit edilmesi, bütün kültürlerde ortak efsanelerin olması gibi, başarılı olan "kültür parçası" taklit edilir, başarısız olan elenir.

Biyoloji insanın fizyolojik evrimini açıklarken, memetik bilimi insanın kültürel evrimine ışık tutar. Memetik kuram, Richard Dawkins'in 1976 yılında ortaya attığı "mem" kavramına dayanır. Dawkins'in evrim sürecinin son aşaması olarak nitelendirdiği bu 3. eşleyiciler (ilki kristal yapılar, ikincisi ise bu kristal yapıların üzerinde ortaya çıkan DNA moleküllerindeki genler olmak üzere), popüler dilde "kültürel genler" olarak tanımlanmaktadır.

Susan Blackmore, memetik kuramındaki çalışmaları ve memetik araştırmaların halka aktarılmasındaki katkılarından dolayı son yıllarda çok ünlenmiş bir bilim insanıdır. Konuyla ilgili birçok popüler kitabı olan Dr. Susan Blackmore ayrıca bilinç felsefesine yönelik çalışmaları ile de adından söz ettirmektedir.

"Her teori en iyi atışını yapmayı hak eder ve bu, Susan Blackmore'un mem kuramına kazandırdığı şeydir. ... Kitabını tavsiye ettiğim için memnunum."

RIGHARD DAWKINS'in önsözünden ....

"Memetiğin kültürel bir bilim olmasını uman ya da bundan korkan herkes, sağlam temellere dayanan bu keşfi, çok aydınlatıcı bulacaklar." DANIEL DENNETT

"Dawkins, Gen Bencildir'de küçük bir saatli bomba yerleştirmişti. ... Susan Blackmore o bombayı patlattı. "MATT RIDLEY, Times Literary Supplement

"Memetiklc tanışmamızı sağlayan, bugüne kadar yazılmış en iyi kitap..." ( )

The one that started it all for me. I wasn't a big fan of non-fiction before reading this, but afterwards I tried to grapple evolutionary biology, sociobiology, psychology.... I'm so curious about this stuff now; I wish I could go back to school and get guidance from a professor. ( )

I have to admit that when I first started reading this book I was taken aback, but I stuck with it and am ultimately impressed with the case that Blackmore painstakingly makes. I would highly recommend this book, especially if you have an enduring interest in human culture and religion. Even if you don't agree with her conclusions, I think her arguments are worth considering. ( )