The power of memes
I was having some highbrow conversation with a friend the other day — about the meaning of life or morality, or something like that (I forget) — and it was a mess. We were talking past each other and completely failing to make headway – we spoke the same language, but seemed to be living in different realities.
In an attempt to meet at some basic level – to find a simple fact we could agree upon – I picked some snacks off the counter. Did we at least agree that I was holding up some olives? We did not.
Our confusion seemed to hinge on two points : the word true, and quantum mechanics.
I had asked : “is it true that there are some olives in this bowl?”
Truth is obviously a slippery concept, and my use of the word had triggered some conflictual mental reaction in my friend.
The uncertainty surrounding the (alleged) olives was further exaggerated by his interest in quantum physics. Somehow the existence of a thing can be questioned based on what we know of its subatomic structure.
The gist of the argument went a bit like this : 1) Things are fundamentally constituted of mainly empty space. 2) What we think of as particles in that empty space are really just probability fields interacting energetically with each other. Therefore, olives don’t exist.
The conversation ended somewhere there – we might have mentioned a cat that was both alive and dead at the same time – but that was about it. We drank some wine to calm our nerves, ignored whatever was, or was not in the little bowl, and went our separate ways (and have avoided the subject of olives ever since).
You don’t have to be a barroom philosopher to have noticed the current opinion bugaboo. The present era has been dubbed “post truth”. The negative impacts of tribalism as the basis for truth is very much front page news.
As a general rule we believe and defend whatever the people we trust say. As an educated, gen X European I try to align with scholarly consensus. Someone brought up in a more rural, religious environment might be influenced by their priest. Someone born into the internet age may rely solely on social media echo-chambers.
And more often than not, we could be someone that doesn’t fall neatly into any of these categories. Which is why in most cases, our worldview is a mess of contradictions and confusion.
Anyway worldviews are automatically fashioned by the culture we identify with. And if you and I identify with opposing cultural poles, we are naturally in conflict. Emotionally and ideologically opposed. At odds, unable to listen, let alone communicate.
Our ideas are precious to us – and we feel bound to defend them, in much the same way that we would fight to protect our homes, or our family. We get upset when our values are challenged : our heart rate accelerates, adrenaline enters the system.
It’s as if our survival, or wellbeing, required that beliefs be protected, that they be written in stone, never changing.
We’ve been looking at some scholarly work over the last few chapters as to why this may be the case. I have shamelessly name dropped a star studded cast of psychologists, anthropologists and neurologists as they have described the forces at play in human nature and behavior. The power of memes is deeply embedded. We are automatically bound to react to the authority of our internalised narratives.
Content and Process
But that’s enough sciency stuff. Let’s switch gears and ask : so what? What does all this data mean to me? Most people don’t work in any of these fields – we aren’t scholars – no one’s asking us to write a scientific paper.
Apart from being interesting (at least to the strange folk who enjoy this kind of stuff) why does any of this matter? How does this change my life? Am I any different? Or has all this know-how merely added further complexity to my already confused worldview? Is it just fuel for dogma? Am I addicted to information?
Obviously we cannot help but be concerned by our predicament. That’s basically what a problem is : some annoying state of affairs that we care about and want to fix.
A problem can be addressed in one of two ways : either by treating the symptoms or by an understanding of what’s actually going on.
One could even argue that understanding an issue and solving it, are pretty much the same thing. This is obvious in math problems for example. Take the question : what is the sum of 1+1?
If I understand what a sum is, what 1 is, and what + means, the problem is basically solved.
It gets trickier of course if I am a piece of the puzzle – which is unfortunately always the case when it comes to my everyday life. Obviously I’m always present, involved and probably central to the difficulties that concern me day to day. But strangely, my emotions and opinions aren’t considered as part of the equation. Despite the fact that they shape what we see, or what we think is going on, and dictate how we react in any given situation.
If someone offers me some bacon it’s only a headache if I’m a Muslim, or I’m a vegan, or on a diet – who I am matters. Whether Socialism or Sharia law or firearm legislation etc.. is seen as something positive or negative, depends on who’s looking. Problems are subject dependent.
We might notice other people having unnecessarily conflictual relationships with reality. But our own mental and emotional relationship to a situation is usually just viewed as appropriate – if they’re considered at all. My own opinions seem more like facts than biases. My feelings just feel to me like they are being driven by hard data, that they are the necessary response to circumstance.
Rather than conditioning what we see, rather than affecting behavior, our subjective experience isn’t seen as pertinent – as part of what’s happening. Rather than a variable in the equation, or an essential constituent of the issue – our own point of view strikes us as a fundamental framing of how things are, a rational response to the truth.
Trouble is always framed as something “out there” happening to me, rather than something I am a part of. Although I am integral to the melodrama that is being played out, the dilemma and I are somehow distinct.
I may feel like a victim, I might want to change the situation, to regain control – but my attitude and opinion don’t seem to be part of the problem, they are seen as a reaction to the problem.
Of course concepts are useful. One’s ability to identify the victim in an abusive relationship helps everyone understand the issues in a court case for example. Or allows us to examine the power dynamics when being mauled by a bear, or when offered a pyramid scheme type opportunity.
With respect to our mundane preoccupations, our everyday anxieties – the potential dangers, the starving children on the news, the bills to pay, the happiness of our loved ones etc.. We just want to know how to best navigate what’s what, we want solutions, we want security.
Knowledge is our super power, our special way of dealing with life – bats have sonar, an octopus has smart arms, homo sapiens have knowledge. Knowledge provides reassurance, it helps us feel secure. It provides the means for progress.
In previous chapters we’ve looked at how knowledge is acquired through culture. My ideas about the world and how to behave in that world come from my community – we mimic what other folk do and adopt what they say. I might be wearing a tie and looking for a job, and you might be half naked chasing after an antelope, or on horseback with a falcon in hand, because that’s what everyone else around us is doing.
My psychology and behavior is conditioned by my biology and the culture or society I grow up in. I will act either in accordance or resistance to what has been identified as normal. My reality has been framed by whatever experience has provided me.
Belief constricts reality
If we have been paying attention we may have noticed that our automatic relationship with reality is a pretty hit and miss affair. One’s spontaneous reactions can just as easily end in tears as they can bring joy or comfort – whether in our own daily interactions or the history of civilisational rise and collapse in general. The stories we have adopted have an equal chance of being a help or a hindrance – only time will tell which way the cookie crumbles. Force of circumstance (aka natural selection) will pick the winners and the losers.
All throughout history humans and their tribes have acted upon the world, driven by subjective worldviews. We’ve declared war, we’ve practiced ritual mutilation, celebrated birthdays, cooperated and distributed wealth according to a variety of traditional narratives. And we’ve survived and sometimes even thrived under a variety of societal norms. But eventually even the luckiest of these societies will run up against a challenge that isn’t adequately addressed by its cultural dictats.
Sometimes the danger is external : an extended period of drought or a horde of bloodthirsty Mongols appearing on the horizon. Sometimes we provoke our own downfall : too much cannibalism, inbreeding or environmental mismanagement.
Whatever the case, if our reactions either miss the mark entirely or actually make things worse, we tend to remain confused and constrained by our cultural blinders. My worldview tends to constrict my range of action and insight.
If I feel that smoking cigarettes, essential oils or long walks are crucial to my wellbeing, I’ll probably act accordingly.
The actual effects of my beliefs and associated behaviors will most probably remain hidden to me. I will of course have my opinions about my opinions. I will have a subjective experience of what’s going on – but the effects of my actions will remain largely beyond my perception (nb. not least because what we see is limited by biology, by our knowledge – and because the consequences may multiply along an endless network of interactions).
We probably agree that cause and effect (or corollary events) are a given – there will be consequences. The actions arising from my adopted narratives will affect me and my relations. Some might be largely trivial, some hopefully beneficial, and some will cause harm..
Which means that at least some beliefs are a cause of harm. Harm that we create automatically, out of habit, often unwillingly. And if there are people around that we care about, they too will be affected. We mechanically traumatize ourselves and those close to us – and by extension, the world at large.
Recent history is full of examples of everyday abuse that we happily inflicted on ourselves. We can point to cigarette smoking or caregivers beating their children as detrimental because opinions on these practices have flipped – current societal norms with regards to these issues contradict the traditional views. Smoking used to be cool, violence towards children was considered beneficial.
The narratives we have internalised as true, dictate our behavior. We act in accordance with what seems right.
Currently (in 2025) this could mean making efforts to protect our children against vaccines, or on the contrary seeking to get our children vaccinated. If I’m a head of state it could mean declaring war on Ukraine.
I will make the effort to do whatever my internal narrative determines as necessary. What feels true has immense authority, because it seems so essential and correct.
Neanderthals with nukes
This looks very much like the crucial point of our inquiry here : that the relentless damage we inflict upon ourselves and others may not be necessary nor reasonable.
If it is correct that our behavior arises automatically from who we are, then surely everyone stands to benefit from a clearer picture of what makes people tick?
If I am concerned by all the suffering in the world, then I will want an understanding of its source.
In some respect humanity has come a long way. Thanks to science, technology and commerce, a whole lot of folk have gained immense wealth and power. But in other ways we don’t appear to have changed at all. The primitive psychological processes driving each of us are the same as they’ve ever been. Whether I’m a modern day billionaire or a prehistoric goat-herder, my anxieties, values and desires still dictate my actions. All that seems to have changed somewhat are the objects that I crave.
Our worldviews are still largely formed in the same way. We could say that the goatherder’s view of reality was shaped by traditional stories or myth; and that ours is conditioned by modern cultural narratives – but of course these are just different words for the same thing. Their myths might include characters like Thor, Osiris and the dome of the firmament; and ours might contain more reasonable stuff like AI, capitalism and Jesus, but they are still basically narratives. And our relationship to narrative has not changed. The stories we adopt as true still have immense authority over us.
Despite the benefits available in this modern world, psychologically we don’t seem to have changed. Despite our immense power; emotionally we’re still stuck in the Stone Age.
And those same emotions still mechanically drive behavior; which includes our violent, unnecessarily destructive behavior.
Violent behavior that is done with the best of intentions. My anger always feels righteous, my desires are always seen as needs, my intellect always unjustly challenged by fools. With the unfortunate results we see affecting everyone from our children, to society at large, to whole countries under siege, to the warming planet, and the current mass extinction.
The question of whether it is possible to see this process of harm in action seems essential. If we care. If we care about the harm that we are imposing on the world.
Is it clear why we cause harm?
We have been looking at how our behaviors arise inevitably from who we are; from our culture, psychology and biology as it has been formed over thousands of generations. Behaviors persist because they are successful : we have gone forth and multiplied..
Cultural habits that cause too much damage will have consequences – eventually adding to the balance, and playing into any potential collapse that might occur. In an ever changing environment, even once-beneficial habits can become detrimental. Our addiction to sugar in a world of plenty is an oft cited example.
Survival mechanisms that lead to more harm than good are no longer survival mechanisms. What was once essential behavior becomes an existential threat.
What is the biggest menace facing humanity? Hypothetical perils include giant asteroids crashing into the planet; super volcanoes or alien invasions. Whatever the odds of these cataclysms occurring, we may eventually have the means of addressing some of those scenarios. Astronomers, engineers, geologists etc are working on this stuff right now.
More to the point though, most of the proposed scenarios threatening humanity depend on us provoking our own demise.
ie. Nuclear war, climate change, evil AI, bioengineered pandemics, collapse of the biosphere…
The fact is that whilst we are sitting here comfortably, the sixth planetary extinction is already underway. An extinction event caused by human activity. Which isn’t even the first time one of the Earth’s inhabitants have caused planet wide death on a massive scale. The Great Oxidation Event, which apparently destroyed around 80% of all living beings, was caused by cyanobacteria.
So anyway, the only actual existential crisis happening right now is self provoked.
I think we can also agree that the last 2 recent close calls we avoided were also man made : the hole in the ozone layer (all hail James Lovelock!) and fingers hesitating over the nuclear launch button during the cold war.
Catastrophic extinction is generally viewed as a bad thing; especially by the people undergoing said event.
The difference between cyanobacteria or giant asteroids and humans is that we do appear to have some inkling of what we’re doing. We seem to be at least somewhat aware of the wider implications of our actions.
Take for example the Ten Commandments given in the Bible, that include edicts like “Thou shalt not kill… or steal, or bear false witness”. These were written over 3500 years ago which goes to show that human behavior was already an acknowledged evil back in the Bronze Age.
We often make things worse for ourselves, which is weird seeing as we are constantly motivated to improve our lives. Despite wanting the best for ourselves, self-concern often drives us to act in ways that are harmful. So much so that we have to make laws and efforts to enforce those laws just to ensure that society can function.
This is the direction I’d like to take now, by looking at some attempts to address this inherent impulse towards unnecessary or ill-advised violence.
Français 
English
Laisser un commentaire