In this post, I will explain how Trump vs Hillary was born.
Memetics does not inherently concern itself with facts or the degree of veracity of a theory or claim, but only with the evolutionary success of said theory, claim, belief or idea.
Climate change is not something that the vast majority of people can easily touch or understand, but, at the same time, it is presented as a threat to their future existence. As such, the only logical response for these people would be denialism and cognitive dissonance, demanding the creation of nonsensical theories to explain why other people want them to change their patterns of behavior — these patterns of behavior themselves being much more endemic memes than climate change. In other words, the more you try to convince people that they are destroying the planet, the more they destroy the planet.
It’s the same with anti-vaccination movements, and other loony theories too. The more you try to convince people that vaccines are harmless, the more anti-vaxxers you create.
The only solution is to totally ignore them, give them no media attention whatsoever, actively prevent them from communicating with each other, and to employ systems of shadow-censorship which prevent their messages from spreading.
Naturally, this causes a lot of chaos due to our extreme (but highly justified) desire to preserve the right to freedom of expression and our equally justified desire to attack anyone or anything that limits it. And so a Trump is born. If Trump loses, another Trump will be born, but he will be far worse and yet, paradoxically, even more popular.
In the end, this will all boil down to a battle of freedom vs truth. This battle has been brewing for thousands of years now, and it seems like the powder keg is about to explode. Do we value facts more than freedom? Is there a sweet spot? If so, for how long can a large population of people remain within the sweet spot?
These questions are for philosophers and people who truly understand the irrational nature of the human mind, not scientists and policy makers.
But beware: Like everything else, the concepts of truth and freedom are both memes.
Are we fighting for the right to make our preferred memes (ideologies) endemic, or are the opposing memes in the brains of people just information-based parasites that work together and control us for the sake of ensuring their own survival, not really caring how much damage they do to their host population as long as a few survivors remain?
Memetics does not inherently concern itself with facts or the degree of veracity of a theory or claim, but only with the evolutionary success of said theory, claim, belief or idea.
Climate change is not something that the vast majority of people can easily touch or understand, but, at the same time, it is presented as a threat to their future existence. As such, the only logical response for these people would be denialism and cognitive dissonance, demanding the creation of nonsensical theories to explain why other people want them to change their patterns of behavior — these patterns of behavior themselves being much more endemic memes than climate change. In other words, the more you try to convince people that they are destroying the planet, the more they destroy the planet.
It’s the same with anti-vaccination movements, and other loony theories too. The more you try to convince people that vaccines are harmless, the more anti-vaxxers you create.
The only solution is to totally ignore them, give them no media attention whatsoever, actively prevent them from communicating with each other, and to employ systems of shadow-censorship which prevent their messages from spreading.
Naturally, this causes a lot of chaos due to our extreme (but highly justified) desire to preserve the right to freedom of expression and our equally justified desire to attack anyone or anything that limits it. And so a Trump is born. If Trump loses, another Trump will be born, but he will be far worse and yet, paradoxically, even more popular.
In the end, this will all boil down to a battle of freedom vs truth. This battle has been brewing for thousands of years now, and it seems like the powder keg is about to explode. Do we value facts more than freedom? Is there a sweet spot? If so, for how long can a large population of people remain within the sweet spot?
These questions are for philosophers and people who truly understand the irrational nature of the human mind, not scientists and policy makers.
But beware: Like everything else, the concepts of truth and freedom are both memes.
Are we fighting for the right to make our preferred memes (ideologies) endemic, or are the opposing memes in the brains of people just information-based parasites that work together and control us for the sake of ensuring their own survival, not really caring how much damage they do to their host population as long as a few survivors remain?
