About Susan Blackmore's memes and t(r)emes...

I attended this Sunday a lecture given by Susan Blackmore on genes, memes, and tremes. 

Here are in a nutshell my thoughts about it:

The lecture was very entertaining and interesting. Susan appeared as a jovial, youthful and clever woman. Furthermore, she shares many of my interests (consciousness, free will, genes, memes, meditation, out of body experiences, near death experiences, ..).

Here is what I understand about genes, memes, and tremes after having reflected on Susan's lecture:

1/The earth is the environment that enabled the first replicator (gene) to arise. It happened because the earth had what it takes a) to create replicating entities, b) to allow modifications of these replicators, and c) to select amongst these various replicators.  These replicators first simply freely floated around, then they started having phenotypes that helped them catalyzing their own reproduction (e.g. serving as template to the formation of enzymes,...) and ultimately they created gene survival machines (living organisms). In this process, the replicators maybe migrated from RNA to DNA. These organisms are sub-environments that carry out all three processes of copying, varying and selecting (via e.g sexual selection) genes while part of the selection is still performed by its environment, the earth.

2/One of these organisms (humans) became the environment that enabled the second replicator (meme) to arise. It happened because the human mind can a) create and replicate ideas, b) modify them, and c) select them. Memes first simply floated around from one mind to another, then they started having phenotypes that helped them catalyzing their own reproduction (e.g. writing, paper, ...) and ultimately they created meme survival machines (e.g. computers, internet,...). In this process, the meme migrated from neural patterns to binary codes. Computers are sub-environments that carry out all three processes of copying, varying and selecting memes while part of the selection is still performed by its environment, the human mind. 

Susan appeared to have a slightly different opinion, she argues that humans are meme machines. I first arrived at another conclusion. I considered that we are the meme's environment, just like the earth is the original replicator's environment. I considered that we are not meme machines because memes did not create us, let alone create us to propagate themselves. Not like genes, that indeed created organisms to propagate themselves. If the earth was a conscious Gaia, before the appearance of living organisms, she could mistakenly have thought that she was a gene machine since she creates, modify, and select replicators. However, after having further thought about it, I can see how we can indeed be considered meme machines since we perform the tasks of copying, varying, storing and selecting memes.  

3/ Well, yet another replicator (treme) might arise within these new meme machines that are the computers, internet, ... but I do not think it arose yet. I think we are still at the level of the meme. However, I share Susan's view that a major change occurred: (Technological) Meme Survival Machines recently appeared and they will evolve to better serve their masters (the technological memes). The memes might indeed ultimately not need us anymore. 

If Susan Blackmore give a lecture in your neighborhood, I can safely recommend it to you.

Misadventures of a novice meditator

I received a book about meditation and decided to give it a try. As an exercise, I was asked to sit straight for 3 minutes and to … (I just spilled my alcohol-free beer on my desk, sorry for the interruption) … just observe what is going in my mind, without interfering. So I decided to do just that. Since the weather was nice and the entrance door was ajar I thought I would give it a try on the front porch. I left the house, closed the entrance door, sit on the stairs, straighten my spin, closed my eyes, heard the wind whistling, the birds singing, footsteps approaching, the door opening wide and my wife saying “Please don’t close the door, I opened it for fresh air!”. I opened my eye and replied “ok”. I then re-started from scratch. I closed my eyes, heard the wind singing, the birds whistling, a feminine attenuated voice saying “kids, go to have a look at what your father is doing!”. l opened my eyes, opened my book and pretended I was reading. My son opened the door, then closed it and shouted “he’s reading!”. Right, the front porch was maybe not the best place to meditate. Maybe I should go in the forest and sit against a tree like the Buddha did? I stood up and while I ruminated about how hard it was to find even one minute of calm around that house, I headed to the fields and the closest wood. On my way, I briefly considered doing my exercise while walking but then realized that walking three minutes without opening my eyes would be way too dangerous with all these silent bicycles around. Arrived at the wood, I was welcomed by two dogs, barking aggressively from behind a fence facing the wood. The wood being tiny, there was no way I could find a spot out of sights from these two monsters. Next time, I’ll try in the toilets.

Some thoughts about morality

We are machines programmed by our genes to reproduce them. Our ability to feel good or bad is equally programmed by our genes. We will feel good when we behave in the way that would have promoted our genes reproduction in our evolutionary history. I can’t conceive of a more logical choice for such a machine than to try to feel good as much as possible for the longer part possible of its lifespan.


That’s certainly what all animals do, including us. We know however that humans can come up with a large variety of strategies to achieve this goal and that these strategies are not all equally valid. The best guide I can come with for a human is: what course of actions would make the highest contribution to your happiness integrated over your lifespan.


This technically selfish morality does not necessarily translate into asocial behaviors.


Since we are social animals, our happiness directly depends on the quality of our relationship with others.


Which “others” will have the highest influence on your happiness? 1) your kin and 2) your peers. Our natural empathy for our kin, naturally extends to our peers (because in our evolutionary past, your peers were usually exactly the same as your kin). So your happiness will at least depend on your relationships with your kin and your peers.


Now, in our multimedia society, our empathy also gets triggered by other stimuli. For instance, we see suffering people on TV and we feel off course bad (in our evolutionary past, this would have been adaptive). A problem with that, is that your power to do good is not great enough to erase these sad pictures of suffering people from your TV. Hence, whatever you do to help them, you will not increase your happiness a bit. Indeed, there will still always be sad pictures on your screens and the people you helped not being your peers (you have no interaction with them), the quality of your relationship with them will not improve (since there is no relationship to speak of).


Our empathy also extends to anthropomorphic animals. Examples of such animals are those we artificially selected to increase their compatibility with us (dogs, cats, horses,…) as well as baby animals which look similar to baby human (big eyes…). This is a side effect of our natural ability to feel empathy for kin and peers. This side effect is not necessarily contra-productive with respect to happiness. The way you treat your dog/horse will have an impact on your actually existing relationship with him. This side effect might however also be contra-productive with respect to happiness once it extends to all animals, despite the fact that you have no relationship with them. This for the same reasons as discussed above for humans on TV.


The question “which others” requires another answer as above if you become a public person. Since you are known from everybody you better not do things that would have a negative impact on your relationship with everybody. By the way, this includes rat lovers, so you better not do things that would harm rats either. If you are a politician, it is even worse because your impact on others is much larger. In that case, you must be even more careful with the “others” at large (at least within the circle where you are known/active).

Comment aurait on pu éviter la fermeture de Ford Genk?

Les entreprises sont gouvernées par leur actionnariat. C'est l'actionnariat de Ford qui a décidé de fermer l'usine de Genk. Afin d'éviter la fermeture de Ford Genk, il aurait fallut que l'actionnariat le décide. Le facteur principal qui motive l'actionnariat a garder une usine ouverte, c'est le coût de production et de distribution. Nous avons de la chance d'être géographiquement bien placé, ce qui permet des coûts de distributions relativement faible pour desservir l'Europe. Cependant, le gros des coûts, ce sont les coûts de productions. Ceux-ci sont a peu de choses près égal au:

coût horaire du travail X productivité (en heures de travail par véhicule produit)

Comme  on le sait, notre coût horaire est élevé et notre productivité aussi. Grâce à notre productivité, nous avons tenu jusqu'ici. Pour garder Ford Genk, on avait deux facteurs sur lesquels on aurait put jouer: diminuer le coût horaire du travail (ce qui va à l'encontre de notre souhait de voir les gens travailler moins pour un salaire équivalent) ET augmenter notre productivité. Personnellement, je pense que c'est sur ce dernier facteur que l'on aurait du et que l'on devrait se concentrer dans le futur. Comment? En investissant dans l'enseignement, la formation et la recherche. Ce n'est qu'en présentant une main d’œuvre mieux qualifiée qu’ailleurs, que les usines resteront chez nous au lieu d'aller en Slovaquie, Turquie ou Chine (ou la main d’œuvre est vachement moins chère qu'ici, et ça on ne peut pratiquement rien y faire).

Concernant les tromperies éventuelles dont Ford se serait rendu coupable pour obtenir des aides de l'état, je n'en sais rien. C'est bien possible qu'ils aient été malhonnêtes, qui sait? Ce qui est sûre, c'est qu'une aide de l'état est considérée par l’actionnariat comme étant un revenu revenant à diminuer le coût horaire du travail dans l'équation ci-dessus. Seulement, comme c'est une diminution "one shot", une telle aide a un effet sur le calcul qui s'amenuise avec le temps. Si l'équation de base était peu intéressante au départ, elle le redeviendra une fois l'effet de l'aide passée. Une fois que c'est le cas, l’actionnariat décidera logiquement de fermer boutique. La vérité est que sans les aides en question, Ford Genk aurait fermé plus tôt. Personnellement, je suis contre les aides d'état. Il vaut mieux soit diminuer structurellement le coût du travail, soit investir dans l'éducation.

A moins d'une révolution socialiste/communiste au niveau mondiale, je ne vois pas d'autres possibilités.

N.B: Je n'aime pas les révolutions car leurs résultats sont imprévisibles et les précédents historiques pas très réjouissant.

Fallait-il libérer Michelle Martin? Oui.

Michelle Martin est l'ex-épouse du pédophile et assassin Belge Marc Dutroux. Suite à sa participation dans divers crimes de son mari, elle a écopé du peine de 30 ans de prison mais vient d'être libérée au bout de 15 ans. Elle avait entre autre drogué Yancka Mackova avant son viol et laissé mourir de faim Mélissa Russo et Julie Lejeune dans la cave de leur maison à Marcinelle pendant que Marc Dutroux était en prison. Elle loge à présent au couvent de Malone.

Cette libération a créé beaucoup d'agitation en Belgique. Une grande partie de la population semble être opposée à cette libération. Une petite partie de la population se montre même tellement violente qu'un dispositif onéreux de protection policière doit être employé pour garantir la sécurité de Michelle Martin et des sœurs qui l'héberge.

Tout ceci est hors de proportion.

1/Michelle Martin n'a pas fait Marc Dutroux. Marc Dutroux aurait réalisé ses méfaits avec ou sans Michelle Martin. Sans son mariage avec ce grand psychopathe, Michelle Martin aurait probablement été une citoyenne ordinaire.

2/ Michelle Martin a été lâche et égoïste, tout comme des millions de chinois de la garde rouge de Mao, Ce retrouver sous l'autorité d'un psychopathe criminel peut facilement conduire aux types d'actes que Michelle Martin a commis.

3/ Elle a passé 15 ans de sa vie derrière les barreaux. C'est une punition suffisante pour la faire réfléchir sur ses actes. Une durée plus longue n'aiderait pas.

4/L'idée de la prison comme punition ne se justifie que pour protéger la société d'un criminel dangereux. Il semble que Michelle Martin n'est, à elle seule, pas dangereuse. Du moins, pas tant qu'un psychopathe ne met pas de petites filles kidnappées dans sa cave.

5/ La prison, ça coûte cher à la société.

6/ Les manifestations hostiles et les menaces, ça coûte cher aussi.

Bref, la justice a été faite, elle a payé sa lâcheté et son égoïsme, qu'on l'ignore.

13 Bankers

This book convincingly argues that banks that are to big to fail should not be tolerated. They have no incentive to control their risks and their political power is too big. They should be broken up into smaller pieces. For instance, one could forbid an institution to be both, a saving bank and an invenstment bank. It might be wise to put a limit to the size of a bank, said limit could be higher (e.g. twice higher) for a saving bank (less risky) than for an investment bank (more risky).

Lessons from "out of the ashes"

If you are proposed a position as a new CEO for a company, make sure to know why the board of director proposes you this job. You should know what their expectations are so that you know on what their trust relies
In time of crisis, a new CEO has an advantage over the previous one: The benefit of the doubt amongst his employees.
It is primordial for a new CEO to inspire trust. For this, he must speak out the truth.
Other tasks he should endorse are :

• induce the adequate sense of emergency to the staff,
• capitalising on good news,
• give the good example (no luxuries if cost reduction is asked to the employees),
• be at the heart of the action (open door policy, no ivory tower).

Important values must be either made permanent and obvious to all through the use of symbols, or repeated at every occasions.