Mind Virus

A few posts ago, I mentioned my initial concept for this blog - the Nosy Bookworm concept. I finally had a chance to put my plan into action, and this is the result. I picked up Isobel Gunn a few weeks ago and looked at the materials on either side. One was a DVD, but the other was a book. I made a careful note of the title, put the book on hold, and picked it up in a few days (even before the original holder had picked up his or her copy!).

The book: Virus of the Mind by Richard Brodie. Definitely not something I would have picked up myself! The book is about the field of memetics. Thoughts, ideas, and concepts are broken down into units called the "meme". This has occurred through evolution. Memes infect our brains, forcing us into certain patterns of behaviour that follow the meme. In short, the book applies the theory of evolution to thoughts and concepts which are made up of memes, instead of people and animals, who are made up of DNA.

I'm not sure the idea is entirely successful. I don't know that evolution applies to thoughts - or that thoughts are independent of people and can be carried over somehow (genetically?). It seems like he's trying to use scientific terms to quantify something that is not scientific. Mr. Brodie is not a scientist - he's a former Microsoft programmer who has written a few books and now is a professional poker player. Generally not the first person I would look at to teach me about the new science of memetics. I hesitate to classify it as a science - perhaps pseudoscience? According to the book, all good sciences are laughed at initially. Then the public jumps on board. Well, except for those sciences that are later discredited.

Mr. Brodie spends most of the book discussing evolution and how we have been hardwired for certain behaviours and the role memes play in all of this. However, by the end of the book it becomes the usual self-help patter about finding your purpose in life and doing everything you can to follow that purpose. Does everyone really have to have a purpose? What if someone's self-declared purpose is to be a singer, but they suck. Really, really suck. Can you have a purpose that you're not good at? I suppose one would argue that singing is not the calling for them - even if the singer would disagree. What if someone's purpose is to be a serial killer? Not a purpose to foster. I am not a big fan of self-help books and try to avoid them like the plague.

I also have a few quibbles for Mr. Brodie on some specific things in the book. It is very American-oriented. He is an American, so that makes sense, but reading it as a non-American (U.S.A.-American; I'm still a North American) was interesting. He talks a lot about the corrupt government and memes that make the government corrupt and talks about taxation and how direct taxation was illegal under the American Constitution until the 16th amendment was passed. However, he also quotes from the American Constitution, Article I, Section 9, which states "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken." Now I don't know about you, but when I read that sentence, it doesn't say that you cannot tax the public directly. It says that you cannot tax the public directly unless it is in proportion to the Census. That changes his argument somewhat.

According to Mr. Brodie, pets are a meme. They have ultimately enslaved us to cater to their every need. Pets have evolved to be cute so we will take care of them. Now maybe recently this is true (I am a willing slave to my adorable kitties) but I would argue that for a good portion of human history, pets were around because they worked for humans. Humans did not need another mouth to feed - the pets had to earn their keep. Pets were a working member of the family - cuteness did not enter into it. There are many different dog breeds which show all the different jobs humans bred the dogs to do. Of course, now that so many of us no longer require the other skills of the dog, cuteness may win out. But I just don't think he looks into the historical origins of pets here.

Finally, one last beef. Mr. Brodie includes a chapter on religions because religions spread and propagate by memes. None of the religious beliefs are true beliefs; they are memes implanted in your head to serve the purpose of the religion. Further, religious people definitely do not understand science. In fact, you cannot be both religious and scientific at the same time. These are two opposing doctrines. Mr. Brodie implies that all religious people are nutbars who don't believe in evolution and have tons of children. This chapter is very insulting to religion in general and very dogmatic in a sense. It is either black or white: you are either religious or you believe in evolution. He does not seem to grasp the concept that some people can be both religious and believe in evolution. It is not black or what, it is not religion vs. science. Both can co-exist within the same brain. That is certainly not true for all religions, but Mr. Brodie tars all religions with the same brush and does not recognize the diversity present within the religions of the world.

It is also interesting to note that in a book purportedly about evolution, Mr. Brodie does not cite On The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin in his Recommended Reading list at the back of the book. No, I haven't read it either, but I thought that was an interesting omission. Maybe Mr. Darwin's opus will be a good winter project read.

Was this a good book? No. I cannot honestly recommend that everyone should rush out and read it. It was good in a sense in that it made you think about the bigger questions in life. But I think it has very little actual scientific value.

This book aside, I'm curious to find out where my next nosy bookworm adventure takes me!