Rating: 
Summary: 60 years out of date
Review: When sociobiologists finally conceded that reductionalism could not quite be explained by genes, they had found a new holy ground with people like Lynch and Dawkins. The problem here is that what Lynch advocates is at least 60 years out of date. Cultural ecology, particularly, has moved much beyond garbage written in this pseudo-scientific book. Instead of evidence, we are given conjecture. What is worse is that this conjecture simply does not stand against the HRAF (Human Resource Area Files), an anthropological database of cultures. What Lynch presents as truths, is not found in the HRAF. His explanations DIRECTLY challenge 200 years of anthropology. His examples are terrible. Consider:Memes that are against birth control "offer the clearest examples of the quantity parental effect. By raising extra babies, followers of these memes can outpopulate nonhosts across various times and places" Roy Rappaport, as well as Marvin Harris would groan. Population control is likely as old as humans. Anyone even slightly familiar with Cultural Ecology knows that human populations of horticulturalists and hunter/gatherers go well below the carrying capacity. Although there are explanations for this, such as cyclical starvation, or the simple fact often raised that higher population would mean more work, they go _against_ Lynch's argument. Widespread infanticide and other methods of birth control are plentiful in the HRAF. It is true that humans could perform the rabbit strategy, but they DO NOT, which is a slap in the face to everything memes try to explain. OR, consider: "Laws against eating shellfish, pork, and other parasite-laden animals may reduce morality rates, thus propagating the movement." Marvin Harris who did earlier research actually went to the ethnographic databases to see HOW actual cultures behave. Result: pig taboos occurred in places where they competed with humans for food. Or consider cows, another parasite-laden animal, which cannot be eaten in places like India. After lengthy analysis, supported by QUANTIFIABLE data, the economics of eating cows just wouldn't make sense. Yet ANOTHER slap in the face for Lynch. Lynch showcases problems of not only memes, but also of reductionalist neo-Darwinism. Its results continue to be unimpressive and unscientific to the extreme. I recommend reading cultural ecologists; Marvin Harris, in particular, is a good place to start.
Rating:
Summary: 60 years out of date
Review: When sociobiologists finally conceded that reductionalism could not quite be explained by genes, they had found a new holy ground with people like Lynch and Dawkins. The problem here is that what Lynch advocates is at least 60 years out of date. Cultural ecology, particularly, has moved much beyond garbage written in this pseudo-scientific book. Instead of evidence, we are given conjecture. What is worse is that this conjecture simply does not stand against the HRAF (Human Resource Area Files), an anthropological database of cultures. What Lynch presents as truths, is not found in the HRAF. His explanations DIRECTLY challenge 200 years of anthropology. His examples are terrible. Consider: Memes that are against birth control "offer the clearest examples of the quantity parental effect. By raising extra babies, followers of these memes can outpopulate nonhosts across various times and places" Roy Rappaport, as well as Marvin Harris would groan. Population control is likely as old as humans. Anyone even slightly familiar with Cultural Ecology knows that human populations of horticulturalists and hunter/gatherers go well below the carrying capacity. Although there are explanations for this, such as cyclical starvation, or the simple fact often raised that higher population would mean more work, they go _against_ Lynch's argument. Widespread infanticide and other methods of birth control are plentiful in the HRAF. It is true that humans could perform the rabbit strategy, but they DO NOT, which is a slap in the face to everything memes try to explain. OR, consider: "Laws against eating shellfish, pork, and other parasite-laden animals may reduce morality rates, thus propagating the movement." Marvin Harris who did earlier research actually went to the ethnographic databases to see HOW actual cultures behave. Result: pig taboos occurred in places where they competed with humans for food. Or consider cows, another parasite-laden animal, which cannot be eaten in places like India. After lengthy analysis, supported by QUANTIFIABLE data, the economics of eating cows just wouldn't make sense. Yet ANOTHER slap in the face for Lynch. Lynch showcases problems of not only memes, but also of reductionalist neo-Darwinism. Its results continue to be unimpressive and unscientific to the extreme. I recommend reading cultural ecologists; Marvin Harris, in particular, is a good place to start.
| 
