The Speculist

Richard Dawkins invented the term "memetic engineering" to describe the modification of human beliefs in his book The Selfish Gene. He was comparing the information exchange of DNA in the natural world with the information exchange that occurs in our society. Scientists, journalists, ministers, and now bloggers - really anyone who proselytizes ideas - could be described as a memetic engineer.

This is all very neutral. Ideas evolve over time. But by calling this "memetic engineering" Dawkins was purposefully evoking "genetic engineering." He was using a biological metaphor. A generation earlier U.S. Surpreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes used an economic metaphor when he described a "marketplace of ideas."

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition...But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas—that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution.

[emphasis added]

I prefer Justice Holmes' metaphor. A marketplace is egalitarian. A marketplace is open to everyone who wishes to participate. Dawkins may not have intended it this way, but "memetic engineering" suggests a lone actor manipulating ideas outside of normal channels - immune from criticism. As such the lone actor would tend to be a large institution like a government or a university.

I don't think I'm being paranoid to interpret memetic engineering in this way. When George Dvorsky listed "memetic engineering" in his "Must-Know Terms" he said:

...advocates of ME would argue that some religious memes are viral and and need to curbed. I have also argued along these lines.

Dvorsky's link takes you to a column he wrote entitled "Ending Biblical Brainwash: For better mental and cultural health, it's time we classified religious fundamentalism as a psychological disorder."

Much of what disturbs Dvorsky about religious fundamentalism disturbs me also. He's recently written about the Jehovah's Witnesses who refused to allow their babies life-saving blood transfusions. He has also written against the thuggish practices of Scientology. Fine. But "classifying religious fundamentalism as a psychological disorder" is precisely the sort of "memetic engineering" that I find very disturbing. It would remove the opportunity to respond: "I don't have to debate you. You believe in a personal God. You're crazy."

As Justice Holmes suggested, it's natural to want to conquer ideological foes and sweep away all opposition and criticism. But this leaves no opportunity for improvement. The United States has survived innumerable bad ideas, policies, and programs precisely because the opposition was free to speak up. This freedom allowed the opposition to produce a better idea to compete in the marketplace.

With apologies to Rodney King... Can't we all just agree to argue?