virus: Re: Virus: Sociological Change

Lior Golgher (
Tue, 26 Nov 1996 23:01:27 -0800

> Can society ever reach a perfect state of social harmony for it's current population?
My boundaries for the existence of social harmony:
* As long as Society's members are constantly changing (e.g. Society's
members aren't fossils), social harmony should be constantly changing as
* As long as Society's members aren't all the same (e.g. Society's
members aren't zombies), social harmony can't be based on equal
* As long as Society's members don't uphold the same values, social
harmony can't mean justice for all.
* As long as socio-biological evolution is essential for the existence
of society, social harmony can't aspire approaching 0 non-lethal

I object the idea of synthetic social environments, which are so
delicate that their survival depend on most specific conditions. Its
fragility apparently justify the use of radical measures against every
dispute\intrusion\abnormality\'dangerous meme' which appears. That is
not correct according to my view. A social environment should be
flexible enough to fit reality, and shouldn't try to fit reality to its
enlightened ideals. That's why I detest Oceania (,
but support NCN (

> Does a change in the law necessarily reflect the beliefs of society?
Not exclusively. The same beliefs\values (pyramid's top) may be
implemented on different laws due to different situations\reality
(pyramid's basis).

> How is it possible to kill dangerous memes such as race hatred, and homophobia?
Generally you can disable a meme's infliction upon behaviour by
analyzing it. That's a proven solution for the effect of stereotypes,
and similar memes of prejudice. As for racism etc., you can eradicate it
by posing a clear inquestionable boundary between those who are the
members of your society and those who aren't. As long as there's a full
concensus on this boundary, each eruption of internal racism would
quickly vanish.

> Can we, as individuals, or even as a group, successfully "persuade" society to change
> for what we believe is the better?
Persuade society - make its members think as we do - almost impossible.
Infect society - insert our memes of a 'better world' into its members'
aspirations - mostly possible. Again, 'dangerous meme' is quite

> Without groups fighting for people's social position to be changed, would society
> stagnate, or would it evolve naturally?
'Groups fighting for people's social position to be changed' is part of
that natural evolution. Examining such natural evolution when separated
from this kind of cultural struggle is like seperating oxygen from air
in order to examine the air 'without external additives'.

Great questions Drakir, good to have you back.