Susan Blackmore: Memes and "temes" (transcript)

https://www.ted.com/talks/susan_blackmore_on_memes_and_temes/transcript?language=zh-tw#t-0

0:11
Cultural evolution is a dangerous child for any species to let loose on its planet. By the time you realize what's happening, the child is a toddler, up and causing havoc, and it's too late to put it back. We humans are Earth's Pandoran species. We're the ones who let the second replicator out of its box, and we can't push it back in. We're seeing the consequences all around us.
0:41
Now that, I suggest, is the view that comes out of taking memetics seriously. And it gives us a new way of thinking about not only what's going on on our planet, but what might be going on elsewhere in the cosmos. So first of all, I'd like to say something about memetics and the theory of memes, and secondly, how this might answer questions about who's out there, if indeed anyone is.
1:07
So, memetics: memetics is founded on the principle of Universal Darwinism. Darwin had this amazing idea. Indeed, some people say it's the best idea anybody ever had. Isn't that a wonderful thought, that there could be such a thing as a best idea anybody ever had? Do you think there could? Audience: No. (Laughter) Susan Blackmore: Someone says no, very loudly, from over there. Well, I say yes, and if there is, I give the prize to Darwin.
1:36
Why? Because the idea was so simple, and yet it explains all design in the universe. I would say not just biological design, but all of the design that we think of as human design. It's all just the same thing happening. What did Darwin say? I know you know the idea, natural selection, but let me just paraphrase "The Origin of Species," 1859, in a few sentences.
2:04
What Darwin said was something like this: if you have creatures that vary, and that can't be doubted -- I've been to the Galapagos, and I've measured the size of the beaks and the size of the turtle shells and so on, and so on. And 100 pages later. (Laughter) And if there is a struggle for life, such that nearly all of these creatures die -- and this can't be doubted, I've read Malthus and I've calculated how long it would take for elephants to cover the whole world if they bred unrestricted, and so on and so on. And another 100 pages later. And if the very few that survive pass onto their offspring whatever it was that helped them survive, then those offspring must be better adapted to the circumstances in which all this happened than their parents were.
2:54
You see the idea? If, if, if, then. He had no concept of the idea of an algorithm, but that's what he described in that book, and this is what we now know as the evolutionary algorithm. The principle is you just need those three things -- variation, selection and heredity. And as Dan Dennett puts it, if you have those, then you must get evolution. Or design out of chaos, without the aid of mind.
3:24
There's one word I love on that slide. What do you think my favorite word is? Audience: Chaos. SB: Chaos? No. What? Mind? No. Audience: Without. SB: No, not without. (Laughter) You try them all in order: Mmm...? Audience: Must. SB: Must, at must. Must, must. This is what makes it so amazing. You don't need a designer, or a plan, or foresight, or anything else. If there's something that is copied with variation and it's selected, then you must get design appearing out of nowhere. You can't stop it. Must is my favorite word there.
4:04
Now, what's this to do with memes? Well, the principle here applies to anything that is copied with variation and selection. We're so used to thinking in terms of biology, we think about genes this way. Darwin didn't, of course; he didn't know about genes. He talked mostly about animals and plants, but also about languages evolving and becoming extinct. But the principle of Universal Darwinism is that any information that is varied and selected will produce design.
4:33
And this is what Richard Dawkins was on about in his 1976 bestseller, "The Selfish Gene." The information that is copied, he called the replicator. It selfishly copies. Not meaning it kind of sits around inside cells going, "I want to get copied." But that it will get copied if it can, regardless of the consequences. It doesn't care about the consequences because it can't, because it's just information being copied. And he wanted to get away from everybody thinking all the time about genes, and so he said, "Is there another replicator out there on the planet?" Ah, yes, there is.
5:08
Look around you -- here will do, in this room. All around us, still clumsily drifting about in its primeval soup of culture, is another replicator. Information that we copy from person to person, by imitation, by language, by talking, by telling stories, by wearing clothes, by doing things. This is information copied with variation and selection. This is design process going on. He wanted a name for the new replicator. So, he took the Greek word "mimeme," which means that which is imitated. Remember that, that's the core definition: that which is imitated. And abbreviated it to meme, just because it sounds good and made a good meme, an effective spreading meme. So that's how the idea came about. It's important to stick with that definition.
5:59
The whole science of memetics is much maligned, much misunderstood, much feared. But a lot of these problems can be avoided by remembering the definition. A meme is not equivalent to an idea. It's not an idea. It's not equivalent to anything else, really. Stick with the definition. It's that which is imitated, or information which is copied from person to person. So, let's see some memes.
6:24
Well, you sir, you've got those glasses hung around your neck in that particularly fetching way. I wonder whether you invented that idea for yourself, or copied it from someone else? If you copied it from someone else, it's a meme. And what about, oh, I can't see any interesting memes here. All right everyone, who's got some interesting memes for me? Oh, well, your earrings, I don't suppose you invented the idea of earrings. You probably went out and bought them. There are plenty more in the shops. That's something that's passed on from person to person. All the stories that we're telling -- well, of course, TED is a great meme-fest, masses of memes.
6:59
The way to think about memes, though, is to think, why do they spread? They're selfish information, they will get copied, if they can. But some of them will be copied because they're good, or true, or useful, or beautiful. Some of them will be copied even though they're not. Some, it's quite hard to tell why.
7:17
There's one particular curious meme which I rather enjoy. And I'm glad to say, as I expected, I found it when I came here, and I'm sure all of you found it, too. You go to your nice, posh, international hotel somewhere, and you come in and you put down your clothes and you go to the bathroom, and what do you see? Audience: Bathroom soap. SB: Pardon? Audience: Soap. SB: Soap, yeah. What else do you see? Audience: (Inaudible) SB: Mmm mmm. Audience: Sink, toilet! SB: Sink, toilet, yes, these are all memes, they're all memes, but they're sort of useful ones, and then there's this one. (Laughter) What is this one doing? (Laughter) This has spread all over the world. It's not surprising that you all found it when you arrived in your bathrooms here. But I took this photograph in a toilet at the back of a tent in the eco-camp in the jungle in Assam. (Laughter) Who folded that thing up there, and why? (Laughter) Some people get carried away. (Laughter) Other people are just lazy and make mistakes. Some hotels exploit the opportunity to put even more memes with a little sticker. (Laughter) What is this all about? I suppose it's there to tell you that somebody's cleaned the place, and it's all lovely. And you know, actually, all it tells you is that another person has potentially spread germs from place to place. (Laughter)
8:41
So, think of it this way. Imagine a world full of brains and far more memes than can possibly find homes. The memes are all trying to get copied -- trying, in inverted commas -- i.e., that's the shorthand for, if they can get copied, they will. They're using you and me as their propagating, copying machinery, and we are the meme machines.
9:06
Now, why is this important? Why is this useful, or what does it tell us? It gives us a completely new view of human origins and what it means to be human, all conventional theories of cultural evolution, of the origin of humans, and what makes us so different from other species. All other theories explaining the big brain, and language, and tool use and all these things that make us unique, are based upon genes. Language must have been useful for the genes. Tool use must have enhanced our survival, mating and so on. It always comes back, as Richard Dawkins complained all that long time ago, it always comes back to genes.
9:44
The point of memetics is to say, "Oh no, it doesn't." There are two replicators now on this planet. From the moment that our ancestors, perhaps two and a half million years ago or so, began imitating, there was a new copying process. Copying with variation and selection. A new replicator was let loose, and it could never be -- right from the start -- it could never be that human beings who let loose this new creature, could just copy the useful, beautiful, true things, and not copy the other things. While their brains were having an advantage from being able to copy -- lighting fires, keeping fires going, new techniques of hunting, these kinds of things -- inevitably they were also copying putting feathers in their hair, or wearing strange clothes, or painting their faces, or whatever.
10:34
So, you get an arms race between the genes which are trying to get the humans to have small economical brains and not waste their time copying all this stuff, and the memes themselves, like the sounds that people made and copied -- in other words, what turned out to be language -- competing to get the brains to get bigger and bigger. So, the big brain, on this theory, is driven by the memes.
10:58
This is why, in "The Meme Machine," I called it memetic drive. As the memes evolve, as they inevitably must, they drive a bigger brain that is better at copying the memes that are doing the driving. This is why we've ended up with such peculiar brains, that we like religion, and music, and art. Language is a parasite that we've adapted to, not something that was there originally for our genes, on this view. And like most parasites, it can begin dangerous, but then it coevolves and adapts, and we end up with a symbiotic relationship with this new parasite.
11:34
And so, from our perspective, we don't realize that that's how it began. So, this is a view of what humans are. All other species on this planet are gene machines only, they don't imitate at all well, hardly at all. We alone are gene machines and meme machines as well. The memes took a gene machine and turned it into a meme machine.
11:57
But that's not all. We have a new kind of memes now. I've been wondering for a long time, since I've been thinking about memes a lot, is there a difference between the memes that we copy -- the words we speak to each other, the gestures we copy, the human things -- and all these technological things around us? I have always, until now, called them all memes, but I do honestly think now we need a new word for technological memes.
12:23
Let's call them techno-memes or temes. Because the processes are getting different. We began, perhaps 5,000 years ago, with writing. We put the storage of memes out there on a clay tablet, but in order to get true temes and true teme machines, you need to get the variation, the selection and the copying, all done outside of humans. And we're getting there. We're at this extraordinary point where we're nearly there, that there are machines like that. And indeed, in the short time I've already been at TED, I see we're even closer than I thought we were before.
12:58
So actually, now the temes are forcing our brains to become more like teme machines. Our children are growing up very quickly learning to read, learning to use machinery. We're going to have all kinds of implants, drugs that force us to stay awake all the time. We'll think we're choosing these things, but the temes are making us do it. So, we're at this cusp now of having a third replicator on our planet. Now, what about what else is going on out there in the universe? Is there anyone else out there? People have been asking this question for a long time. We've been asking it here at TED already. In 1961, Frank Drake made his famous equation, but I think he concentrated on the wrong things. It's been very productive, that equation. He wanted to estimate N, the number of communicative civilizations out there in our galaxy, and he included in there the rate of star formation, the rate of planets, but crucially, intelligence.
14:01
I think that's the wrong way to think about it. Intelligence appears all over the place, in all kinds of guises. Human intelligence is only one kind of a thing. But what's really important is the replicators you have and the levels of replicators, one feeding on the one before. So, I would suggest that we don't think intelligence, we think replicators.
14:24
And on that basis, I've suggested a different kind of equation. A very simple equation. N, the same thing, the number of communicative civilizations out there [that] we might expect in our galaxy. Just start with the number of planets there are in our galaxy. The fraction of those which get a first replicator. The fraction of those that get the second replicator. The fraction of those that get the third replicator. Because it's only the third replicator that's going to reach out -- sending information, sending probes, getting out there, and communicating with anywhere else.
14:59
OK, so if we take that equation, why haven't we heard from anybody out there? Because every step is dangerous. Getting a new replicator is dangerous. You can pull through, we have pulled through, but it's dangerous. Take the first step, as soon as life appeared on this earth. We may take the Gaian view. I loved Peter Ward's talk yesterday -- it's not Gaian all the time. Actually, life forms produce things that kill themselves. Well, we did pull through on this planet.
15:32
But then, a long time later, billions of years later, we got the second replicator, the memes. That was dangerous, all right. Think of the big brain. How many mothers do we have here? You know all about big brains. They are dangerous to give birth to, are agonizing to give birth to. (Laughter) My cat gave birth to four kittens, purring all the time. Ah, mm -- slightly different. (Laughter)
15:58
But not only is it painful, it kills lots of babies, it kills lots of mothers, and it's very expensive to produce. The genes are forced into producing all this myelin, all the fat to myelinate the brain. Do you know, sitting here, your brain is using about 20 percent of your body's energy output for two percent of your body weight? It's a really expensive organ to run. Why? Because it's producing the memes.
16:21
Now, it could have killed us off. It could have killed us off, and maybe it nearly did, but you see, we don't know. But maybe it nearly did. Has it been tried before? What about all those other species? Louise Leakey talked yesterday about how we're the only one in this branch left. What happened to the others? Could it be that this experiment in imitation, this experiment in a second replicator, is dangerous enough to kill people off?
16:47
Well, we did pull through, and we adapted. But now, we're hitting, as I've just described, we're hitting the third replicator point. And this is even more dangerous -- well, it's dangerous again. Why? Because the temes are selfish replicators and they don't care about us, or our planet, or anything else. They're just information, why would they? They are using us to suck up the planet's resources to produce more computers, and more of all these amazing things we're hearing about here at TED. Don't think, "Oh, we created the Internet for our own benefit." That's how it seems to us. Think, temes spreading because they must. We are the old machines.
17:29
Now, are we going to pull through? What's going to happen? What does it mean to pull through? Well, there are kind of two ways of pulling through. One that is obviously happening all around us now, is that the temes turn us into teme machines, with these implants, with the drugs, with us merging with the technology. And why would they do that? Because we are self-replicating. We have babies. We make new ones, and so it's convenient to piggyback on us, because we're not yet at the stage on this planet where the other option is viable. Although it's closer, I heard this morning, it's closer than I thought it was. Where the teme machines themselves will replicate themselves. That way, it wouldn't matter if the planet's climate was utterly destabilized, and it was no longer possible for humans to live here. Because those teme machines, they wouldn't need -- they're not squishy, wet, oxygen-breathing, warmth-requiring creatures. They could carry on without us.
18:28
So, those are the two possibilities. The second, I don't think we're that close. It's coming, but we're not there yet. The first, it's coming too. But the damage that is already being done to the planet is showing us how dangerous the third point is, that third danger point, getting a third replicator. And will we get through this third danger point, like we got through the second and like we got through the first? Maybe we will, maybe we won't. I have no idea. (Applause) Chris Anderson: That was an incredible talk. SB: Thank you. I scared myself. CA: (Laughter)

0:11
文化的演化是個危險小孩 任何物種如果放任它在星球上。 等你察覺出了事，小孩已在學步， 四處闖禍，將它帶回已太遲。 我們人類是地球的潘朵拉物種。 我們把第二個複製體放出盒子， 而我們無法將它收回。 我們正看到身邊的後果。
0:41
現在，我認為這個觀點 是認真看待迷因論而來的。 它提供我們一個新方法去思考 不僅我們星球發生了什麼事， 還有宇宙他處可能有什麼事。 首先，我要談談迷因論， 就是迷因的理論, 其次，談這可能解答外太空有誰， 是否真的有誰。
1:07
迷因論。 迷因論是根據通用達爾文理論而來的。 達爾文有這個驚奇想法。 真的，有人說： 那是有史以來最好的想法。 那豈不是絕妙的觀點，認為有件事可以是 有史以來最好的想法？ 你認為有可能嗎？ (觀眾：不) (笑聲) 那邊有人很大聲地說：｢不｣。 但我說｢有｣，如果有，我將頒獎給達爾文。
1:36
為什麼？ 因為這個想法那麼簡單， 卻解釋了宇宙的一切設計。 我認為不只是生物的設計， 還有一切我們認為的人為設計。 其發生的原理完全一樣。 達爾文說了什麼？ 我想你知道他的想法：｢天擇｣ 讓我用｢物種起源｣， 1859 年版， 套幾句話解釋一下。
2:04
達爾文說的就像 － 如果你有生物的變異，這是無庸置疑的 － 我到過加拉巴哥群島，測量過鳥嘴 和龜殼的尺寸等等... 翻過 100 頁 － (笑聲) 如果有生存競爭， 使幾乎所有的生物都死亡 － 這無庸置疑，我讀過馬爾薩斯 我計算過要多少時間會使大象 在不受限制的成長下，充滿整個世界，等等... 再翻過 100 頁。 如果少數幾個活下來，傳承給子孫 有助它們存活的任何條件， 則這些子孫必然比祖先 更能適應發生這一切 的環境情況。
2:54
你看到這個想法了嗎？ 如果、如果、如果，則 他並沒有運算法的概念。 但他在書上寫的就是這樣， 就是現在我們所知的演化運算法。 原則上你只需三樣東西 － 變異、選擇、及遺傳。 就如 Dan Dennett 所說，如果有這些 必然會有演化。 或：不用心智的輔助，混沌即會產出設計。
3:24
幻燈片中有個字我很喜歡， 你猜我喜歡的是哪個字？ (觀眾：混沌) ｢混沌｣？不是。｢心智｣？不是。 (觀眾：不用) 不是，不是「不用」。 (笑聲) 你們依序再猜：嗯？ (觀眾：必然) 必然、必然、必然、必然。 就是它才那麼驚奇。 你不需要設計師， 或計畫，或先見、或任何什麼。 如果有變異的複製 並被選擇，則無中必然會有設計出現。 你無法停止它。 此處，「必然」是我喜歡的字。
4:04
而這和迷因有什關係？ 嗯，這個原則適用任何情形 就是有變異和選擇的複製。 我們太習慣於生物學的觀點， 我們以此方式思考基因。 達爾文則當然沒有, 他不知道基因。 他大部分提到動物、植物， 但也提到語言的演化與滅絕。 但通用達爾文論的原則 是任何有變異及被選擇的資訊 都會產生設計。
4:33
這也是理察·道金斯在他的 1976 年暢銷書「自私的基因」中談的。 被複製的資訊，他叫做複製體。 它自私地複製。 不是說它躺在細胞裡叫著「我要被複製」。 而是只要能夠，它就會被複製， 不論後果如何。 它不在意後果，因為它無從在意， 因為複製的只是資訊。 他想要跳脫， 大家總是想到基因， 因此他說：「行星上還有另一個複製體嗎？」 是的，有的。
5:08
看看四周，這房間裡就有。 我們四周，仍拙然浮現著 文化原汁的，是另一個複製體。 經由模仿，資訊在人與人之間複製著， 經由語言、交談、敍事、 穿著、行為等。 這是有變異與選擇的資訊複製。 是進行中的設計過程。 他要為這新複製體取個新名字。 因此他用希臘字 mimeme，意指「模仿之物」。 記住，這是它的本義。 指「模仿之物」。 將它簡化為 meme，因為好唸 而成為好的迷因，有效傳播的迷因。 這就是此想法的來源。 謹守這個定義是重要的。
5:59
整個迷因論受到太多詆毀， 太多誤解，太多憂懼。 但許多問題可以避免掉， 只要記住這個定義。 迷因不等於一個想法。 它不是想法，它也不等於任何事,，真的。 謹守這個定義。 它是模仿之物。 或指在人與人之間複製的資訊。 那麼，讓我們來看一些迷因。
6:24
先生，你的眼鏡掛在脖子上 是一種特別的拿取方式。 我好奇那是你自己發明的想法， 或複製自別人？ 如果你複製自別人，那就是個迷因。 還有，這裡我看不到任何有趣的迷因。 各位，誰有有趣的迷因？ 好，你的耳環， 我不認為你發明了耳環的想法。 或許是你出去買的。 店裡有很多。 這就是在人與人之間傳遞的。 所有我們說的故事，當然 TED 是個大的迷因饗宴，有大量的迷因。
6:59
考慮迷因的一個方式是， 想想它們為什麼會傳播？ 它們是自私的資訊，它們盡可能讓人複製。 有些被複製，因為它們很好、 真實、有用、或美妙。 有些雖不是，也將被複製。 有些，很難說明為什麼。
7:17
有一種特別好奇的迷因我很欣賞。 我很高興地說，如預期地我在這裡找到了它， 我確定你們也都發現了它。 你到某處的豪華國際旅館， 進去後，放下你的衣服 到了浴室，你看到什麼？ (觀眾：肥皂) 什麼？ (觀眾：肥皂) 肥皂，是呀。還看到什麼？ (觀眾：...) 嗯、嗯。 (觀眾：洗臉盆、馬桶) 洗臉盆、馬桶，對，這些都是迷因，都是迷因， 它們是有用的迷因，還有這個。 (笑聲) 這個做什麼？ (笑聲) 這已傳遍全世界。 無疑你們都發現了它 在你來到這裡的浴室時。 但這張照片拍自一個帳篷後的廁所 是在阿隡姆叢林的生態營中。 (笑聲) 誰把它摺成那樣，為什麼？ (笑聲) 有些人受影響過了頭。 (笑聲) 其他人則太懶並弄錯了。 有些旅館趁機會加入更多迷因 附上小貼標。 (笑聲) 到底是怎麼了？ 我想它是要告訴你：有人已經 清潔了這地方，全都好了。 你知道，實際上它告訴你的是：另個人 有可能散播細菌到各處。 (笑聲)
8:41
因此用這方式去想它。 想像世界上充滿了頭腦 但有更多的迷因找不到家。 迷因都試著要被複製， 試著，明白地講 就是：｢盡其所能地被複製｣。 它們利用你我當擴散的複製機， 我們是迷因機器。
9:06
為什麼這個重要？ 為什麼它有用？它告訴我們什麼？ 它給我們全新觀點的人類起源 及它對人類的意義。 所有傳統的文化演化理論， 人類起源理論， 及我們異於其他物種的理論。 其他理論都解釋大腦、語言、及工具使用 是這些事使我們獨特， 都是基於基因。 語言必須對基因有用。 工具使用必須加強我們的存活、交配等。 它總是回到，如同理察·道金斯所埋怨 長時以來，它總是回到基因。
9:44
迷因論則說：｢不，它不會。｣ 現在有兩種複製體在這星球上。 自從我們祖先 大約 250 萬年前， 開始模仿，就有一個新的複製過程。 以變異及選擇而複製。 釋出了一個新複製體，它將永不會 － 在一開始，它就永不會是 釋放了這個新生物的人類， 只複製有用的、美妙的、真實的事物， 而不複製其他事物。 人類的頭腦有利於去複製 － 取火、保存火、打獵新技法， 這些東西 － 難免他們也複製頭髮裝飾羽毛， 或穿新奇衣服、畫臉、 或什麼的。
10:34
因而有了武器競賽： 基因試著要人類有小而經濟的頭腦 不要浪費時間複製所有東西， 而迷因自己，像人類創造及複製的聲音 － 換言之，就是語言 － 競爭著要頭腦越來越大。 因此大頭腦理論是來自迷因的。
10:58
這是為什麼在｢迷因機器｣裡，我叫它迷因驅動機。 當迷因演化時，當它們難免必須， 它們驅動較會複製迷因的較大頭腦 去做驅動。 這是為什麼我們有這樣奇特的頭腦， 我們喜歡宗教、音樂、和藝術。 語言是我們已適應的寄生物， 不是我們基因原本就有的， 這樣一個觀點。 像大部分寄生物一樣，它一開始有危險， 然後一起演化、調適 結果我們和這寄生物 形成共生關係。
11:34
因此從我們的觀點， 我們不知它是如何開始的。 這是人類是什麼的一個觀點。 地球上的其他物種只是基因機器而已， 它們不太會模仿，幾乎不會。 只有我們是基因機器，也是迷因機器。 迷因取用基因機器，將它變成迷因機器。
11:57
但這還不是全部。 我們現在有新種的迷因了。 我已經驚奇一段長時間了， 因為我一直常在思考迷因， 迷因複製的東西有差別嗎 － 我們彼此交談的話， 我們複製的姿勢，人為的物品 － 以及所有我們四周的科技物品？ 我一直到現在都叫它們迷因， 但現在我坦誠思考 我們需要為科技迷因取個新詞。
12:23
我們來把它叫做「技術迷因」或「技因」。 因為過程已經在變。 我們約在五千年前開始書寫。 我們將迷因典藏放在泥板上， 但為了取得真正的技因及真正的技因機器， 必須有變異、選擇、和複製， 都在人類以外進行。 我們快有了。 我們已趨近這快有了的特殊點， 已有類似的機器。 真的，在我到 TED 的短暫時間裡， 我認為，我們已比我想的還接近了。
12:58
實際上，此時技因正強迫我們的大腦 變成更像技因機器。 我們的孩子成長中更快學會讀書， 學會使用機器。 我們將有各種植入物， 迫使我們一直清醒的藥物。 以為是我們自己選擇這些事物， 卻是技因使我們這樣的。 因此我們正在此一頂點 正要有我們星球上的第三複製體。 而宇宙他處又有什麼在發生？ 外太空有誰嗎？ 人們問這個問題已很長久了。 我們在 TED 也已問過。 1961 年，Frank Drake 提出有名的等式， 但我覺得他聚焦到錯的事項上。 那個等式很有生產力。 他要預估 N， 我們星系中具溝通文明的數量。 他包含在式子裡有星星形成率、 行星率，及最關鍵的智慧。
14:01
我認為這樣思考法是錯的。 智慧到處都有，以各種變貌。 人類智慧只是其中一種。 但最重要的是你有的複製體 及複製體的層級，各須依賴其前一個。 因此我建議，我們不考慮智慧， 我們考慮複製體。
14:24
基於此，我提議一個不同的等式。 很單純的等式。 N 一樣， 具溝通的文明數量， 預期在我們星系中的。 以我們星系中的行星數開始。 擁有第一種複製體的分數。 擁有第二種複製體的分數。 擁有第三種複製體的分數。 因為只有第三種複製體會伸展出去 － 送出資訊、送出探測器、對外探索， 並和外界做溝通。
14:59
好，我們用這個等式， 為何我們沒聽到有誰在外界？ 因為每一步都是危險的。 取得新種複製體是危險的。 你能擺脫，我們擺脫了， 但那是危險的。 第一步，生命一開始在地球出現。 我們可以採用蓋亞的觀點。 我喜歡昨天 Peter Ward 的演講 － 並非一直是蓋亞論。 事實上，生命體製造殺死自己的事物。 嗯，我們在這星球上擺脫了。
15:32
但，過了一段長時間，幾十億年後， 我們得到第二種複製體：迷因。 那是危險的，沒錯。 想想大頭腦。 這裡有幾位媽媽？ 妳們都知道大頭腦。 大頭腦的生產很危險。 生得很折磨。 (笑聲) 我的貓生了四隻小貓，嗚個不停。 嗯 － 有點不同。 (笑聲)
15:58
它不但痛苦，害死許多嬰兒， 害死許多媽媽， 它的產生也很昂貴。 基因被迫去生產髓磷脂， 供應大腦的髓磷脂。 你知道嗎？坐在這裡， 你的大腦大約使用身體能量產出的百分之 20. 它只有體重的百分之二。 這器官的運轉真的很貴。 為什麼？因為它生產迷因。
16:21
它可能害我們死光 － 可能害我們死光， 也許它差點做到了，但我們並不清楚。 也許它差點做到了。 它曾試過嗎？ 其他的物種又如何？ Louise Leakey 昨天談到 我們是這一支系唯一存下的。 其他的怎麼了？ 會是因為實驗了模仿， 實驗了第二種複製體 危險到足以害死大家？
16:47
我們擺脫了，我們適應了。 而現在，我們碰上了如我剛說的， 我們碰上了第三種複製體。 這個更危險 － 它又是危險的。 為什麼？因為技因是自私的複製體 它不在乎我們、我們的星球、或任何東西。 它只是資訊 － 為何它要在乎？ 它只利用我們去吸取地球資源 去產生更多電腦， 更多驚奇事物，我們在 TED 聽到的事物。 不要以為：｢喔，我們為自己的好處創造了網路。｣ 那是我們認為如此。 想想：技因的傳播是因為它必須如此。 我們是老舊機器。
17:29
現在我們能擺脫嗎？ 會出什麼事嗎？ 擺脫了又怎樣？ 嗯，有兩種擺脫的方式。 一種顯然正在我們四周發生， 即技因把我們變成技因機器， 用植入物、用藥物， 把我們併入科技中。 為什麼它要這麼做？ 因為我們自我複製。 我們有後代。 我們生產新生命，因此騎著我們很方便， 因為在地球上，我們還未到達 其他方式可行的階段。 雖然接近了，早上我聽到了， 比我以為的還接近了。 到了技因機器會複製自己。 那時，就無所謂地球氣候 是否極度不穩定， 不再可能讓人類生存於此。 因為技因機器將不需要 － 它們不是血肉之軀、呼吸氧氣、 需要溫暖的生物。 沒有我們，它們也能生存。
18:28
因此，有這兩種可能。 第二種，我不認為我們有那麼接近。 它會來，但我們還未到達。 第一種，也會來。 但已造成對地球的損害 這告訴了我們第三點有多危險， 即第三危險點：取得第三種複製體。 我們能擺脫這第三危險點， 像我們擺脫第二個，像我們擺脫第一個？ 也許我們能，也許不能。 我也不知道。 (掌聲) 演講很精彩。 謝謝。我嚇到自己。 (笑聲)