Memes and "temes"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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?

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.

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.

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)

Translated by Xu Jiang

Reviewed by Yangyang Sun

文化的进化是个危险的孩子 对于任何放任它的物种来说。 等到你意识到正在发生的情况时，孩子已经会走路了， 到处闯祸，想把他拉回来为时已晚。 我们人类是地球的潘多拉德物种。 我们是把第二个复制因子放出盒子的人， 而我们却不能再将它放回去。 我们见证了身边的后果。

现在，我提议 是好好谈谈迷因论的时候了。 它给我们提供了一个新的思考方式 不仅仅是关于我们的星球上发生些什么， 还关于宇宙中其他地方发生的事情。 所以首先，我想介绍一下迷因 和迷因理论， 其次，这个可能解答关于外太空的问题， 是否有生命存在。

所以，迷因。 迷因是建立在通用达尔文理论上的。 达尔文想到这个惊人的点子。 确实，一些人说 这是有史以来最好的想法 难道这不是个绝妙的点子吗？有什么 可能是最好的点子呢？ 你认为有可能吗？ 观众：没有。 （笑声） 苏珊 布莱克莫尔：那边有人很大声地说不。 但是，我说有可能，如果有，我要颁奖给达尔文。

为什么呢? 因为这个想法很简单， 却解释了宇宙中所有的设计。 我会说不仅仅是生物上的设计， 还包括一切我们所想到的人为设计。 它们发生的原理都是一样的。 达尔文说了什么呢？ 我知道你们知道这个想法，自然选择， 但是让我解释下“物种起源”，1859年出版的， 的几句话。

达尔文所说的是这样的-- 如果你看到生物变异，那是无容置疑的-- 我去过加拉帕戈斯岛，我测量过喙的尺寸 海龟壳的尺寸以及等等等等。 翻过100页后-- （笑声） 如果为生存竞争， 好像几乎所有这些生物都死亡-- 那是不可能的，我读过马尔萨斯 我也计算过大象要花多长时间 来遍布全球，如果它们无限制的繁殖，等等等等。 再翻过在100页。 如果少数能活下来，遗传给子孙 有助于它们存活的任何条件 那么这些子孙一定能比祖先 更好的适应 周围环境

你明白这个想法了？ 如果，如果，如果，那么。 他没有算法的概念。 但是他在书中所描述的就是这样 这就是我们现在知道的进化算法。 原则是你只需要具备三样东西-- 变异，选择和遗传。 正如丹 丹尼特所做的，如果你有了这三样 你肯定能进化。 或者说没有想法也能设计出混乱。

这句话中有个词我很喜欢。 你觉得会是哪个词？ 观众：混乱。 苏珊：混乱？ 不是。什么？想法？也不是。© 观众：没有。 苏珊：不是，不是没有。 （笑声） 你们一个个的试：嗯...？ 观众：必须。 必须，一定。必须，必须。 这个词让一切那么奇妙。 你不需要设计师， 或者计划，前瞻性，或者其他什么。 如果有变异的复制 并通过选择，那么一定会有设计出现 你不能够阻止它。 ”一定“是我最喜欢的词。

现在，这个跟迷因有什么关系呢？ 好吧，这个原理可以应用于所有的事情 那就是变异和算则的复制。 我们习惯了思考生物， 我们想到基因就是这个样子的。 达尔文，当然，他不知道基因。 他基本上谈的是动物和植物， 也有关于语言进化和灭绝。 但是通用达尔文的原理 说的是任何有变异和选择 都会产生新的设计。

这就是理查德道金斯 在1976年的畅销书“自私的基因"中所提到的。 通过复制的信息，他称之为复制因子。 它自私地复制。 不是说它就在细胞内坐着说”我想被复制“ 但是只要有条件，它就会被复制 无论结果如何。 结果并不重要，因为它不能， 因为复制的只是信息。 它想跳脱 每个人都想到的基因 所以它说，”在这个星球上还有没有其他的复制因子呀？“ 哦，有的。

看看你周围，就在这个房间里，就有。 我们周围，还是笨拙地漂浮着 原始的文化，也就是另一个复制因子。 通过模仿，我们从一个人到另一个人复制来的信息， 通过语言，谈话，故事， 穿着，行动等等。 这就是有变异和选择的信息复制 是进行中的设计过程 他想命名这个新复制因子。 所以，他使用了希腊语mimeme，意思是模仿的东西。 记住，那个是核心定义。 模仿的东西。 然后将它简化为meme，因为听起来好听 然后再做个好meme，一个能有效传播的meme。 这就是这个想法的来源。 忠于定义很重要。

迷因的整个理论受到很多置疑， 很多误解，很多担忧。 但是很多的问题都可以避免 通过牢记这个定义。 迷因不等同于一个想法。 它不是一个想法，也不等同于其他任何事情，真的。 请忠于定义。 那就是模仿的东西。 或者说是一个人从另一个人那里复制来的信息。 让我们看看一些迷因。

这位先生，你的眼镜挂在脖子上 的方式很特别。 我想知道是你自己想出来的点子， 还是从其他人那里看到的？ 如果你是从其他人那里看到的，那就是个迷因。 还有，哦，我在这里没有发现什么有趣的迷因。 好，各位，你们谁能想到一些有趣的迷因？ 好，你的耳环， 我不认为你发明了耳环。 你大概只是出门去买的。 店里还有很多耳环。 那就是从一个人传到另一个人的东西。 我们讲的所有的店，当然， TED是一个非常棒的迷因节，很多很多的迷因。

去思考迷因的方法， 就是去想，为什么它们会传播呢？ 它们是自私的信息，如果它们可以，它们能被复制。 但是它们当中的一些被复制是因为他们很棒， 或者说它们是正确的，或者说有用的，或者说很漂亮。 它们当中的一些也会被复制，尽管它们不（棒，正确，有用或漂亮）。 还有一些，很难讲是为什么。

有一种特别的好奇迷因我很喜欢。 我很高兴得说，正如我预计的，当我来到这里时我就发现了， 我相信你们所有人也发现了。 你去任何一家优雅的豪华国际酒店， 你进去后，放下衣服 到洗手间，你看到了什么？ 观众：浴室的肥皂 苏珊：请再说一边？ 观众：肥皂 苏珊：肥皂，对。还有什么呢？ 观众：（无声） 苏珊：嗯，嗯。 观众：面盆，马桶！ 苏珊：面盆，马桶，对，这些都是迷因，它们全是迷因， 但是它们算是有用的迷因。请看这个。 （笑声） 这个是做什么用的呢？ （笑声） 这个已经遍布全球。 你们能找到它一点也不奇怪 当你进入浴室的时候。 这是我拍的在帐篷后面的一个厕所的照片 是在阿萨姆丛林中的生态营中。 （笑声） 谁把它叠成那样，为什么？ （笑声） 有些人模仿的过头了 （笑声） 其他人则太懒而弄错了。 一些酒店利用机会增加更多的迷因 附上小标签。 （笑声） 这都是为了什么呢？ 我觉得是告诉你某个人 清理过这个地方，一切都美好。 你知道，实际上它告诉你的就是另一个人 潜在的将细菌从一个地方传到了另一个地方。 （笑声）

这么想吧。 想象一个充满脑袋的世界 迷因多的都找不到家。 这些迷因都试着被复制， 试着，直白地讲，例如， 就是竭尽全力地被复制。 它们用你和我作为它们的宣传复制机器， 我们就是迷因机器。

为什么这个很重要呢？ 为什么这个很有用，或者说这个告诉了我们什么呢？ 它给了我们看待人类起源的一个全新的观点 以及这对人类有什么意义。 所有传统的文化进化， 人类的起源， 以及是什么将我们区别于其他物种。 所有其他理论解释大脑，语言和工具使用 以及所有让我们与众不同的这些东西， 都基于基因。 语言必须对基因有用。 工具的使用必须增强我们的生存能力，繁殖能力，以及等等。 它总要回来的，就像理查德道金斯抱怨的一样 长时间来，它总要回到基因上来。

迷因的重点是说，“哦，不，它不是。” 这个星球上有两个复制因子。 一个是我们的祖先那个时候的， 或许是250万年左右， 开始模仿，有了一个新的复制过程。 充满了变化和选择的复制。 释放了一个新的复制因子，可能永远不会-- 从一开始就正确，它可能永远不会 是人类是从这个新释放的复制因子开始， 只复制有用的，美丽的，正确的东西， 而不复制其他的东西。 当他们的大脑具有复制的优势-- 点火，让火种延续，打猎的新技术， 这些事情-- 不可避免地他们也复制将羽毛带在头上， 或者穿奇怪的衣服，或者在他们的脸上绘画， 或者随便什么。

所以，在基因间产生了装备竞赛 基因试着要人类拥有小而经济的大脑， 而不是浪费他们的时间复制全部的东西， 迷因它们自己，像人们发出和复制的声音-- 换句话说，就是语言的前身-- 竞争着拥有大脑，越来越大的大脑。 所以大型脑这个理论是由迷因驱动的。

这就是为什么，在“迷因机器”中，我称它为迷因驱动。 当迷因在演变，当它们难免必须， 驱使一个更大的大脑，能更好地复制 驱动的迷因。 这就使为什么我们拥有这样奇特的脑部， 我们喜欢宗教，音乐和艺术。 语言是我们已经适应的寄生物， 而不是我们基因原有的， 根据这个观点。 像大多数寄生物一样，语言一开始有危险， 但是后来它一起改变和适应 我们最终和这寄生物 达成共生关系

所以对我们来说， 我们不知道那是如何开始的。 所以这是个观点关于什么是人类。 其他在这个星球上的物种只是基因机器， 它们模仿的并不好，完全不好。 我们单独即是基因机器也是迷因机器。 迷因将一个基因机器变成一个迷因机器。

但那不是全部。 我们现在有了新的迷因。 很长一段时间我都在思考， 从我常常思考迷因开始， 我们所复制的迷因之间的差别-- 我们互相说的话， 我们模仿的手势，人类之间的那些事-- 以及所有这些我们周围的技术？ 我总是，直到现在，称它们为迷因， 但是我确实想到现在 我们需要用一个新词来描述技术迷因。

我们称它们为技术迷因或者说技因。 因为过程已经变了 我们大概在5000年前开始书写。 我们将迷因储存在泥板上， 但是为了得到真正的技因和真正的技因机器， 必须要有变异，选择和复制， 这些都要与人类无关。 我们快到了。 我们正在这个节骨眼上，我们马上就要到了， 有那样的机器存在。 真的，在我到TED的短短时间内， 我看到我们实际比我想象的要接近的多。

所以，实际上，现在这些技因强迫我们的大脑 变得更像技因机器。 我们的孩子在成长中更快地学会阅读， 学会适应机器。 我们将有各种各样的植入物， 药品，来强迫我们总是保持清醒。 我们认为是我们选择这些事情， 其实是技因让我们这么做。 所以我们现在在这个转折点 出现我们星球上的第三个复制因子。 现在，那么宇宙中还发生些什么呢？ 有没有外星人？ 人们问这个问题已经很久了。 我们也在TED讨论过了。 1961年，弗兰克得出他著名的等式， 但是我认为他关注了错误的东西。 那个等式很有用。 他想估计N， 我们星系中有沟通文明的星球的数量。 他包括了星球成型的比率， 行星的比率，以及最关键的，智慧。

我认为这样想不对。 智慧存在所有的地方，有着各种形式的伪装。 人类智慧只是其中的一种。 但是真正重要的是你的复制因子 和副复制因子的级别，一个依靠前一个。 所以我想建议我们不去思考智慧， 我们来思考复制因子。

基于这个，我建议一个不同的等式。 非常简单的等式。 N，还是同样的东西， 拥有沟通文明的星球数量， 我们的星系中，可能知道的。 仅仅从我们星系中的行星数量开始。 其中的一部分得到了第一个复制因子。 这其中的一部分得到了第二个复制因子。 这其中的一部分又得到了第三个复制因子。 因为只有第三个复制因子能伸展出去-- 发送信息，发送探测器，对外探索， 同其他地方交流。

好，如果我们拿来这个等式， 为什么我们没有收到任何信息呢? 因为每一步都是危险的。 得到一个新的 复制基因是危险的。 你虽然能逃脱危险，而且我们也曾经逃脱过危险 但是确实危险的。 迈出第一步，正当生命在这个星球上出现的那一刻。 我们可能采用盖安的观点。 我喜欢彼得沃德昨天的讲话--不全是盖安。 实际上，生命形式产生会杀死他们自己的东西。 我们确实在这个星球克服了这种危机。

但是，长久的，几十亿年以后， 我们的第二复制因子，迷因。 那是危险的，好吧。 想想大头脑。 我们在座的有多少位母亲？ 你们知道大头脑们 生产是很危险的。 是很痛苦的。 （笑声） 我的猫生了四只小猫，喵喵得不停。 啊，嗯--有点不同。 （笑声）

但是，不仅仅是痛苦，它还害死了很多婴儿， 害死了很多位妈妈， 而且也很昂贵。 基因被迫去制造髓磷脂， 供应大脑的髓磷脂。 你知道，坐在这儿， 你的大脑使用百分之二十身体输出的能量 而它只有你体重的百分之二。 真是个运营昂贵的器官。 为什么？因为它产生迷因。

现在，它可以杀死我们全部--它可以做的， 或许它几乎这么做了，但是你看，我们不知道。 但是或许它几乎这么做了。 它原先试过吗？ 那些其他的物种呢? 露易丝丽基昨天讲到的 我们是这个分支上唯一生存下来的 其他的都怎么了？ 会不会这一模仿的试验， 第二复制因子的试验， 太危险而导致消灭了人类呢？

我们的确过了一关，我们也适应了。 而现在，我们正在，就像我刚刚说过的， 我们正达到第三个复制因子阶段。 这更加的危险-- 嗯，是又一次的危险。 为什么？因为技因是自私复制因子 它们不关心我们，或者我们的星球，或者其他东西。 它们只是信息--它们怎么会顾及我们呢？ 它们只是用我们榨干星球上的资源 来生产更多的计算机， 更多我们在TED上听到的新奇事物。 不要想，“噢，我们发明互联网是为了我们自己。” 看起来如此。 想想技因扩散是因为它们必须这么做。 我们是老一代的机器了。

现在，我们还能够过关吗？ 会发生什么？ 过关意味着什么？ 好，有两种摆脱的方法。 一种是显然正发生在我们周围 即技因将我们变成技因机器， 用插入物，用药品， 把我们和技术融合在一起。 它们为什么要那样做？ 因为我们是自身复制。 我们有孩子。 我们产生新的生命，所以搭载我们很方便。 因为在地球上，我们还没到达 其他可行方式的阶段。 虽然接近了，今天早上我听到了， 比我想象地要近。 当技因机器他们自己能够复制他们自己。 那样，星球上的气候属否稳定 已经不重要了， 那时已经不适合人类居住了。 因为那些技因机器，它们不需要-- 它们不是血肉之躯，呼吸氧气， 需要温暖的生物。 没有我们，它们照样生存

因此，有这两种可能。 第二种，我不认为我们已经那么近了。 我们在接近，但是还没有。 第一，也在接近。 但是对这个星球已经造成的危害 告诉我们第三复制因子将是多么的危险， 第三个危险点就是得到第三个复制因子。 我们能否度过这第三个危险点， 像我们度过第二个危险点，第一个危险点那样？ 或许能，或许不能 我也不知道。 （掌声） 克里斯 安德森：真是场精彩的演讲。 苏珊：谢谢你。我吓倒我自己了。 克里斯 安德森：（笑声）