Skip to main content
Log in

Minimal memetics and the Evolution of Patented Technology

  • Published:
Foundations of Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The nature and status of cultural evolution and its connection with biological evolution are controversial in part because of Richard Dawkin’s suggestion that the scientific study of culture should include “memetics,” an analog of genetics in which genes are replaced by “memes”—the hypothetical units of cultural evolution. Memetics takes different forms; I focus on its minimal form, which claims merely that natural selection shapes to some extent the evolution of some aspects of culture. Advocates and critics of memetics disagree about the scientific status of memetics, but they agree that memetics must face the following fundamental problems. Problem 1: Cultural evolution differs too much from biological evolution. Problem 2: Culture is too complex. Problem 3: Memes are too difficult to identify and track. Problem 4: Memetics produces only trivial results. This paper examines these problems in the context of a minimal memetic analysis in one specific context: patented inventions. Technology is a special subset of culture, and patented inventions are a special subset of technology—not least because there is a detailed written record of every patent. I describe four recent empirical results on technological innovation derived from memetic analysis of the patent record. Result 1: Inkjet printing, PCR, and stents are key drivers of technological innovation. Result 2: Patent genealogies are tangled and incestuous. Result 3: Door-opening innovations drive the evolution of technology. Result 4: The evolving content of the drivers of innovation confirms the importance of inkjet printing, PCR, and stents, among other inventions. These results show that minimal memetics can provide a novel and illuminating analysis the evolution of patented technology. Furthermore, this memetic analysis can answer all of the main problems with memetics. Problem 1 can be dismissed because culture and biology can be quite disanalogous, provided that natural selection still operates in both. Problem 2 is a mirage, because memetic analysis of the patented inventions is consistent with the full richness and complexity of the evolution of technology. Problem 3 is easy to solve, because the patent record makes it trivial to identify and track patents and their key traits through lineages. Problem 4 can be fully answered only after memetic analysis becomes widespread, but the results reviewed here shows that minimal memetics does yield scientific results that are nontrivial and interesting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arthur W. B. (2009) The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. Simon and Schuster, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur W. B., Polak W. (2006) The evolution of technology within a simple computer model. Complexity 11: 23–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aunger R. (2002) The electric meme: A new theory of how we think. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Aunger R. (2000) Darwinizing culture. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedau M. A. (2009) The evolution of complexity. In: Barberousse A., Morange M., Pradeu T. (Eds.), Mapping the future of biology: Evolving concepts and theories. Springer, Berlin, pp 111–130

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bedau, M. A., Buchanan, A. J., Chalmers, D. W., Francis, C. C., Packard, N. H., & Pepper, N. M. (2011). Evidence in the patent record for the evolution of technology using citation and PageRank statistics. In: T. Lenaerts, M. Giacobini, H. Bersini, P. Bourgine, M. Dorigo, R. Doursat (Eds.), Advances in artificial life, ECAL 2011: Proceedings of the eleventh European conference on the synthesis and simulation of living systems, pp. 77–84. MIT Press.

  • Blackmore S. (2000) The meme machine. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloch M. (2000) A well-disposed social anthropologist’s problems with memes. In: Aunger R. (Ed.), Darwinizing culture. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 189–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Blute M. (2010) Darwinian sociocultural evolution: Solutions to dilemmas in cultural and social theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen J., Gonçalves B., Ruan G., Mao H. (2011) Happiness is assortative in online social networks. Artificial Life 17: 237–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd R., Richerson P. (1985) Culture and the evolutionary process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan A., Packard N. H., Bedau M. A. (2011) Measuring the evolution of the drivers of technological innovation in the patent record. Artificial Life 17: 109–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavalli-Sforza L., Feldman M. W. (1981) Cultural transmission and evolution: A quantitative approach. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, D., Francis, C. C., Pepper, P., & Bedau, M. A. (2010). High-content words in patent records reflect key innovations in the evolution of technology. In: H. Fellermann, M. Dörr, M. M. Hanczyc, L. L. Laursen, S. Maurer, D. Merkle, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of artificial life XII (pp. 838–845). Cambridge: MIT Press.

  • Dawkins R. (1976/1989) The selfish gene (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett D. C. (1996) Darwin’s dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. Simon & Schuster, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett D. C. (2006) Breaking the spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon. Viking, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fracchia J., Lewontin R. C. (1999) Does culture evolve?. History and Theory 38: 52–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsberg J., Mohebbi M. H., Patel R. S., Brammer L., Smolinski M. S., Brilliant L. (2009) Detecting influenza epidemics using search engine query data. Nature 457: 1012–1014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goel S., Hofman J. M., Lahaie S., Pennock D. M., Watts D. J. (2010) Predicting consumer behavior with Web search. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science U.S.A. 107: 17486–17490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey-Smith P. (2009) Darwinian populations and natural selection. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Griesemer J. (2000) The units of evolutionary transition. Selection 1: 67–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hull D. L. (2000) Taking memetics seriously: Memetics will be what we make it. In: Aunger R. (Ed.), Darwinizing culture. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 43–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull D. L., Langman R. E., Glenn S. S. (2001) A general account of selection: Biology, immunology, and behavior. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24: 511–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jablonka E. (2002) Between Development and Evolution: How to Model Cultural Change. In: Wheeler M., Ziman J., Boden M. A. (Eds.), The evolution of cultural entities. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 27–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Jablonka E., Lamb M. J. (2005) Evolution in four dimensions: Genetic, epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic variation in the history of life. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe A. B., Trajtenberg M. (2002) Patents, citations, and innovations: A window on the knowledge economy. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman S. (2000) Investigations. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuper A. (2000) If memes are the answer, what is the question?. In: Aunger R. (Ed.), Darwinizing culture. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 175–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin R. C. (1970) The units of selection. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1: 1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michel J.-B., Shen Y. K., Aiden A. P., Veres A., Gray M. K., Pickett J. P., Hoiberg D., Clancy D., Norvig P., Orwant J., Pinker S., Nowak M. A., Aiden E. L. (2011) Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science 331: 176–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pocklington R., Best M. I. (1997) Cultural evolution and units of selection in replicating text. Journal of Theoretical Biology 188: 79–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers E. M. (2003) Diffusion of innovations. Free Press, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Skusa A., Bedau M. A. (2002) Towards a comparison of evolutionary creativity in biological and cultural evolution. In: Standish R., Bedau M. A., Abbass H. A. (Eds.), Artificial life VIII. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 233–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E. (1991). Models of cultural evolution. In P. Griffiths (Ed.), Trees of Life: Essays in the Philosophy of Biology, Australasian Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science. Kluwer.

  • Sperber D. (1996) Explaining culture: A naturalistic approach. Blackwell, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Tavory, I., Ginsburg, S., & Jablonka, E. (forthcoming). The reproduction of the social: A developmental system approach. In a volume edited by W. Wimsatt, & J. Griesemer.

  • Valverde S., Sole R. V., Bedau M. A., Packard N. (2007) Topology and evolution of technology innovation networks. Physical Review E 76: 056118.1–056118.7

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, M., Ziman, J., Boden, M. A. (Eds.). (2002) The evolution of cultural entities. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark A. Bedau.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bedau, M.A. Minimal memetics and the Evolution of Patented Technology. Found Sci 18, 791–807 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-012-9306-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-012-9306-7

Keywords

Navigation