I work in the gene/evolution field. Memes are of course an interesting concept, but as others have pointed out, not really necessary for the function of society or evolution. Therefore, I don’t see what a meme theory would lend to scientific theory.
Sure, it is cute to go around humming “La Cucaracha” and see how many other people are humming it after 10 minutes. Sure, there are striking examples in history of memes affecting entire cultures. But I can’t possibly see how these things could affect societies in the long term. One of the oft-cited meme examples is when IIRC the Xhosa people of South Africa slaughtered all of their cows after white Europeans landed. This led to a huge famine. Well, sure, it killed off some people, but there are still Xhosas. With another meme example, shift of the gene pool caused by recruitment of the clergy, I think you have the same problem: In evolution, usually environmental change has to be severe and long lasting over perhaps hundreds to thousands of generations in order to see a significant change. I don’t think memes can do that.
It does, however, make some theories of neuroscience more interesting. There is a school in neuroscience that tries to explain will or choice on relative neurotransmitter level. For instance, take drug addiction as an example. Dopamine is a so-called “fulfillment” neurotransmitter in many emotional systems of the brain. Having “satisfaction” (again these are touchy-feely kinds of terms) with a comfortable home, a wife, children, the American Dream, yada yada, can be proposed to give you dopamine. One could also supplement their dopamine release with a chemical, for instance cocaine. In fact, one could supplement so much dopamine that the house, the wife, the job, and the kids become unnecessary because one gets more dopamine from cocaine. It is only when the dopamine level is unmaintainable or when the level slips below what one had before that one gets the impetus to quit the cocaine and go back to the house, job, wife, and kids.
Memes may fill an interesting role here as ideas which have more “dopaminergic” appeal that others. In terms of urban legends, we get much more fulfillment out of knowing that an intact unburnt Bible was found in the WTC than knowing the awful truth of people being identified by only DNA found in 2 gram shards of bodies. IMHO we get more fulfillment of being part of a religion which seeks to give precise order to our lives and our places than the truth of the utter lack of evidence of any supernatural power. For most, things which lend hope and structure to our lives, by whatever quirk of neurobiology, are perceived as good. Therefore, as a side effect, these ideas propogate themselves because they give more fulfillment to our brain. Kind of like two pieces of a puzzle fitting together – the idea helps our brain and our brain helps the idea. I still see no way that these ideas could shift things on the scale needed for evolution to kick in.
