Complex Adaptive Systems and Curiosity

It looks like you've found a framework consistent with your intuition about evolution-complexity dynamics.

Like mimetics, I think work like this is valuable because it gives us a new way to observe preexisting phenomena. The concept of a meme is very interesting to me, but actually I've never heard of anyone producing anything as a result of the concept...other than a more articulate explanation. These concepts overlap quite a bit too, and I think if there was actually a way to show that understanding this framework provides a useful method for changing or creating something in the real world they would be useful.

Darwin's theory of evolution is basically just an explanation for the way things work on a long time-scale in the biological world--and with the generalizations provided by mimetics, it seems most things in the world--but did it actually lead to the synthesis of something new? Certainly ideas, and I'm not saying that a concept's worth is preceded by it's ability to induce genesis, but I would find it a much more worth-while concept to study.

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria--as a result of antibiotic misuse--is an example of how the concept of evolution provides Man with the ability to make better decisions. Can you think of any more?

To rephrase your statement and make sure I grasped it correctly: has understanding mimetics enabled us to do something? or has it only provided us a model for describing/understanding observations?

As far as other examples, I'd say understanding mimetics (and therefore evolutionary processes) gave us things like Evolutionary Design Algorithms. We created these types of algorithms by placing an abstraction of a natural, mimetic process in a new context. This is the best
Evolutionary design is directly used in many contexts: startup companies, products, books, etc. However, this most likely isn't a from a conscious understanding of mimetic/evolutionary processes.

Mimetics does enhance understanding of these processes, and therefore makes us more capable of harnessing them.

Perhaps, if we do it right with "10 Powerful Personas", we'll help create an improved means for positive personal development?

I would say that a concept's "absolute value" (not personal value to us) directly reflects its ability to produce genesis. Now, whether it matters that it comes from us or from nature, I'm not sure.

Correct rephrasing.

Of course plenty of processes make use of--or work within--the mimetic
process, otherwise it wouldnt be a compelling theory. And I agree that
understanding this process better should help us use the process better, I
just don't think there have been many examples of forward engineering
applying these principles.

As for 10 PP, the fact that you're calling attention to the mimetic nature
of personalities is definitely aiming in the right direction. It's not
fully utilizing the concept though, which might not be possible in a book
alone. Sometimes I think about designing a highly successful meme by
applying first principals. It's interesting to think about. Evolutionary
algorithms, as you said, are probably the best example of this kind of
approach to date. Studying systems with a CAS or Meme point of view is what
I'm wondering about. If you could get to the level of understanding and
reducing a vastly diverse set of systems into these principals could you
make use of that knowledge. The best hypothetical application of doing
something like this that I can think of would be with economy manipulation.
For instance, if you understood the evolutionary forces involved in these
systems, and believed economies of certain scale were analogous, it might
provide a more lucid view of what interventionist approaches, regulations,
or lack thereof, might be beneficial.

Meme engineering is probably analagous to intelligent drug design right now: you could probably apply some rational design principles, but, to little surprise, it's better just to try a lot of things in hopes of getting one right.
Like bioengineering, maturation of meme engineering (therefore brain science) will be quite exciting.

Application of CASs to economics is definitely the realm to think about. I'm less interested in interventions. I'm more interested in applying the principles to create new business models and other value-creating systems.....hopefully that line of thought will come soon......

As I'm sure you've noticed, our thinking on Spheres of Influence and Community-Driven Movements are directly relevant.

Using CAS ideas to create--read: find--new business models is interesting.
I feel as though it would probably come from a CAS (company) that already
has a business model, from which new ones can emerge. For example, you
could have a company and then, applying the principles of CAS, create the
conditions and motivate the employees to discover new business models from
the inside out. Google is a good example of a company that does this, at
least to a limited degree, already (allowing their employees X amount of
time to fiddle with their own projects).

An even more top down approach, which I think might be uncontrollable, is
what's happening within the entrepreneurial community right now (if I may be
so bold). Due to the poor economic conditions, startups and earlier stage
companies are really having to get creative about carving a niche in their
market, finding a revenue stream, etc. Analogously to an ecosystem hit with
something life-threatening and drastic, these "organisms" are having to
mutate very quickly in order find an operating model that "sticks"; many
will die, but the rate of evolution during this period will be markedly
increased.

As I write this, I'm made aware of how to utilize CAS theories in the most
general of ways: by imitation. Like in nature, if an agent finds a
successful way of making it in the tough environment, then there is no sense
in reinventing the wheel. Copy, copy, copy, and later it might be worth
your while to innovate. But I don't need to over-explain a topic you've
already written about.