I think he was right to not focus too much on the &quot;meme&quot; concept he invented, because it is quite different from genes, scientifically (which is what he cares about).<p>1. The crucial thing with genes is that they are &quot;binary&quot;, you either get a gene from a parent, or not. Mutations happen, but they produce new genes. Genes are &quot;immortal&quot; (exist for many, many generations in identical form). Memes, on the other hand, are not binary in this way. Ideas constantly change, and we can&#x27;t reduce them to a binary code.<p>2. The rules of genetic competition are complex, but we have a good framework: natural selection and sexual selection. However, to explain memetic competition, we need to talk about psychology and sociology and so forth (in addition to biology). There are already fields doing that, from psychology and sociology to literature and religious studies, mostly in a non-scientific way, because we have yet to find a good scientific one.<p>3. For those reasons, &quot;memetics&quot; never succeeded as an academic discipline. The field has not succeeded in providing useful theories to be tested that tell us quantative things we don&#x27;t already know.<p>Of course, at the same time the insights you mention are true. But they are not anywhere near as powerful as the concept of genes. They are mostly useful as an analogy, and to open people&#x27;s minds, but not scientifically.