Going “viral” has become almost the goal of many you-tube videos, blogs, and other ideas. It’s almost the current way of describing an idea that’s just right.

Of course, going viral doesn’t automatically mean that it’s useful, or safe, or beneficial. But neither does it automatically conjure up images of disease any more.

Having said that, the word “virus” on the other hand still sits firmly in the negative connotation basket.

“Going viral” doesn’t have an exclusively negative connotation. Most bloggers want their words to go viral.

The best thing about the meaning of meme is that it is going viral and becoming its own meme. A metameme, I suppose.

The term virus instantly makes me (and I assume others) of hackers attacking my computer or of something that may affect my health negatively.

Yes a virus in scientific lingo merely means ‘a packaged snippet of genes’ (as Dwain Wilder wrote), but cannot a more neutral term befound fo defining a meme and how it grows.

I find this interesting in relation to the last post by Meave about ‘mankind’ v ‘humankind.’

Language is itself a meme that contains ” unit(s) of cultural transmission.” A word is not just its entymology – but also the hidden meme(s) that are attached to them.

For me ‘humankind’ is a good meme – it is inclusive, while ‘mankind ‘is a negative meme – it is exclusive.

Sure etymologicly ‘mankinds’ meaning may be harmless – but it also contains hidden cultural transmissions that have become attached to it throughout the centuries as it has travelled through patriarcal generations that today says to people ‘exclusivity.’

I would argue that ‘mankind’ as a meme says men are more important then women. That may be far from the intention of the user – but the meme has a history that confounds that intention.

So why not use the more positive meme ‘humankind’ – after all we are all human – whether we be female, male or something in between.