Crazy ideas... Complicated theories...

I was reading chapter 10 and something came trough my mind. When he was talking about the Hymenoptera insects I read that there are infertile workers that work for the successful reproduction of the queen and the others.

That makes sense. But, I don't understand how are there so many infertile insects? I mean, how is a gene like that, first of all going to spread around the population, and second of all be good enough to be preserved?

Okay, it could be preserved, their job is not to reproduce. Yet, how does it pass on? I have various conclusions on why would this happen. First, I would say that it is the same thing that happens to mules. They are common in the population because a horse and a donkey create a mule. It is supposedly a common meet and therefore, you see these animals often. (If you leave in the coast, like Barranquilla, for example).

Another explanation could be that that gene for infertility is recessive. Therefore, lots of these insects carry them but are not necessarily infertile. While the unlucky offspring do have this gene expressed.

Those are my only two theories and probably it is the second one that makes more sense. Yet it is strange to find this kind of allele in an animal. And it being so common.

This reminds me to the movie Children of Men, where humanity has turned infertile and therefore are on the verge of extinction. I imagine that theoretically. We could be carrying some kind of gene that could eventually cause infertility and that could be passed on easily.

This makes me wonder how lots of hypothetical ideas in regards to human extinction can certainly occur. It might not be with an infertility gene. But, who knows? we might be carrying a potentially destructive gene in our systems. And it hasnt been expressed. It all takes a matter of time, for a random mutation to happen.

Who knows what will be of humanity...

Our kids.

-Glad, you are here. I needed to talk to you about something.

-Okay, but make it fast. I have to return to work.

-I'll do my best. Because it is very important. And I need you to listen to me.

-(not again)...

-Remember that book I gave you in Christmas?

-Suuureee... I, I loved it. Why?

-Well I was reading it the other day and now everything makes sense..

-What do you mean?

-Well. You are not bonding enough with our kids. You never prioritize the family. And I have reasons to believe that you might be cheating on me.

-Honey, I don't want to take more of this crap from you.

Just so you know. I did read the book and let me explain you what Dawkins says, on chapter 9, i think it is.

Men. Since the beginnings of humanity have left the women in charge of their offspring. This is not something wrong nor irresponsible. It is simply part of nature. Women also would like men to take care of the children and that becomes a subtle battle. Besides, I work all day long and you spent your days in the gym, with your friends and shopping. (Not to mention with the yoga teacher).

If you'd understand better what he expressed. That this concept isn't fully applicable to humans because of social and culture influences. You'd understand that this is the natural order of things. I work. You take care of our kids.

-But...

-As I was saying, you have to accept it and don't blame on me something as foolish as this. And as far as whether I am cheating on you or not. I thought that when you married me you understood that I was going to be loyal to you for the rest of my life.

You cant go around saying that if a book generalizes something about males. Then every single guy in the planet is going to follow it. Or has been following it.

These are merely theories mostly based on animals. Animals that dont have the ability to rationalize as we do...

So now. I am going to leave. And I hope you enjoy eating lunch by yourself. Cause I got a lot of stuff going on to handle a neurotic wife like you. Who believes everything she reads. And worststl, doesn't even grasp the meaning of whatever it is she is reading. Okay?

-But.. But... I'm Soorryyy!!

-(fortunately it all went as planned. Now, I am going for lunch with my secretary. Who understands me. Who doesn't expect much from me. And who by the way has the best body I've ever seen)...

What If?

In chapter eight, I read that there are honeyguides who, like cuckoos, lay their eggs in the nests of other species. The baby honeyguide is equipped with a sharp, hooked beak. As soon as he hatches out, while he is still blind, naked, and otherwise helpless, he scythes and slashes his foster brothers and sisters to death: dead brothers do not compete for food!

That is what I call selfishness!

That is also what separates humans to other species. Or it might just be that under the influences of culture and society, we don't do this but we would...

Anyhow, that is the most selfish act I've ever heard of. Supposedly, animals are expected to be equally fond to their offspring than to their brothers and sisters. If this is true, then this little honeyguide will grow up to kill his offspring. He'd think something like "All the food is for me and I don't care who it is, I wont allow nobody to get it".

Can you imagine this kind of thing in humans? For as much as I've criticized the way we live. This is wrong in any aspect. And humans wouldn't do it...

Why would they kill thier own brother when they don't even know if there will be enough for both of them. And also, why don't the brothers and sisters kill this little baby? To prevent him from getting their food?

Doing this would be like killing someone because he might sometime attempt with my life. He might not. But he might as well might and we don't want to take the risks, do we?

Living by what ifs is a mistake. If there is something that I've learned in my life is that there is no point on stressing out for the what ifs. Things happened that way and you were partly responsible about it. (I say partly because we have to take chaos into account). There is no turning back. So you either do something to make it better, or do something to make it better. Those are the only options...

Life is what it is. Not what it might be. Poor animals, who lack the capacity to rationalize. Maybe the brother might have come useful in the future. Who knows? Life is too short to make such stupid decisions. Think. Then act.

Human's poison

Thinking on birth conception. And the things humans do in society made me want to talk about how wrong we are in our lifestyle. I personally believe that we are doing a mistake by living the way we live. What do I mean with this? Basically the way we live in a society. The way we act, by being different from the rest of the species and the way culture, and technology, misguide us from the real purpose in life.

I know that this idea is very extreme butI believe that we should live like the rest of the animals do. The way our ancestors did. And I mean our primate ancestors...

Just because we are more intelligent, doesn't mean that we have to leave the way we do. For example, why do we need technology? In the world we live in, we do need it. We want it and we wouldn't let go of it. But think for a moment, why would we really need an ipod for instance? Why would we need a TV. Why do we need telephones? These are all things that were made, and then became necessary, not the other way around.

We live in a material world and as cliche as it may sound, we are forgetting the meaning of life. We are forgetting nature. And we are forgetting that the world isn't ours. We just make a part of it.

In fact, I believe that there wouldn't be that many wars if we lived in tribes. We would collect the food, eat our food, and then sleep. What a wonderful world would that be.

As I mentioned in one of my previous posts. It is the intelligence that we posses that made us go in the wrong direction. Just as Daniel Quinn proposes on Ishmael, "where are going on a downward spiral that will destroy humanity".

The problem is that we are too mistaken to change. It would be impossible, first to convince all that nothing that we use is necessary. That we don't need economy. That we don't need cars. That we don't even need schools.

It is a shame to know that we are going to crash, but we cant do nothing about it. Just like a driver who has no brakes and is approaching an abism. There is not much we can do. Fortunately, you might say, we will not be alive to notice these effects. But eventually, we will all accept that we've gone wrong.

This looks like the beginning of a story like 1984. The only way to manipulate poeople for their own good is by making them forget. By erasing everything and starting over again. But how can we do it?

Kin altruism..

Honestly, Dawkins might be as wise as he is, and may have as much proof as he has. But I have to say that I disagree with the fact that altruism in human is caused by the genes.

It sounds way to awkward. I mean, it is not strange to find an altruistic person here or there, but, to say that actions of that such are driven by your genes is way to strange.

Suddenly, you are not in control. You do what your genes tell you to do. Since I strongly believe that there is free will, and that you make your own decision, thus your own destiny. I don't like this idea at all. This means that you don't really choose your personality, in a way. I don't know how deep are the genes involved in our behavior but my educated guess is that if they can make you kill yourself in order to save your brother, or sister, then they probably control much more than what we think.

As to explain what I wrote first. Its not that I disagree with him. He probably is mostly right. But, I don't want to believe that it is like that.

Maybe genes do have something to do. But Your mind, or your consciousness, will have a different point of view.

This ideas are getting more complex with every chapter, and I the feeling that I wont like what will be said... Yet, he has the proofs. He wrote the book. So I might as well accept his theories.

Why this?

It might sound stupid for some but I have a question as to why are species the way they are. According to Dawkins, indivudals are selfish. Genes are selfish. We are all selfish. We want what is best for us. The genes want what is best for them, etc.

Then, think about the Lion and the Gazelle. They are both very complex organisms that developed by the course of evolution. But eventually they came from an individual gene.

If a specie, or an individual wants to survive. Wouldn't it be favored if it where an alpha? A dominant specie? One that would be on top of the food chain?

From what I've understood of the text. Nature is stabilized between the interctions of all species. But then, if genes are so selfish? Wouldn't they all prefer to be carnivores? To be bigger? To be tougher? etc.

I know that evolution is based on random mutations and all. But, i cant understand why arent there more dominant species in the moment? Probably there were but they had to fight other species and this led to extinction of many. But this cannot be fully true. The gazelle will eventually die because it was eaten by a lion. On the other hand, a lion will die of old. Will be hunted, or will die by any other reason but will never be eaten by another specie. (Well, maybe a vulture will eat it's meat after it dies).

My question is then, why are we not seeing that species are becoming more dominant as time passes? It may be possible that this is indeed happening. That in millions of years. If there are still gazelles. They might be able to fight back against a lion.

I know that it sounds ridiculous, but, if genes are selfish, and survival machines are too. This kind of evolution should be seen in the present. Or will be seen in the future...

Rise of the robots

The genes had to make a brain. One that was intelligent enough that ensured their survival. This applied specially for us. Since our brains are way more advanced than any other.

The problem that genes are facing is that our brains have a separate consciousness. They act for the individual rather than for the genes and this is why we see a behaviour that benefits us rather than the genes.

For example, we don't have as much children as we can. This off course would be great for the genes. Because they would pass on and spread themselves. Having more possibilities in the future. Because of the society in which we live on, (that also affects the gene's main purpose) humans usually have from 0 to three or four children.

This means that genes have created something so powerful that can disobey the natural order of things (with this I mean the intended purpose). Our abilities to rationalize. Our views towards death. This affects the way in which we live on.

Now, individuals strive for their own well being and genes come later. Because our brain controls whatever we do. For example, we could decide to kill ourselves and this would destroy any possibilities of survival for the genes.

This whole idea is present in movies with robots. Such as I Robot. In this movie, humans create robots that develop a mind of their own. And start thinking for themselves as opposed to thinking for their creators. If you see the humans as genes,and the robots as humans with a mind of their own. You can see where I am going with this.

Fortunately for the genes. We are not against our genes. In the analogy, the difference between robots vs. humans and humans vs. genes is that robots are self sufficient. They don't necessarily depend on humans. On the other hand, we are made up of genes. Our brain is made up of genes. And we are not thinking on destroying the genes. The only thing that affects the genes is that we strive for our own well being as individuals.

It is funny to see how concepts repeat in different levels. How the monsters created cannot be controlled. For example, you can look at Frankenstein. Or, for any that believes in God. Imagine all of the people that don't. That were created by him but believe that they can live by themselves.

I know that this has nothing to do with the title. But, if you think about it. Everything I just said relates to selfishness.

Who's world is it?

It is very mind boggling to think that genes are the ones that control our bodies. I mean, genes are responsible for creating us and we are merely vehicles for "them" to keep copying themselves forever.

Talking about being selfish there..

Genes create us humans, and all the other living organisms in order to "live forever (obviously copies of them will be the ones that will leave forever).

I cant yet grasp this idea...

What this means is that we are nothing special. Our brains fool us into thinking we are special but we are vehicles, that appeared because of replication mistakes and are nothing important to the world in which we live in.

It reminds me of the typical movie in which there is an alien controlling the mind of a human. It feels really disappointing. It is as if we were puppets for longevity and I don't feel bad about it because it contradicts any supernatural idea in relation to God or even the afterlife. I feel bad because it means that we don't really have a purpose in life.

If we were created by mistakes on the replicating process. And are going to change into some other vehicle in the future. We ARE really the same as the rest of the living organisms in a bad way. In the way that we are there by luck and don't have much to do in life.

I hope there is another meaning for this. Maybe Dawkins over-exaggerates the idea that genes are the rulers of the world. Hopefully they were merely created for a higher purpose. I mean, if we might have been created for a higher purpose. They might as well have been.

Anyways. Life is too short to spend it questioning things that you'll never really grasp. We wont be able to know many things in the universe because there is simply not a way that we can learn them. For instance, we cant ask genes what is their ultimate purpose. Or, nobody cant objectively tell us our purposes our humans. We might as well do our best in answering, move on and enjoy life.

Human Intelligence, and our Future as a Whole.

.




After reading the first & second chapter of The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins. I came to think about humans. And how we dont exactly follow the theories that he proposed. For instance, I dont know of many altruistic people around. This makes me think whether intellgince has a negative sideffect in regards to evolution. And about our future as a specie in a world that is supposedly ruled by these laws.

For animals, being superior is very significant because the benefits are more mating and more food. More power and more safety. I am thinking of lions in this case. The Alpha lion will have priority in mating and will leave lots of offspring. It will also get privilege in food for him and his offspring. And for being the Alpha, he is more fitted to survive in a fight. )in this case the Alpha male is represented by its strength, size and basically superiority as compared to the others=.

Here, we can see Darwinism at work. In the case of humans. It doesn't really work that well. Why? mainly because in the society we live in, not necessarily the richest (or the Alpha)will produce more offspring and will be more represented in the gene pool. Actually, poor people usually have more sons. What this means is that poor people, that have less opportunities, worse lives if we compare them to that of the rich people; will make up the majority of the population in the future. This is basically because now, life for humans is not necessarily better if you are smarter than the others. It is not better if humans are stronger than the others. It is better if you fit the standards of our society excel at them and that doesn't even affect your representation in the gene pool. Because people, that might be inferior in every aspect to others have the same or could have more opportunities to pass on their genes.

Humans, being intelligent creatures don't really think any of these things. Because we live as if we were different from any other animal, our decision have to do with our personal benefit. Or that of our families but only taking decisions that benefit our present. Not the future.

As Dawkins says, the reason why altruistic animals are selfish but help the specie is because they are protecting their offspring for example and therefore are expanding the development of the specie for the exchange of risking their lives.

The only reason why a human would be altruistic and sacrifice himself would be to protect a beloved one in the present. And this is a case that rarely happens on real life. Because we do see it happen on the movies. Their actions are not based of preserving the specie.

I believe that by beiong intelligent, humans start to think egoistically, and focus only on their wellbeing. This obviously affects a specie because it changes from being the survival of a specie. As it is with animals. To the survival of oneself. As if the rest of the humans were your competition. As if they were another specie.

Either way, being more intelligent doesn't directly make the specie any harm. It is being self centered what creates a problem. I believe that there are two alternatives as to our future as a specie. (this is obviously ignoring that we might face extinction for a war or for an event that we cannot control like a meteorite).
Either we will spiral down to chaos because of the amount of people that are incompetent. Or, we will eventually change our lifestyle into something more fit to surviving in the world. As if we were another animal. Instead of being the controllers.

I´m am nobody to say what will happen to humanity but based on what I know. I can say that we are going in a wrong direction as a whole. We are acting selfishly and thus incorrectly. Just because this is a slow process. One that we wont be able to observe in our lifetimes doesn't meant that it is not happening.

We have to use the intelligence we were given by evolution to do whats best for us. And I am not trying to expose any hippy theory or anything. I just want to let people know that our behavior is not positive for the whole. And if you think about it, if there is no whole, there is no you; and there is no me, and not anyone.

14.If you wish your children and your wife and your friends to live forever, you are foolish; for you wish things to be in your power which are not so; and what belongs to others to be your own. So likewise, if you wish your servant to be without fault, you are foolish; for you wish vice not to be vice, but something else. But if you wish not to be disappointed in your desires, that is in your own power. Exercise, therefore, what is in your power. A man’s master is he who is able to confer or remove whatever that man seeks or shuns. Whoever then would be free, let him wish for nothing, let him decline nothing, which depends on others; else he must necessarily be a slave.

This passage reminds me a lot to the Serenity Prayer found twice in Slaughter House-Five.


I strongly agree with what is said on this passage. I do believe that a man will only be free when he seizes to be dependent on others and starts acting on whatever he can control.

I've thought about it many times and this was basically the conclusion I reached when I started to think about life. I thought about the meaning of every second of your life because at every moment, you have hundreds of different possibilities and every possibility leads to an infinite amount of theoretical "destinies."

As opposed to Slaughter House Five, where Billy had no choice to alter the course of his life. I believe that we are constantly shaping our future and all the possibilities come down to our actions.

I believe that you can accomplish anything that you want because you are in control. Yet, you have to take into account that we share our existence with six and a half billion of others who also have control on their lives. This being said, we can try over and over and accomplish our goals only if we become independent from others and our surroundings.

(I know that you are supposed to do close reading but I really wanted to talk about this topic, which coincidentally was related to the Epictetus.)

Ego

Epictetus Handbook 6-10



6. Be not elated at any excellence not your own. If a horse should be elated, and say, “I am handsome,” it might be endurable. But when you are elated, and say, “I have a handsome horse,” know that you are elated only on the merit of the horse. What then is your own? The use of phenomena of existence. So that when you are in harmony with nature in this respect, you will be elated with some reason; for you will be elated at some good of your own.

This passage reminds me of a book I read once called A New Earth, by Eckhart Tolle. The book talks about ego and how, by detaching yourself from it, can reach happiness.

According to Tolle, People are constantly looking for approval to satisfy the ego. That is the reason why some people tend to brag about their possessions, or simply, constantly want more.

In this case, you don't really need a "handsome horse". You just need a horse that does the job but to feel better, you look for a horse that is better than any other horse.

Tolle would agree on the fact that you shouldn't feel happy if something that weren't you, was elated but I think that he would disagree in looking for compliments for your merits.

Either way, I agree with this passage of the Epictetus, one shouldn't feel proud for an accomplishment that doesn't depend on you...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When you want to satisfy your ego, you are becoming selfish. I can relate this to my personal life because I play on a soccer team. I know that you don't feel as good if your team wins and you didn't play. You want to be part of the accomplishment because I believe that in the end, you don't feel happy for any accomplishment that doesn't depend on you. Yet, it feels better to take credit for your team's victory (even if you didnt even play,) than to loose, and miss the opportunity to take any credit and that is why we as a part of human nature, feel proud when something that is ours, or relates to us, receives compliments.

Don't Feel, Don't Suffer, Just Do

Epictetus handbook 1-5



3.With regard to whatever objects either delight the mind, or contribute to use, or are tenderly beloved, remind yourself of what nature they are, beginning with the merest trifles: if you have a favorite cup, that it is but a cup of which you are fond, – for thus, if it is broken, you can bear it; if you embrace your child, or your wife, that you embrace a mortal, – and thus, if either of them dies, you can bear it.

This is very harsh. How are you expected to see your family or beloved ones as you see your favorite cup? Although it might be your favorite cup, you will never be fond to it as much as you will to any human being.

What this section of the handbook says is that you cant be attached to anything in your life because everything ends at some point.

Billy Pilgrim, in Slaughter House-Five wasn't attached to any of his familiars.

He experienced the contrary of what the Epictetus says. Instead of people disappearing from his life, he disappeared from everyone's life as he lived differently than others. Them being there in the future or in the past wasn't really important to him because he was forced to live in the moments. That is why he didn't suffer with others dying around him.

Yet, Billy did suffer wen he saw the horses. This means that Billy was not detached from death or suffering because he wanted to but because he had to.

This section of the Epictetus is crucial for a warrior. One that has to focus only in the present. (Being the war for them, and being everything for Billy.)

Connecting the Epictetus to something else, this section reminds me of Alexander's Pope maxim about knowledge.

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing"

You can see how a person with enough knowledge can influence other people's views on any aspect of life. Including the loss of beloved ones...

Slaughter Hosue-Five (final chapter)

“Poo-tee-weet?”

This is the question that a bird asks to Billy at the end of the book.

What does it mean?

This phrase is something that doesn't make sense at all for humans. Same applies to war. It doesn't make sense and there really isn't much to say about it.

Wars are always ridiculous. I understand that they are part of human nature. Just as lions fight each other to mate with the female. Humans fight to resolve issues.

I strongly believe that there are better ways to solve problems. It is completely different a fight in which two people compete for something than a fight in which millions of innocents are killed. I say innocents because although the majority of soldiers are killing other people, they are not necessarily fighting for what they think is correct.

..

Trying to connect time travels with the war I came up with a conclusion. According to the Tralfamadorians, everything is happening at the same time. Just that events occur in different dimensions. Where the present is either a the past or the future. This means that people are dying in every moment, somewhere in the universe thanks to a war. This means that we cant really make the bad things dissapear and though they could be left unspoken, they will always prevail.

The lesson from this is that we have to think each moment carefully because what we do, will hunt us for the rest of our lives. (either physically as it happens to billy or as a memory.)

Do something, change your life, and remember,there are no second chances...

Slaughter House- Five (chapter 9)

I was very close to grasping the concept of the book until 'bang', Billy Pilgrim enters a book store and grab a book that is about an earthling man and woman who are kidnapped by aliens and taken to a zoo on a faraway planet. (sounds familiar, doesn't it?)

Billy lives what Trout writes...
In fact, Billy lives other things that he's seen; such as having sex with Montana Wildhack...

What does this mean?

In my interpretation, Billy is mad. Billy went crazy after experiencing many life traumas like the war in Dresden and the plane crash,(which may've injured his head.)

As an escape to all this pain, Billy is forced to create a fictional universe, in which his events don't really have an effect on him. (As he watches segments of his life, over and over again, and yet cannot change them.)

Vonnegut is probably a pessimist or an optimist that gave up. He has suffered in his life and realizes that cannot change anything about it. Not even with the ability of time traveling. Then, as Billy, he is numb to everything that happens around him and the only thing he can say about life is. "so it goes" (meaning that that is the way it is...)

A maxim found throughout the novel supports this idea.

"God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference."

--Reinhold Niebuhr

Slaughter House-Five (chapter 8)

When billy watches The Four Eyed Bastards (Febs) sing a sentimental song about friendship, he gets really upset. Apparently the Febs or the song they interpreted had a very strong effect on him.

Probably he suffered because that event remembered him of the night in which Dresden was bombed and destroyed. Where the four guards huddled together and with their mouths open, seemed like a silent film of a barbershop quartet. (just as the Febs)

As this had a strong impact on him, I believe that other reason why he was upset was because he felt lonely, and even his time travels support this idea.

Being lonely, is probably one of the saddest things I can think of and Billy experiences this constantly during the novel. Either he feels alone because all of the time travels. Because he couldn't relate to any human being that surrounded him and the Tralfamadorians weren't really his friends. Or, the destruction of Dresden had a huge impact on him and everything he did (like his time travels)were merely distractions, to keep himself occupied. To escape from the loneliness that attacked him.

Slaughter house-Five (chapter 7)

There's only one thing that came through my mind as I read this chapter. When Billy's plane crashed, the only thing he said to his rescuers was “Schlachthof-funf.” (Slaughter house five, a phrase he used to ask for his prison if he got lost.

What this means is that being in the prison must have been a really dramatic experience for him. Normally, when you find yourself in an accident, you would say something more useful for the moment, like asking for help but in his case, he only said “Schlachthof-funf.”

This could mean two things. First of all, that Billy was lost, and he used that phrase as an attempt to be rescued. On the other hand, it could be interpreted as if Billy had suffered severely in his prison and he couldn't take that memories of his head. Maybe, all of his travels through time were created by him in order to forget the amount of suffering (and I mean mentally,)that he experienced in prison.