Battle Of The...

Fighting for genes' survival...

Hit-'N-Run

Is it really more beneficial to be a cheater in life? Do liars actually do better than honest people in the long run? According to Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, being a cheater actually pays off. After reading Chapter 10 of his book, I realize that "no matter what the ratio in the population, cheats will always do better than suckers" (184). Suckers are those who are altruist and do good to all and bear no grudges. Cheats are those who never do good but always accept it from others. In a population where there are Grudges (those who remember the previous acts of others), it is better to be a cheat until all the suckers are gone then become a Grudge.

This situation reminds of the current political mentality of Colombian senators. They, among the rest of those in power around the world, practice clientelism, which is a type of attitude most commonly attributed to Grudges. More notably, we see through the senators' attendance in Congress the Cheat personality. They collect all $701.520 pesos every 24 hours in while they scam the country. They are expected to repay the state in their service, but they end up being selfish and gyp the people. According to El Tiempo, one of Colombias newspapers, the senators give childlike explanations to excuse their absences. The allege they were in a doctor's appointment which from which they couldn't get a note; in a traffic jam; out of town; or sick. One explanation for this phenomenon, that a liberal senator, Hector Heli Rojas provides is the following: "Los que vienen a sesionar están perdiendo votos con los que está en campaña" (Rojas).

Aunque ganan 701.000 pesos por día, muchos congresistas no van las sesiones

Reproduce Again If Possible

1. Choose a partner.

2. Be loyal.

3. Propagate genes.

4. Equal energy investment for each offspring.

5. Reproduce again if possible.

Freeze! Drop it! Don't Make Me Hurt You!

My younger brother is extremely competitive: he takes joy in the knowledge that he will be taller than me. His objective is to surpass me, as all brothers should in the role model/pupil situation of fraternity. However, when it comes to food, as all young animals, he is vicious. Stealing from his portion of fries is punishable by death at knife-point; however, if an ‘elder’-say a father or grandfather- takes from his fries without due clearance, he knows he must bite his tongue and accept the truth: it’s not that bad. As Dawkins says, “Selfish greed seems to characterize much of child behavior” (128).

As his elder brother, my responsibility is to sacrifice some of my benefits to his advantage: “If I am competing with my brother for a morsel of food, and if he is much younger than me so that he could benefit from the food more than I could, it might pay my genes to let him have it” (128). If I am not convinced, I still, in my case, have no choice: My brother’s super-fast reflexes can sense any danger to his food…its an ability he has. Although he has much to learn about generosity, I now know that as he gets older, he will come realize , or rather, his genes will come to realize, that such fight for food no longer deserves the energy. His biological hunger for food (even when he is not hungry), is not his fault, and all that I must do is wait until he thinks that he can fend for himself in the wilderness.

Another point that I must greatly consider is that although he requires more food to satiate his genes’ security, I must not exaggerate in my altruism, for if I do, he will never seem to learn and will remain in a state of competition. He must learn to rest when it is his time…or at least be more flexible on sharing food.

I Called Her

Do we, humans, also practice the animalistic ESS, “if resident, attack; if intruder, retreat”, as described in The Selfish Gene (80)? I believe we do: Males commonly fight over girls, but it considered chivalrous if the one who “saw her first” or “called her” is allowed to “keep” her by peaceful means. Is this a system that has developed within our genes, or among ethical standards?

If we look at it from the genetic point of view, we could understand how fighting for a girl might not help the individuals’ survival: friendships might crumble, leading to less aid in time of need. If we inspect the morals involved in chivalry, we see that through honor, peace could be achieved. If both parties fight for the girl, one will get her, and, seeing how we are historical beings (remembering past events), another relationship would be broken. On the other hand, if we accept defeat when we are “intruders”, we can end up with at least one solid relationship. The other person, the “victor”, would finish having two good relationships in place of one (if the other system would take effect). In this way, irrefutable systems such as flipping coins are primordial to establishing relationships and thus maintaining a good social position, being everyone’s friend.

Humans: The Only Truly Selfish Beings

Some animals are considered opportunistic when taking advantage of others’ naïve beliefs: In The Selfish Gene, Dawkins explains how “whenever a system of communication evolves, there is always the danger that some will exploit it for their own ends” (65). This means that if a flower takes advantage of the feromones a bee searches in his mates, to spread pollen, it is the gene’s fault. The gene is the selfish one. The plant is simply carrying out a programmed set of instructions.

If a person were to do a similar thing, for example by tapping into a telephone wire or manipulating someone, they are blamed, not their genes. Maybe it is the fact that humans can choose to not be selfish that makes being selfish so scornful. We don’t think of manipulative animals as unethical at all, but rather opportunistic and just. Everyone does what they need to survive. They have no other choice. Humans, on the other hand, do, which means that any effort to take advantage of a situation that involves the demise of another is preposterous. Having the choice to override some of our selfish instincts imposed by our selfish genes has granted us the freedom to be altruist. The question is: Will we succumb to our animal instincts or think rationally as a human should do?

In response to this analysis, we come to the philosophical assumption that defines selfishness. Is it selfish if there’s no other choice? If that may be the case, then we’re the only selfish beings on Earth.

Mini-Fiction. Revised And Retold.

"...", I told myself, since I alone was left to tell.

"Your windshield will soon be stained red", read the horoscope.

A roadrunner is tripping today!

Duck season!; Wabbit season!; Alien season.

Why time time if all you get is time? Time!

It wont kill you. Come. Have a nice, juicy apple.

She can´t love him is she´s dead. Right?

The rain in Spain has moved to the city.

The Torah that can be told is not the eternal Torah.

A parrot: "Quack-a-poodle-moo!"

Hell? No! Hell no. There´s no place like church. There´s...

Hi mom. My name is ___. I´m your son.

A tour through hell: And to the right you´ll see...

"Live long and prosper", said one clown to the other.

"Let my people go", said one guy to the other.

How do you measure lonliness?

We are once upon a time, in a galaxy, far, far away.

Oh no! Why me? Oh.

And now, for my final illusion, I give you peace.

or: And now, for my final illusion, I give you hope. (or faith, friendship, reality, the truth, honesty, loyalty, benevolence, democracy)...

States Of Trauma

Richard Dawkins’ metaphors, particularly the one concerning the mimickry of certain butterfly species, can be compared to the United States’ embryonic development as a nation. Mimickry, as The Selfish Gene explains, is the basis of survival of certain harmless species that are preyed upon. It is easier to change the appearance than to completely transform the defense system into an attacking one. This is why certain species of butterflies and other insects have learned to mirror similar species’ characteristics, particularly those species that are dangerous to their predators. In doing so, the butterflies can fool their hunters by making them think that they are to be feared. One could almost say that they use the predators’ trauma to their advantage.

After the American Revolutionary era, people were traumatized by the tyrannical power that ruled them, and vowed to avoid a powerful central government at all costs. Although the fact that the British crown’s power didn’t inspire the hatred, the way in which that power was used did. In the same way that the butterflies’ predators, the birds, fear all strong colors because one species with strong colors was dangerous, so did the people of the new nation fear all strong governments because one power had gone bad.

Your Like Is Your Beneficiary

In Richard Dawkins’s A Selfish Gene, a theory on segregated benevolence is proposed. In it, Dawkins explains how all humans feel that “one’s own species deserve special moral consideration compared with members of other species” (10). Among others, he uses the following example: “A human foetus, with no more human feeling than an amoeba, enjoys a reverence and legal protection far in excess of those granted to an adult chimpanzee. Yet the chimp feels and thinks and--- according to recent experimental evidence---may even be capable of learning a form of human language” (10).

I believe that we favor those in our species because we are identified by them. If someone is being bullied, it is easier to consider the possibility of one’s similar position, whereas, if one presences an animal being abused, a softer heart is required to defend him, for identifying oneself with an animal seems preposterous.

During one of my religion classes, I asked the rabbi, Rabbi Moti, why Jewish teachings command that all mitzvas, or good deeds, be done first to the fellow Jew, and then to the non-Jew. I thought this was terrible racism. His defense was the following: In this world, Jews must stick together to survive and prosper. We must help each other out, for, if we don’t, who will?

In this way, I believe that this patriotic altruism is not prejudice at all, but merely a system to focus good-deeds on a more “selfish” cause. We must bind together if we want to be more. This survival mechanism is confused with biased compassion, but it actually is something our genes have acquired. This is something that works.

We Live on Purpose

I am woken at 5:45 a.m. I school starts at 7:06 a.m. School ends at 2:05 p.m. I do extracurricular activities. I go to sleep after homework by 9:30 p.m. on good days. I dream. I am woken at 5:45 a.m. Am I happy? I’m certain of my lack of sadness, but does that guarantee my joy? I don’t think so. I feel as if my life were flashing before my eyes (in slow motion, of course) and I am not even dying yet. Life is living me. I go with the flow. Is this life? Or is life true joy? If this were true, and I go on as is, I will die without ever living. What is the purpose of living this way, or any other way, for that matter. Do we have the choice to live happily or not to live happily? How hard are trying to truly live with joy? Is the pursuit of happiness eternal? Will we ever be able to achieve our goal of living?

I believe we will only be happy if we change our definition of happiness as a society. According to the King of Eldorado, whose Hinduist philosophy is generously shared, “a man should be satisfied with what works moderately well” (83). My life works moderately well, hence, I am satisfied. Yet, have I found true happiness? I believe that according to Voltaire’s teachings, we must be satisfied with the external to find joy in the internal. We should be gratified and indifferent with the spoils of the material to focus the search of peace within. We shall never achieve tranquility if we are focused on finding happiness in the wrong place. The material luxuries’ sole purpose is to ease the meditation process, so as to not concern oneself with the needs of the body. This is why we must be content with what works, not what we want, because, ultimately, what works is all that matters. We see that the happiness of the people of Eldorado has nothing to do with their gold or precious stones. They are happy because they have found joy within themselves and gratitude with what they have: “We never pray…we have nothing to ask of God, since he has given us everything we need. But we thank him unceasingly” (79). Here we see that something that works is the greatest luxury. We must remember and acknowledge this when we ask God for more. Do we want more, or do we need more?

In his conclusion, Voltaire reveals his work’s raison d’être: The journey is the destination. In the very last paragraph of Candide’s experiences, the writer, through the enduring optimism of Dr. Pangloss’s philosophy, explains how “there is a chain of events in this best of all possible worlds; for if you had not been turned out of a beautiful mansion at the point of a jackboot for the love of lady Cunégonde, and if you had not been involved in the Inquisition, and had not wandered over America on foot, and had not struck the Baron with your sword, and lost all those sheep you brought from Eldorado, you would not be here eating candied fruit and pistachio nuts” (144). In this maxim, the purpose of life is explained: We go through much, but our experiences are for the best if we learn from them. If not, then they will occur pointlessly.

However, why does Candide claim “we must go and work in the garden” (144), where we, as Adam and Eve had to do, must work for our survival and happiness? If we don’t work to survive and be happy, what is the true purpose of life. If we achieve joy, what then? Will life go on pointlessly, or will the existence of true bliss in our lives eliminate the need for an objective? The people of Eldorado don’t seem to have much of a purpose, but they don’t feel the need for one either. In that case, life’s purpose is to be happy until one doesn’t have the need to have an objective any longer.

What Is "Satisfaction"?

In the 18^th chapter of Voltaire’s Candide, we are shown a crude reality: We shall never be happy with what we have if we seek happiness in the material and not in the spiritual. Our society is confused because it believes that innovation brings joy. We must find satisfaction in stability and gratitude in real prosperity: the one that only involves survival and happiness.

The wise king of Eldorado gives Candide and his valet, Cacambo, a sound piece of advice when they inform him of their intentions to leave the utopia: “I realize that my country is not much to boast of, but a man should be satisfied with what works moderately well” (83). This captures the essence of satisfaction and man’s wild-goose-chase for well-being. Candide and Cacambo’s reasons for departure are purely materialistic and venturesome in nature. They would have no problem staying there, but they are lured by the prospects in the spoils of the journey: fortune, fame, and Cunégonde’s hand in marriage. In this NY Times article by David Leonhardt, source of society’s happiness today is described as being dependent in changes in status. In other words, the article "Maybe Money Does Buy Happiness After All" shows how people who acquire more than they usually do are happier than those who acquire values they are used to, as we can see in the map above. Why does this occur? Maybe people are more content with a change of status than the change itself. This area of society's psychology strongly depends on propaganda and popular trends. It is getting harder and harder to be happy every day.

Candide And His Intentions

I believe that if one’s intentions are noble, all can be forgiven…even murder. The question is: Will the person who committed the crime forgive himself? Self-forgiveness is the most important part to overcoming mistakes. It precedes, even, the attempt to make amends. In Candide, Voltaire, describes how his clumsy character’s personality causes him to do terrible things, all with noble intentions. Some of these include: the murder of two priests (one, his brother-in-law to be, and the other a jew) and an inquisition officer. He also kills two Oreillon women's lovers, thinking that they are harming them.

Candide’s intentions are always magnanimous, for a person with such a innocent mentality can’t bear the thought of wittingly causing harm. Although he kills “those two young ladies’ lovers” (69), he only meant to help. Cases where good-willed action have negative effects are common: I have been told countless times the situation where a friend’s friend once defended an unknown woman being stricken by her husband in a public fight. The women of all the stories scolded their saviors, explaining how their being harmed by aggressors is an act of “love”. They continue to reprimand my friend’s friend by telling him that he has no business intervening in something she “obviously deserves”. In such way, many times the right action is not always the correct one. The linked Youtube clip, although slightly radical, describes certain situations where “Good Intentions Go Bad, Or Worse”. Is it better to act based on good intentions or not act at all in the fear of an unintended outcome? I believe that all good intentions should be turned into good-actions, even if the result is undesirable.

Benedict Arnold, The Slave

Chapter 14 of Voltaire’s Candide, I believe, employs satirical targeting against traitors. The egotistic drive that so easily convinces them of disloyalty is also targeted. Cacambo, Candide’s newly acquired servant, condenses the purpose for treason: “When you don’t get what you expect on one side, you find it on the other” (62). Benedict Arnold is known for his greed-driven treachery. In the same way, Cacambo describes infidels’ motives.

What Voltaire describes as deceit lacks the moral implications. He hints that traitors ignore or lack a strong code of ethics that would otherwise impede their selfish choice from taking place. In this way, Voltaire mocks traitors as attributing ignorance to their list of defects. He condemns turncoats as being unaware of, or willing to accept/ignore the negative effects of their choices. By doing so, he not only gives us a reason to pity deserters, but also stresses that their amount of egotism is enough to bypass the “rational system” of the brain, responsible for logical thinking and planning, according to Radiolab’s “Choice”.

Candide And The Attack Of Temptation

When we have the impulse to give in to our whims, whether or not we honor them is up to our “rational system’s” (Radiolab’s “Choice”) strength. Our capacity to maintain our logic through distractions greatly decides our fate. If our rational mind is trained, the more calculated our future is. We can decide our destiny if we are completely conscious of our choices. Temptation, then, as we have seen in Voltaire’s Candide, weakens the existence of free will by imposing emotions.

One example of a weakening logic are is the frequent ravishing Cunégonde and her maid, Abigail, experience throughout their war-filled past. Soldiers abstain from choosing during battle, but rather resolve to act based on instinct and emotion. There is no way they can restrain themselves when they are faced with temptation, because they haven’t practiced doing so. For instance, we see a barbarian who uses power to heed his whims: Don Fernando, governor of Buenos Aires (who “everyone who saluted him wanted to hit him” (58)) is as impulsive as can be, which we can see when he proposes to Cunégonde upon seeing her: He “declared his passion to her and swore that he would marry her the following day…” (59). Although they don’t know each other, he doesn’t hesitate to challenge her “escort”, Candide. Candide, being himself, suspects nothing and expects the governor’s complete honor and Cunégonde’s unconditional loyalty. Since this man’s power has protected him from his behavior’s effects, he has lost self-restraint and the conscience it entails.

Through these examples that Voltaire provides, we are proven that logic is a learned skill though time and practice. The absence of rational thinking results in unpredictable consequences, as I expect the Governor to experience upon his hypothetical marriage with Cunégonde.

Fight Of The More Unfortunate Misfortune

Sometimes, comparing current circumstances to more unfortunate ones helps promote optimism. An example of this technique to cope with reality is mentality of the hobo prisoner of Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five. The forty year-old hobo was in Pilgrim’s boxcar when he claimed that he, “”been hungrier than this”, the hobo told Billy. “I been in worse places than this. This ain’t so bad”” (68).

In the same way that this hobo endeavors to convince himself of the “positive” circumstances, so do Cunégonde and her maid, Abigail, struggle to pursue happiness. Ensuing Candide’s banishment from the Baron’s estate, Voltaire illustrates the woman’s despair and desolation. Her loss of hope is clear during the conversations between Candide and his lover, Cunégonde.

The maid gets tired of listening to the complaints, and so, to lessen the desperation, she alleges that she has been through much more than her employer. In comparison, Cunégonde’s terrible past is shriveled once Abigail’s life is evoked. She successfully communicates her opinion when she uproariously complains about “’The way you both complain!’ exclaimed the old woman. ‘You haven’t had misfortunes like mine to bear, I assure you’” (48). There is irony in the thought of having to recount worse experiences to endure unfortunate ones. Must we be optimistic only by extreme comparisons?

The great irony occurs in the next line, for this fight for hopefulness becomes just that: a fight. When “Cunégonde started to titter with laughter, for it was amusing of the good woman to pretend to be more unfortunate than she” (48), she was not fighting for the worse past, but for the better perspective of the present. It is ironical that in a time of crisis, these people must fight for the worse past in order to be satisfied with the present. If Cunégonde’s past is proven “better” than her maids, then her present will not seem as terrible as she believes it to be, and all her complaints will appear childish. Although she would be granted a degree of gratefulness (for her past is not as bad as her maid’s), she would be silenced. They are fighting for the “better” misfortunate past. This irony is sickening.

Candide's Intentions

Candide’s journey, as told by Voltaire, is not one without curious occurrences. In particular, Voltaire encrypts subliminal and ubiquitous clues designed to send a deeper message than what is meant literally. One of such messages occurs when Candide and his mentor, Dr. Pangloss, are readied for death. Their execution is caused by “one for speaking and the other for listening with an air of approval” (36).

It was believed at the time that “the sight of a few people ceremoniously burned alive over a slow fire was an infallible prescription for preventing earthquakes” (36). Candide’s ignorant personality is befitting for this ignorant attempt to well-being. What is interesting about the ceremony is the variation in attire which both people are given: “The decorations on Candide’s mitre and cassock were penitential in character, inverted flames and devils without tails or claws; but Pangloss’s devils had tails and claws, and his flames were upright” (36). We can infer from these differences in dressing that both mentor and pupil are being punished for different things. Dr. Pangloss, who is a lucid and knowledgeable person, is directly responsible for every one of his actions, while Candide’s actions are like those of a child: mostly unwittingly affecting others. Furthermore, Candide’s actions are almost never to the expectation of others. He is as spontaneous as can be. This is probably the reason why his robe is decorated with an opposite fate than that of his master. He will probably be punished for his actions in hell, as the people of the time believe, but should he be punished if his intentions are noble? The question we must ask ourselves is the following: Should we be equally punished for our actions than for our intentions?