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)...