Yet Again, We Got It Wrong

Mothers have a tendency to be altruistic in regards with their offspring, with all of them. This is explained in Chapter 8 of The Selfish Gene, called the Battle of the Generations. But it also explains that, again because of our competitiveness, siblings will always be looking to be the favorite, the one with the most attention and affection. Therefore, it is normal that jealousy should arise. Perhaps the most famous story about brotherly jealousy is the one that precisely condemns it. Cain and Abel appear in the Old Testament as two brothers, one a shepherd and one a farmer. They were giving their offerings to God, Abel with his sheep and Cain with his fruit, and God seemed to prefer Abel´s gift over Cain´s. Jealous over the Father´s preference, he smashed Abel´s head until he was dead, and later denied it to God. He was heavily punished by his father, condemned to eternal wandering. But the importance of this story in Genesis is unbelievable. Almost the complete cause, it lead to the frowning upon anyone who does not have a healthy relationship with their sibling(s). But competition between us is, in fact, natural. Our animal instincts are again frowned upon by our strict society, proving even more that etiquette and social correctness are simple conventions invented to make our lives more complicated. So, once again, we got it wrong.

The Restless Conquest

"Family Planning". This is the title of Dawkins´ seventh chapter, a chapter where he points out the clear increase in the birth rate of humans. Not only are we reproducing much faster than before, but the death rates have decreased exponentially through history. Thanks to medicine and other resources, the death average has gone up and people now live at ages that did not even seem like possible ever before. This idea brought me back to a novel I read about a year and a half ago written by Daniel Quinn and entitled Ishmael. It is truly a philosophical/reflective text, where a man is taught by a gorilla the ways of man and his mistakes. The biggest one, perhaps, was altering nature. Even believing in gene selfishness one has to admit that nature has found a perfect balance to everything-even to the desire of competition. In this novel it is argued that because we decided to domesticate nature instead of letting people die as they should, we have exceeded ourselves and, although we have resources, there is a limit to everything. This goes alongside Dawkins when he says that starvation eventually comes to children who just don´t fit. But what pushes us to want more, more of our species? Our own genes, because the bigger the population the more powerful and capable of overcoming others. This means that eventually our survival thirst will take us to our doom. It is definately a warning, one that many choose to ignore in a very selfish action towards the species.

Do We Have a Chance?

Chapter 6 of The Selfish Gene, Genesmanship, begins with a brief explanation of a selfish gene. It clearly stated that it is all over the world, in all types of shapes, colors and sizes. Each type of gene has their specific survival machines, each designed to outlive others. We need to be strong, to fight, because others will take advantage of us to fulfill their own personal desires. So what does this leaves us with? With the choice of fighting for our lives daily, overcoming those who wish to harm us, or the choice of sitting around and waiting for that same selfishnes in others to end us for good. There is no easy way out, is there?

Excuses, Excuses (Ch. 5).

The more I read of The Selfish Gene the more I realize how there is a scientific explanation for our so-called wrong behaviour. Chapter 5 enters the realm of aggression, where, as survival machines, we see all other survival machines, or our environment, as potential resources to be exploited. This is how food chains arise, species using each other for their survival. But never do these machines use the same species, a discipline called cannibalism in humans and a HUGE taboo. I am a firm believer that the human, in its superiority, believes that it can do as it pleases and that bad consequences will soon present themselves. Apparently, so is Richard Dawkins. The difference between both of us is the fact that he has scientific evidence, while I have my gut. Although we have found ourselves to be excellent survival machines, perhaps the over exploitation of resources will lead us to our own doom. Take plants, harmless, innocent organisms. They barely exploit their environment. They have outlived our species by far, and that have not had to adapt constantly unlike ourselves. And the fact is, that although the natural thing is to take advantage of others, we have challenged nature by refusing to die, by refusing to be of small numbers, by refusing to adapt. Time will take its toll, and it is up to our desire to survive to change our ways at the expense of altruistic casualties for the good of our selfish species.

Justifying

Chapter 3 of The Selfish Gene, Immortal Coils, describes the process of crossing over and how the information that comes from our parents fight each other to become the predominant gene and ultimately define our physical characteristics. It shows how, even before birth, competition is what it is all about. Only the strongest manages to win the race or fight, while the other gene is left as the recessive one. For example, my dad´s hair won the fight when deciding on my hair, which is why it is straight like his and not curly like my mother´s. It is interesting to see how our desire to win begins before our mothers even realize that she is carrying a baby, and it is no surprise that this habit continues in our childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. We have to be the best at something, or else we feel worthless.

When I was smaller I remember wondering why people could kill, hurt, and do illegal things just to win the race of the riches. The answer I always recieved from my parents was the following: "It´s simply our human nature". I shut up right then, but then I felt sad because what I had understood is that we are all meant for murder and concious mistakes. But the fact is that we win at any cost. THAT is our human nature. Although I was against brutal competition, I understand why it happens this way. It is a natural process, one that begins before our life ever does. Too bad.

Survival Machines

The second chapter of Dawkin´s work explains how replicating genes will create "survival machines", or places in which to live. Slowly, just like with evolution, these machines grew stronger and stronger as time and circumstances demanded it. But whichever replicating gene is what lies inside of us got it all wrong. If it wasn´t for opposable thumbs and superior intelligence, we would be the weakest animals of the bunch. Not only do we have inferior force, but we do not excel at swimming, jumping, leaping, flying, or any other useful survival skill. It´s a good thing that with time we developed brain ability, because if we had not found ways to protect ourselves and invent ways to disguise our lack of survival skills, our species would have probably died a long time ago. The truth is, the human race is the most physically inoffensive one of all. But because of our selfishness, we did not let others get advantage. We overcompensated with machines, clothes and the taming of other creatures. So although our genes made a mistake in terms of our physical abilities, they made the correct one in terms of our desire to be the best species of all.

Selfishness Overload

The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins begins by explaining its purpose, which is to expose how selfishness of genes rules in evolution. Although it states that "altruistic" individuals do exist, it also exposes that in the end, their actions are always done for the good of the species and therefore, are selfish. But although it talks about selfishness and the survival of a species, I wonder if there is selfishness among different kinds of groups inside the same species, much like human conflict today. Not only are we selfish in reference to other species, exploiting anything that may serve useful towards us, but we are also selfish between ourselves. Very few people ever become altruistic and "sacrifice themselves for the good of the species". This is the best example that perhaps we are the most selfish species, the most selfish gene of all. Based on Darwin´s ideas, this means that our species will be the last to die, because we are the strongest of all. We will destroy everything in our path to get there, and indeed we are living up to that responsibility. But perhaps, because we do not care generally about others in our species, we will only care about personal survival. If so, perhaps we will only destroy ourselves until the last, strongest individual of all is left standing. Maybe being the strongest is not the best thing of all, because we are so blinded with our greed that we forget that occasional good is not a bad thing. If we don´t slow things down just a little bit, our own selfishness could backfire.

Try and See

One of the most recurrent themes in Slaughterhouse-Five was time. From the Tralfamadorian point of view, destiny ruled and our purpose in life was simply to walk the way that has been already set for us. The very first section of Epictetus´Handbook talks also about the liberties we have. They are essentially different, because Epictetus does believe that decision-making, likes and dislikes, so that we don´t have a set path. But it also states that many things we cannot change, such as our bodies or reputations. In this way, it is closely related to Tralfamadorians view, especially because he insists that worrying ourselves with trying to change such things is completely unnecessary and will bring us in the end nothing but harm. By conforming ourselves we avoid tons of problems, such as aversions or problems with others. The same idea appears in the second section, where it is said that if "you are adverse only to what us against nature among the things that are up to you, then you will never fall into anything that you are adverse to...". In other words, change what you can change and accept what you cannot. What is especially interesting is that these two extremely different texts, one being a science fiction novel and the second a handbook for life, they both advocate a layed-offf, no worries way of life. They both accept the fact that many things we cannot change, which is true, and believe that our attitudes toward things make all the difference. In other words, existentialists have the wrong idea. What if we did let go of the stress? Who would worry about progress, helping others, solving problems? Nobody, but maybe that´s exactly the solution to problems. Who knows?

Watch It

Epictetus´s Handbook is basically a set of rules on how to live a noble life. Although I have only read a few sections, I believe that it is centered on ways to give life a balance and stick to what is necessary. In a way, it reminds me of the Tao Te Ching, because there is no connected story, just life lessons numbered and given striaght up. Sections 13 through 17 share an interesting similarity-they´re all about learning to control yourself. Whether it is by learning to not carry yourself away by someone else´s pain or by taking only what you truly desire when it is reachable, they all come back to the idea of behaving yourself. In a way, it denies us our right to show emotion and pursue our dreams, they want us to be stable and unwavering. In other words, Epictetus´strong point here is to turn us all into conformists, much like Billy Pilgrim had to become once he learned the real meaning of time. While Epictetus advocates letting things be for simple manners, Tralfamadorians laugh at the idea of free will and insist that even if we wanted to, things are going to happen in a certain way no matter what. I disagree with both. Destiny is simply an idea that I cannot concieve, and although I don´t mean to act rudely towards others as is Epictetus´ fear I do want to make my own decisions. But at least he gives us the possibility of breaking his advice, Tralfamadorians have no way out.

All Over Again

In the tenth and last chapter of Slaughterhouse Five, the story returns to a mixture of a narration of Billy´s adventures to the author´s (Kurt Vonnegut himself suspected) own experiences. In a certain moment, the author of Billy´s travels reflects on the lessons learned by his character, coming to a conclusion that goes like this:

"If what Billy Pilgrim learned...was true, that we will all live forever...I am not overjoyed. Still-if I am going to spend eternity visiting this moment and that, I´m grateful that so many of those moments are nice".

It got me thinking-if a man who witnessed arguably the most horrific war and one of its biggest massacres can say this, what can the rest of us say? Whether it is Vonnegut writing himself in his novel or whether it is some made-up character who happened to witness the Dresden raid as well, the point remains the same-he would live it all over again. The rest of his life has to have been incredible, because this is one of the few war veterans I have ever heard say they would go back in time. But I guess that those who have lived incredibly difficult situations will always have a better perspective than those who just sit around and everything falls into place for them, because they can really appreciate the value of good fortune and happiness. It also made me think if I would ever go back in time. It´s not an easy choice, but I would say no, at least in the conditions that Tralfamadorians give. I wouldn´t go back in time to relive mistakes and the same things all over again knowing it is out of my hands to change anything. This is why I believe in coincidences, lucky coincidences, but not in fate. Finding no other way to describe it other than using a cliché, I don´t believe in fate because I like to believe I am in control. Besides, changing mistakes in the past drastically alters your future, and perhaps I won´t like the future that comes out from fixing mistakes. My life has been wonderful and reliving it would not be horrific, but it certainly would not be desirable.

Parallel Universes and Mind Games

Since the beginning of the book, I have wondered if Billy Pilgrim´s experiences were real, a product of his imagination, the effect of drugs, or simple crazy talk. I sort of forgot my doubts when engaged the story, but reading Chapter 9 made me remember of what I had wondered when I began the novel. In this chapter, Billy was in New York after escaping from his daughter´s watchful eye. He was walking the streets when he noticed a little store that had, on its display, several novels by Kilgore Trout, the science-fiction author that Billy enjoyed reading so much. He opened two, and interestingly enough, they had a high resemblance to Billy´s own life. The first was titled The Big Board, and it "was about an Earthling man and woman who were kidnapped by extra-terrestrials. They were put on display in a zoo on a planet called Zircon-212." (pg. 201)

What does this remind me of? Possibly the fact that Billy (an Earthling) was kidnapped by Tralfamadorians (aliens) and placed in a zoo with a woman (just like Billy). As he continued to browse through, he found a second title where the main character has a time machine and manages to go back in time to visit Jesus. Basically, this character could also travel through time.

Reading this made me wonder if Billy´s travels were maybe a product of his imagination that had been inspired from all that time at a hospital and all of those science fiction books. Even so, it must have freaked him out to read that everything that is happening to him, that has happened, was imagined by someone else or perhaps occurs in a parallel universe. It enters the realm of The Neverending Story, by Michael Ende, and its mysticism. The surprising thing is that Billy did not seem surprised, as happened during the course of the novel, but this must have had some sort of effect. But perhaps it was just a game played by his mind, such as Rusell Crowe´s character in A Beautiful Mind, or Edward Norton´s in Fight Club. Would this drastically change the story? Would the significance of Billy´s life dimish because these were not actual experiences? I think not. What is important is that someone printed out his life, the narrator of the book wanted to transmit a message and got it through. The moral is what is important, not how or when it happened.

Pilgrim´s Big Fish

Reading "Slaughterhouse-Five" had always reminded me of something I could not place. Finally, after Chapter 8, I realized of how similar it was to the movie "Big Fish". Directed by Tim Burton and starred by Ewan McGregor, it constantly goes back and forward in time, telling the experiences of Edward Bloom (McGregor´s character) as a young man and his life as an old man, struggling to earn the trust of his son, Will. Much like Barbara (Pilgrim´s daughter), Will has a hard time believing his father´s fantastic tales. Instead of talking about aliens, Edward exaggerates everything. Just like Billy, Edward was a war veteran (Vietnam war, however), but he says he was saved by Siamese Japanese twins, working as entertainment for soldiers. He also told Will that time actually stopped for everyone but him the first time he saw his mother (another resemblance), that his best friend was a giant, and that he knew a town that could not be found unless you were lost. Time is a recurrent theme, for not only did time stop but he knew characters that were not influenced by it. As a kid, he met an old witch. Their lives crossed paths some 15 years later, and this same witch was now 10 years old. When they met for a third time, the witch was now as old as before. She was, you could say, "unstuck in time".

The significance of time does not stop there-when Edward first met the witch he saw his death in her eyes. In other words, much like Billy, Edward knew the exact time and place of his death. This made him fearless and brave, for he knew that whatever difficulty came his way would not be his time of death. Billy lived in the same way, unafraid of death and simply waiting for the day to arrive. Frankly, I was surprised of just how similar they were. I researched to see if the movie was based on Vonnegut´s work, but it is not. I guess that you really can´t write something completely innovative.

When in Need...

Chapter 7 of "Slaughterhouse-Five" focuses more than anything on the lives of the prisoners inside the slaughterhouse before the Dresden air raid. These prisoners are exhausted, weak, and eager to get back home. While working in a factory, they came across a certain syrup that was enriched with vitamins and was meant to be taken by pregnant women. The action of "spooning" soon became quite popular behind the backs of Germans, meaning that prisoners took a spoon and quickly ate a little bit before being found. Billy Pilgrim, at a given moment, finds a window of opportunity and licks a little bit.

"The spoon was a tablespoon. Billy trust it into the vat, turned it around and around, making a gooey lollipop. He thrust it into his mouth. A moment went by, and then every cell in Billy´s body shook him with ravenous gratitude and applause". pg. 160.

Billy wasn´t the only one who felt delighted by this little bit of sugary delight. Edgar Derby actually burst into tears. This remembered me of a stand that my mother usually takes when being the host of a lunch or dinner. She always serves extremely late, making the only food available until that hour light snacks, or, as we Colombians call it, "mecato". Why does she do this? Because she is a firm believer that when in hunger, anything tastes ten times as good when in normal conditions. In normal conditions, the syrup would have probably tasted poorly in to Pilgrim, perhaps he only liked it because he was in need of additional strength. Making alusion once more to a popular cliché, "You do not know the value of something until you´ve lost it". Basically, Pilgrim never felt better because of this syrup. But when the war was over and he had become a rich, married man, he never again felt the same gratitude towards anything else. You would think that a war veteran would be more grateful, but then again, Pilgrim never really showed any kind of emotion.

Schlachtof-fünf

While discussing "Slaughterhouse-Five" in class we have talked about the importance of language several times. For example, we raised the question of the repetition of the phrase "So it goes", but more importantly, we wondered why "slaughterhouse-five" was chosen as a title. Looking over the novel, we observed how the word "slaughter" was used several times, as seen in page 116. Billy Pilgrim is an exhibit at the Tralfamadorian zoo when he tries to explain the ongoing war to his visitors:

"As you know, I am from a planet that has been engaged in senseless slaughter since the beginning of time..."

The Tralfamadorians just find him stupid. But I was reminded of this in Chapter 6 of Vonnegut´s novel, because this is when Billy Pilgrim´s arrival at Dresden was described. As prisoners of war, they were kept in an actual slaughterhouse for pigs that was now abandoned. The number for its slaughterhouse was 5, hence the title of the novel. "Schlachtof-fünf" was the German name for this place. But what striked me as irony was the fact that the place where killings typically took place was where these prisoners actually survived the destruction of Dresden. Even though it was an actual slaughterhouse, it was the only place where deaths did not take place. So perhaps the slaughterhouse was the refuge, and everywhere else in the place, everywhere in a seemingly safe city, was the site for death and destruction. What a cruel trick of fate.