Replicator Civil War

As I sit restless in the presence of a big window above the wooden desk, I turn around and find a pile of texts sitting besides the computer. Two of them call the attention for their pose is that of an open text being read with much interest. One of them happens to be The Selfish Gene for obvious reasons. The second, MacBeth seems to evoke memories past. It is not the first time I read the text, and much less is it work of an unkown author. Shakespeare strikes me as the best example of meme replication. He brilliantly used public methods to preserve his name and record: his literature.

Chapter eleven talks about memes, a replicator of thoughts and ideas, and mentions its pros and cons as compared to genes. In an attempt to make the concept clear the text sets tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, and clothes fashions as examples of memes. Dawkins further explains: “Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperm or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation (192).” The concept as introduced hijacked my interest, for it proved a connector between the physical part of life, which has been thoroughly explained, and a mental aspect of living disregarding sexual reproduction. Two of the greatest goals in the life of an average individual are fame, in any of its forms, and the need of a family. The family comes as a direct consequence of the reproduction, in order to ensure the survival of our genes, and the fame can be covered by the new concept. After all, don’t we all desire fame at some point?

The greatest survival, then, must go beyond the physical personal. Ideas as written and proven history will endure for centuries: the more famous the longer. The text explains how “Socrates may not have a gene or two alive in the world today, as G. C. Williams has remarked, but who cares? The meme complexes of Socrates, Leonardo, Copernicus and Marconi are still going strong (198).” Right of the top of my head, and for sure of the top of yours, come names of those famous in history: from Einstein to Napoleon, and Bolivar to Shakespeare. There have been many through history who have struggled to express the importance of the production and conservation of written history. It is from the records of the long dead that we came to comprehend much of what we know give for granted. Quite obviously, history is a safe bet when trying to preserve your ideas: then why not take advantage?

The preservations of memes and their evident replication are clear in accordance to its purpose. Congruently, genes have come across as the selfish replicators whose protection and survival are our only purpose. Shakespeare has come to be remembered years after his death through his texts, tasks which his genes have failed to achieve to such a global extent. Shakespeare, on the other hand, is a direct consequence of genes and their replication onto a new survival machine. But where shall we draw the line? Is it better, in case that we had to chose, to ensure the replications of genes or memes?

Battle Of The Sexes

Paternal Conditions

Music, arts and fashion have periods of fame and fall into past. While many of their ideas and interpretations still apply, they steadily loose accuracy in describing the world. It is very hard to come to think of something that has not lost meaning as a result of time elapsing. Then why can’t evolution happen as such? Evolution must adapt to context and situation to succeed in creating stable strategies. A species can’t expect to survive if it spends its energy forever in the development of claws past the point of their necessity. Evolution won’t work for a specimen if it always acts on the same specific parts and in one method, and so therefore the whole concept and its explanation can only be treated as generalizations.

Paternal involvement, according to gene interest, kicks into the text on chapter 8. It is very interesting, for this chapter not only treats with a single survival machine, but with interests of various carrying the same genes. It first talks about resources available for a mother to invest in the offspring, of which the following are some: “Food is the obvious one, together with the effort expended in gathering food, since this in itself costs the mother something. Risk of protecting young from predators is another resource which the mother can ‘spend’ or refuse to spend. Energy and time devoted to nest or home maintenance, protection from the elements, and, in some species, time spent in teaching children, are valuable resources which a parent can allocate to children, equally or unequally as she ‘chooses’ (123).” These resources and their employment, as referred to by Dawkins, connote a survivalist behavior of selfish parents. It is only necessary to sit in front of an Animal Planet documentary to realize how true the previous stands, and how animal parents employ them. They employ their resources in a way as to maximize the preservation of genes. Accordingly, a small child will be put on priority before the mother, as long as he has at least half the chance of surviving, for his chance of safeguarding her genes is much greater as a result of a young age.

The so called paternal instinct is, then, nonexistent in the animal kingdom as we understand it. A brown bear will care for her cups, feed, and protect them only as long as the bet is one worth taking, where the preservation of her genes is at stake. How similar, or different, are humans then in according to parental senses. We are all brought up to believe in something called “unconditional love,” or unending and disinterested love, as an altruistic behavior. Human society strays from the path of animal in many ways. Humans have not the possibilities to have dozens of children, at least in the majority of the cases, and must therefore value each of their children to a greater degree. Let’s say a reasonable number of children are two or three, although it may vary according to location and interpretation. A human mother then has to ensure the survival of her genes in two or three individuals, while a rabbit may have hundreds of bodies into which her genes go. The comparison is obvious: the human must ensure the survivability of all her children by whichever means possible as the only sustainable survival for her genes.

Resources available and necessary for the purpose are similar for both animal and human parents, the context is not. This theme is worth extending into the different social conditionings that affect human survival, but the extent of such is worth its own writing. As of now the real question should point towards generalizations and some number examples, which is what the text suggests, but I can’t help wondering: Is paternal condition in humans really altruistic as we are taught to believe, or does it come down to simple insurance of the survival of a “selfish gene”?

The Big Picture

Chapters 4 and 5 diverge into very interest ideas that support an objective interpretation of evolution and animal behavior. The first introduces the idea of genes programming our acting much like a human may program a computer program to play chess. The last introduces some concepts of mathematical balance and ESS, introducing enlightening interpretation of animal behavior in regards to territory. The similarity between computer programming and the role genes have of predisposing their survival machines to work on their own based on certain rules and hints given shocked me. The true working conditions of computer programs, such as chess games, were new to me in its integrity. I used to think that the computer had every possible play inscribed and the best possible move was always given in a list, from where the move to follow would come in accordance to the level chosen, matching the number of logical moves in the list. As of today, I understood how this was pretty much impossible, breaking apart my previous idea of computer programmed activities being far better than human equivalents.

Later in the chapter, Dawkins mentions negative feedback as a process where “the largest the discrepancy, the harder the machine works. In this way the machine will actually tend to reduce the discrepancy – this is why it is called negative feedback- and it may actually come to rest if the desire state is reached (50).” The discrepancy here refers to a specific objective or purpose intended for the machine, but it gets a little more complex when taken into human context. A machine will have a definite purpose and a stable formula for a specific way to get close to the objective by implementing x action as result of y condition. Humans lack that basic formula, or else life would be completely empty of mystery. For the purpose of the text, we shall consider the ultimate human intention to be the protection of its genes. Then what’s the formula? Clearly we have visualized an objective but lack a flawless method to reach such.

A mathematical interpretation of evolutionary stable strategies, or EES, comes handy in chapter 5. Through an example of behavior of doves and hawks we are carried around accustomed behaviors. The context is the following: “Hawks always fight as hard and as unrestrainedly as they can, retreating only when seriously injured. Doves only threaten in a dignified conventional way, never hurting anybody. If a hawk fights a dove the dove quickly gets away, and so does not get hurt. If a hawk fights a hawk they go on until one of them is seriously injured or dead (70).” To a simple mind, the dove seems to be in great disadvantage. To the current ideals, no strategy is superior because they are both evolutionarily stable when reached an interdependent balance. The dove has evolved into having the mechanism that provides for the best average survival and so has the hawk (notice how in this idea we are talking as species as a whole and not individuals, for the concept of individual behavior on all members of a group would need another book of its own). Species evolve to obtain the higest survival rate as a species in accordance to others, reaching a certain point where the strategy is stable. There may be more than one such point, but evolution is always headed to one of these as to produce a balance. As understood from this chapter, evolution is a complex concept. It is important to understand individual genetic matters as a component, but not to be ignored is species evolution as a whole.

Immortal Traits

Being immortal is an issue that’s been present in the history of the world ever since. People seeking to become immortal by vile acts such as killing, waging war, or destroying worldwide icons, just to leave their mark on history. History started only a couple of million years ago, with the Creation or the Big Bang. We could say that history is like New York City. Since the epoch of dinosaurs until this moment I’m writing, that represents the bureau of Manhattan. Ever since we can say that from Neanderthal man until now is like Central Park. The Common Era represents a bench at the park. Our lifespan might be, if we are lucky, point of one nail at the bench. Quite honestly, a nail’s point cannot change the course of New York City. Therefore, making ourselves immortal isn’t that bad of a deal is it?

But when talking about evolution, the definition of immortality becomes slightly altered. We are not referring to the man who can live for two hundred years, nor a person who kills J.F Kennedy and becomes immortal. Here we are talking about genes: “The genes are the immortals, or rather, they are defined as genetic entities that come close to deserving the title” (34). We work as machines for the genes, making them immortal. They pass on, from generation to generation, becoming less vivid, but remaining immortal. Avoiding oblivion, genes leave their mark through history. We can see how Dutch settlement in New York City three hundred years ago is reflected today with the customs of the city and the traits they share. The genes are selfish, but at the same time they are being altruists. They help us identify a Chinese person from a German, and an Argentinean from an American. Selfish or altruists, they remain immortal by creating something that will live forever: the traits of the people.

We The Tools

I have had The Selfish Gene mentioned to me before, specifically how it mentioned living creatures including us being simply machines designed for the use of genes, which are kept safe inside us in their struggle for a selfish survival. Because of this and much of what I had heard before I was thrilled when asked to read the book. The first couple of chapters go into mentioning the concepts of altruism and selfishness in a biological concept, forcing me to recall a previous discussion which arose on one of my morning classes. In the present, the basic concept of ethics as come from the Greeks was analyzed and certain interpretations questioned. We divulged into the concept of happiness and how to obtain it, concluding that happiness and therefore the essence of ethics and living itself is an internal process of which mental sanity is a basic component. Now this strongly relates to the idea of us being “survival machines (20)” for genes, for both of the ideas mention a thesis based on an internal process where the external influences are simply but additions to the true importance of the mentioned which lies inside our physical self.

In recent years a shift from the rational mind to the more spiritual aspect of existence has been seen worldwide. If world events are followed attentively, we can make many connections of how slowly but widespread emotion and spirit are starting to take over our rational reaction which, as is no mystery, where taking us directly to oblivion. This all comes back to internal reactions and genetic realizations happening within us for the purpose of gene survival which “created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence (20).” If the end reason for the existence of beings as physical individuals is for the preservation of genes, and happens to be that they find themselves in trouble when we as species face the worst conditions ever seen, an immediate change is triggered internally for the specific purpose of evolution and therefore survival of the “selfish genes.” This whole train of thought completely intertwines with my morning discussion for they both end in an intangible change as the only possibility left for survival by evolving into a rather spiritual species.

But then how does it all fit into the basic concept of living, that is: why do we spend time learning and growing? Once the concept of the gene is understood it makes sense under the specific lens of survival and evolution. One can look back into history and science to discover how it is only the fittest individuals that survive: being those the ones who attract matches and leave their genes into what ought to be a “stable” individual. In effect, it is vital for the genes we carry that we stand out as individuals because only that way will our physical body ensure a match for reproduction, which is in essence some other set of genes inside their own machine trying to ensure their survival with us, but only if we prove to be their best bet at prolonging themselves.

The first few chapters foreshadow in me what is going to be a source of great knowledge and understanding but also, as I have come to realize, what will prove to be a tedious debate in my emotional self. It is interesting to approach such a theory that so clearly pulls everything together as to help us understand the working of species and our real purpose. On the other hand, it is kind of frustrating to understand science to such a level where any optimistic beliefs you have are completely wiped out because you will no longer remain the individual but the mechanism of survival for an alien body. Some may argue that they rather live in the erroneous interpretation of different purposes in life, but some of us, in their ambitious vice for understanding everything they can to its last extent, will go to the last chapter and shall read to the very last period in hope of that explanation which so far has failed to come unflawed.

Shades Of Gray

Chapter 19 hosts the election of what would become the protagonist’s new companion and replacement of Cacambo after his departure. A scholar by the name of Martin is chosen and rapidly becomes a character of great importance in the novel, foreshadowing in his pessimist mentality the strongest message the book was to engrave on me. The first conversation the protagonist had with the scholar, on chapter 20, revealed that Martin believed the world to be a creation on the hands of evil and denied any encounter with “good.” Candide, much amused by the interpretation, proceeds to question his views and, as expected, mentions how his dead mentor, Pangloss, believed in everything happening for the best. Thus far, we start making some interesting connections with past events which the book relies on to get the message across. The first connection I established is the realization that Pangloss’ mentality and that of Martin present a dichotomy. Voltaire poses them both as erudite characters in the novel, making both of their mentalities strong and convincing by providing concrete evidence supporting them in different situations. By posing such a contradiction with no definite bias, the text may be trying to show us how everything is subject of personal interpretation, and that such subjectivity may always be right as paired up with the specific point of view taken.
Through the novel, it has been quite clear how Pangloss supported his optimist mentality in an almost too stubborn position. The previous reflects the difficulty incorporated in changing character and beliefs, idea that would be supported by Martin, his counterpart. Enveloped in conversation, Candide questions Martin by asking him if he thinks humans have always been as evil and corrupt. In the questioning Candide mentions the worst flaws of humanity as to demonstrate the absurdity of the situation, to which Martin cunningly answers: “Do you think that hawks have always eaten pigeons when they found them (96)?” The protagonist admits that he does think it is logical, to which martin adds: “if hawks have always had the same character, why would you suppose that men have changed theirs (96)?” By making this point, and reaffirming that humans have always been creatures of evil, Martin has given proof to human stubbornness and the impossibility of changing or molding a character and beliefs, or human nature.
As may be expected, which implies the unexpected in a way, it all starts to fit together in the final chapters, more precisely, in the final sentences. Candide’s final words read as goes: “that’s true enough, but we must go and work in the garden (144).” In the literal context we may connect this to the garden work previously mentioned in the chapter, but figuratively, the garden may be interpreted as all that which provides sustention for everything we dream and wish for: our lives. But then how does this all fit together? You see, no great project is accomplished by a single task: no matter how many plumbers you have, you will never produce the building. We all form part of a universal garden in which some of us are plumbers and others may be decorators, floor experts, electricians, engineers and all those roles which sum up to that final end product of a building. Referring back to the text, both Pangloss and Martin explain how individuals are born as such and molded into certain character which is then impossible to change, sort of how each specific individual covers a specific job in the garden, all of which are different but necessary for an integral garden. In the end it wasn’t Pangloss’ optimism that won the battle, nor was it Martin’s realist negativism that provided for a meaningful life. It is not you or I that will serve as model for everybody, but it is everybody that serves as a model for himself in his molding of a character.

A Global Perspective

Chapters 17 and 18 of Candide mention the protagonist’s miraculous arrival to the mystical city of “El Dorado,” where streets where paved in gold and the natives acted as living in an economic utopia. When ready to take leave after being shown around, fed, and invited onto the king’s quarters for no price at all, he is let free to leave and even paid for the development of a technique to help him get out of the impenetrable city. As if all the services rendered weren’t enough, the king offers anything but guides as the companions get ready to leave towards Europe, to which Candide answers that he would only ask for sheep saddled with food and mud of the country, which in effect is precious gold for the previous character. To this petition, the king answers: “I don’t understand your European taste for our yellow mud, but take all you want and much good may it do to you (83).” Gold was insignificant and priceless to the natives who walked around in it, but to Europeans it was the ultimate material for which wars were fought and people killed. This has happened through history as a result of cultural differences, especially when the globe wasn’t so tightly connected and little cultural diffusion had happened between the old and new world. This happened when Europeans first arrived to the Americas and changed mirrors and object of the sort, which for the natives where impossible anyway else, for Indian diamonds and precious stones, which were not a big deal to the Indians for they had so many.

Even today, to a lesser extent, geographical positioning and cultural influences imposes a mental “price” on certain products giving them more or less value depending on the amount of such available and how easy the product is to obtain. As to pose a simple example, let’s take into account a friend’s lucrative business. This anonymous friend brings candy and edible products from the United States and sells them in Colombia at three times the price he bought them, and people keep on buying his stock. This can only be explained by the difference in access to the mentioned product: a citizen of New York wouldn’t pay any impressive price on the merchandise for it is so common and easy to acquire, on the other hand, a Colombian gladly pays the high price for the product is so scarce and unique in comparison to national industry.

As I read across an article in the Real Estate section of the New York Times, a subject I am fond of, I decided to share it with you as to enhance your interpretation not only of Candide, but of basic economic and even human psychology as well. The article by Shelley Emling titled Europeans Again Interested In Florida Homes, mentions how foreign buyers have once again showed interest in the State’s real estate sales after a prolonged period of small sales. It points out how Florida homes are “on sale” for half the prices they represented around 2003-2004. Sales have greatly declined as a result of the economic crisis we are all very much aware of, and would have proved much worse without foreign awareness and investment. In her article, Shelley Emling mentions how “In 2008, foreign buyers were responsible for about one-third of new and existing home sales in Florida, according to the National Association of Realtors 2009 profile of international home buying. In 2005, overseas purchasers accounted for about 15 percent of the houses sold in the state.”

After I have kept you wondering on the intention and purpose of the above article I will proceed to demonstrate its connection to Candide. Not only will it make you more aware and interesting people to know about economic situations, but it helps understand how people put prices on certain products. Going back to the novel, Europeans put a great price on gold and emeralds as a result of a scarce supply and a exceedingly high demand, but the natives of the golden city appointed it no price at all and even walked in it naturally because it was so abundant that no one found it a luxury but rather a given. The same thing happens with Florida’s real estate and any other product on the global market to a lesser extent: price is put on it according to supply and demand. When homes were at sale at absurd amounts and little or no buyers emerged to meet the supply, the prices of the houses fell 50% which is an absurd amount of money when applied to a great investment as buying a house. I do not mean to make economy sound so basic for it is in fact extremely complex, but it all goes back to the simple principle of: it only costs as much as I want it, and the easier it is to get, the weakest my want for the product.

Taking it back a bit further, we can connect it to human interpretation, which ironically enough, we are carrying out right here. We interpret everything according to our culture and context, which is in return affected by what we have, want, and need. If the economy puts a certain price on a dollar then that’s what its worth and that how badly people want it in general. If society put emotional weight on certain theme it is because they are unused to it and have a hard time getting to understand it.

I hope I have not exceeded myself in making this point for I consider it rather interesting and enriching to our experience as member of an economic and materialist society. Voltaire was also a member of a similar society, and that why we have the ability to interpret and identify ourselves with his messages, but remember: his conditions where different as he wrote it, so are his ideas and interpretations of such different from us.

Europeans Again Interested in Florida Homes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/greathomesanddestinations/09iht-refla.html?pagewanted=2&ref=realestate