[circumventing darwin : theory in infancy]

(originally posted in oct-07 on a lesser blog, thought to revisit here)

where to begin. i've started down a path considering where evolution has taken us. much of the path was triggered by 1. a recent birthday 2. watching fight club 3. reading kurt vonnegut's well composed tirade against society 'man without a country' and 4. the opening scene from the movie '300'.

the thought simply goes that current society is progressing at a rate that allows, and in some cases welcomes, the introduction, existence and propagation of a 'weaker' gene. while reaching this point is a testament to our progress and dominance throughout the ages. is it 'good'?

starting with '300', early in the film its clear that the spartans enforce gene selection by killing infants who are (physically) weaker or poorly formed. this act only allows the strongest of children to become men and women in the society. by contrast current day practices attempt to 'preserve life' at any expense, for children in particular. this introduces inherently 'weaker' genes into the larger society.

then there's 'fight club', a film that anyone under the age of 30 is bound to believe is about misogyny and brute force (as i thought),  but watching the film again, on my birthday no less took the experience down a different path, which exposes the struggle between the two identities of 'jack'. and not in the way 'american beauty' covers a man in his mid-life, but in the way that a person who is physically weak, mentally corrupt and spiritually bankrupt travels the existential. 'jack's' struggle as he fights acceptance of who he thinks he is is my own struggle, and, i think the struggle of the not-so-stoic modern man.

enter kurt vonnegut, i'm a fan of kv so in reading 'man without a country' i'm expecting a good read, poignant etc. but this was much further. the references to his belief that the earth is responding to its 6m inhabitants the way that our own bodies respond to viruses, heat and eradication, sound too true. followed by the story of a hungarian doctor who saved millions by bucking the norm, speaking truth to power and following his convictions who ends his life in shame becuase he was unpopular, unconventional and outside the mainstream. vonnegut wrote the book as a letter to me; at least it makes me feel that way.

to tie this all together; survival of the fittest isn't actually a quote from darwin, but most people don't know that, and attribute it to him anyway -- so i'll use it. our society, our time, is de-masculinization at work. the stripping of the male identity through-out generations. survival is no longer an issue for western society, its a given. if there is no longer a need for what we were physically designed, ensuring survial and dominance, and we (men) are now moved into a role of 'service', in just over a generation, then what response is expected, what is the period of adjustment, what is the expected end result? what if the expectation doesn't fit the crime.

weakness, physical or mental, and however it is defined, is allowed to thrive, and is supported at many levels. safety nets are nice, in the short-term, but serve to dilute the larger population and take away from society as a whole. the spartans guarded their genetic gate at the birth canal where we invite everyone to the party. the resulting population struggles as we evolve into a softer, gentler society that consumes to survive, but loathes its inner self, its genetic design.

our mother earth fights to shed her mutated children that gnaw at her life and greedily feed on her wilting body. we kill ourselves by circumventing 125k years of tested design. we destroy ourselves by destroying ourselves then when that isn't enough we get our environment in to join the prolonged suicide party.

i don't know where this train of thought leads, or what the next station is, or whether the bridge ahead is washed out. i will have to let you know when i get there.

(still trudging forward)