Sep
19
An Awkward Step to Save Humanity, by Bo Keely
September 19, 2006 |
Having previously debunked love as panacea and the Golden Rule as hogwash, I will proceed to explain that humans are as breeds of dogs, and try to make you happy about it. This first step of cooperation may be the only way, outside eugenics, to rescue our faltering world.
My credential for this essay begins as a semi-feral kid living across a northern swath of American states who took behavioral and social cues from animals. Not surprisingly, I became a veterinarian daily walking for a few years lines of hundreds of kennels of cats and dogs and stalls with horses, cows and pigs. I left that calling to travel the world for a decade under a backpack studying and taking notes on the myriad aspects — toes to earlobes and the conduct — of the peoples in 96 countries. I specialized at once on either end of their bell curves thinking that once these border pieces were in place, the rest of the puzzle of humanity and solution to the world falls into place.
For example, I remember trailing in the streets of Maputo, Mozambique an albino black man I silently called Oxymoron until he noticed, stopped and confronted me. I explained forthrightly that I was interested in his anomalous color to which he intoned, 'Follow me.' We went straight to a laundromat where I met his lovely jet black wife and identical twin albino girls. 'The doctors tell me they are probably the only albino twins in this country,' the wife reported.
As certain as we are individuals, each type in the crayon box of humanity has varying capacities for physical and mental performance. White trash like me think slow as February molasses but are thorough, Mexicans talk rapidly as auctioneers, Orientals have heart and beehive minds, Indians bend and multiple faster, if only Jews could drop their Bible and climb as a superior race, Native Americans booze and brawl, and my favorite line on the football field is 'Did you ever try to catch a black guy.' These and other 'tribes' are the world orchestra sections of evolution.
Their symphony today offers the crash of egalitarianism, the belief in the equality of people. My experience is contrary, that different strains of humanity offer varying capabilities. In a sentence, a barnyard version of George Orwell's Animal Farm reads, 'All humans are equal but some are more equal than others'. This is the specificity of evolution. To embrace its truth is to take one giant step forward in your life as well as be entertained.
Suppose an egalitarian physician is called to set the broken toe of a man and instead goes out and breaks a toe each of nine other men, explaining that it will make them feel better. The study is written into the AMA journal and Congress passes a law that everyone must go about on crutches. That's where the world stands now.
Instead, go forth with compassion to look for the relative pluses and minuses of each race that bring greater vitality and color to life. By giving the next person the benefit of doubt when greeting him, you create opportunities that will not be available if you assume the worst in others and act like it. Oxymoron in Mozambique invited me to dinner after the laundromat which I politely accepted, and that led to mutual gain.
Pay attention to this truth, exert your will, and choose happiness for everyone.
Pamela Van Giessen adds:
Beautiful post. We are like dogs, and that is actually a good thing. I can not imagine a life with just one breed of dog any more than a life with just one sort of human.
Some dogs are flushers, some retrievers, some working, some herding, some are ratters, some are for sitting pretty on lovely ladies' laps. Each serves an important function. I do not always want them all but I admire all of them from Affenpinchers to Yorkies and everything between. Each has something amazing to offer though not all are great at all things. Just this weekend I was perusing my dog books, thinking about which breed would make a good companion for my Newfies as a personal trainer, and there was not a one that did not have wonderful strengths but also some shortcomings. I am leaning toward a Petite Basset Griffon Vendeen or a Brittany for the Newfs.
Bo has written a very wise thing. One can take it even further and recognize that you do not train all breeds the same way. Newfies demand training at a young age, but a soft touch. Rotties need a firmer hand. Pointers are super smart but can be skittish if not given purpose. Springers never stop moving, and Goldens are children well into adulthood. All are great if trained according to their disposition and strengths. But at the end of the day, Clumbers just won't do well in obedience competition, St. Bernards rarely excel in agility competition, and a Pomeranian isn't going to a pull a heavily weighted cart . No amount of training or work will ever overcome their physical limitations and DNA. I often gasp when I see people who insist on forcing an issue with a breed where success is most likely outside the realm of possibility and from which there is rarely a good outcome. If you want to excel in agility why wouldn't you get a dog that is physically appropriate for the task instead of forcing a square peg into a round hole?
Dylan Distasio comments:
In contrast to the previous replier that found the parent post a beautiful one, I found a lot of dangerous posturing bandied about with little scientific evidence for most of the assertions made, some borderline if not outright racial slurs, and an incredibly flawed analogy involving crutches. I may be at a disadvantage in this response, if the parent was actually a satirical post, but I have a hard time reading it that way.
I will also try to set aside my bias of disliking most dogs as pets versus work animals as I find their slavish devotion and dependence on their masters an undesirable trait. That, alas, is a topic for another post …
Bo wrote "These and other 'tribes' are the world orchestra sections of evolution" after opining on the traits of various races. Assuming for a moment these generalizations are true (which I don't in general), there are no allowances made for cultural versus genetic transmission of these traits ( i.e. meme versus gene). The word "evolution" carries a connotation of selection pressures on the gene pool. I am not aware of conclusive scientific evidence for any of these assertions.
Culture is a powerful transmission medium for changes. People cut loose from their historical culture who emigrate to the US develop a new one that is often strikingly different from that of their ancestors within a few generations.
The parent's lumping together of races with an enormously broad brush done with sloppy abandon. "Orientals" (who I am not sure enjoy this term for the most part these days) have a wide variety of cultural traits across tribal and state borders. I don't think a Korean or a Chinese person would appreciate being thrown into the same bucket as a Japanese one. The comment on the Native Americans is flat out derogatory and racist, nuff said on that one.
Would the parent also have us believe that the Jews have a special need for religion in their genes that is not present in the genes of other races?
And while I will grant that selection pressures may have created some physical differences in muscle type distributions across races in general, there are exceptions in every pool. I am not sure that there is even conclusive scientific evidence in this realm, but then again, I'm not up on my eugenics reading.
The assertions made about meaningful differences in intelligence across race is spurious at best, and destructive at worst especially considering the difficulties in defining and measuring intelligence in general.
We are also blessed with this gem "All humans are equal but some are more equal than others'. This is the specificity of evolution. To embrace it's truth is to take one giant step forward in your life as well as be entertained." I'm sure Orwell is rolling in his grave seeing a satire used to rally against the Stalinist corruption of socialism used to argue for the inequality of the races based on a eugenic argument.
The physician analogy is flawed and laughable. It left me speechless; I confess to being unable to elaborate on it.
As the parent closes, we get some mixed signals such as "By giving the next person the benefit of doubt when greeting him, you create opportunities that will not be available if you assume the worst in others and act like it." which sounds like a good idea that would argue for recognizing the individual not the stereotype the parent elaborated on earlier.
However, we are left with a closing that sounds like fascist propaganda "Pay attention to this truth, exert your will, and choose happiness for everyone." In other words, embrace a worldview based on perceived genetic differences of races based on broad stereotyping, and exert it on others.
I can almost see that the parent's intent was good here, it is a shame it's wrapped in a message of stereotype, abuse of the scientific method, and at times outright racism.
Comments
WordPress database error: [Table './dailyspeculations_com_@002d_dailywordpress/wp_comments' is marked as crashed and last (automatic?) repair failed]
SELECT * FROM wp_comments WHERE comment_post_ID = '610' AND comment_approved = '1' ORDER BY comment_date
Archives
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- Older Archives
Resources & Links
- The Letters Prize
- Pre-2007 Victor Niederhoffer Posts
- Vic’s NYC Junto
- Reading List
- Programming in 60 Seconds
- The Objectivist Center
- Foundation for Economic Education
- Tigerchess
- Dick Sears' G.T. Index
- Pre-2007 Daily Speculations
- Laurel & Vics' Worldly Investor Articles