went for malaysia trip. the one that all geppers would go for. quite fun, but i think for a science club camp some things could have been improved:
Flexibility.
Being a guided tour we had very little free time to do what we wanted to do.
Time.
Being a Malaysia trip much of the time was spent travelling.
Educativeness.
It was primarily a geography trip.
People.
Being an overseas camp, it would naturally be more costly and less people might want to go. Indeed, some of the fun ppl like ali, yy, kenny, lawry, jiahua, gordon, kiaboon, guocong, michael etc didn't go, making the camp less lively than what it could have been. This is especially so since most of the core members of science club are from GEP and all GEPs would have gone for this trip b4 already.
To make up numbers they combined sci club and library. quite a few of the librarians were plain irritating and bitchy. they also seem to be less inquisitive.
Of course there are good as well!
General well-being.
The food and accomadation were terrrrrrrrrific. 5***** hotel sia! bedside control of all equipment! huge room! enough room for 2 ppl to bathe at the same time but tts besides the point for an all-boys camp.
Miscellaneous.
See a lot more people :)) Esp. the salesgirls in the biscuit store we visited at the end of the trip. Overwhelmed by their courtesy. And the uncle who owned the store teased alwyn.
Monday, November 28, 2005
Sunday, November 20, 2005
watched a discovery channel documentary about lying. they said that a child first tells the truth by instinct, but they learn to lie as they grow up. it was discovered that the higher the IQ, the sooner they learn to lie. that is because they have realised that other people may not know what they know. they use that to their advantage, and keep away from trouble.
so, without aesop fables, morals and civics textbooks, and the fairy tale about the old man who dropped his rusty iron axe into the river, would we lie more often? are they neccessary?
Assuming that it is true that it is in the human instincts to tell the truth, there would need to be a force acting against this instinct, such that people would want to lie. It may be a reward from lying, or a punishment from telling the truth. Either case, the force has to be strong enough to make a person want to lie.
My hypothesis is that all these fairy tales and fables and things that they teach us since we are young are there not to reinforce this instinct, but to add an extra reward for telling the truth: the faith that you would be rewarded someday, somehow, for telling the truth. This is conditioned and subconscious, and it affects the way we make our decisions .
So, after this conditioning, not only does a person need to got against his instincts to tell the truth in order to lie, he also has to give up the benefits of telling the truth he has faith in. This, in effect, would mean that there would need to be a better reason for him to lie, before he would. Hence, moral and civics education would indeed help in making people lie less often when they don't need to.
However, a problem occurs when people finally realise that the fables they have been hearing since young, are, after all, fables. They must eventually learn the benefits of lying, and the consequences of not lying.
Allow me to sidetrack a bit, and let me give u a scenario(it happened before). During CLE lesson, your form teacher did a sharing session on Dr William Tan's speech, and it was obvious that she felt very inspired. Then she ask: are you inspired by his speech? Someone shouted, "YES! i'll chop off my legs!" You know who that person is. The teacher doesn't. The teacher was very upset about that comment and proceeded to lecture the class for the next 30 minutes. After class, the teacher asks you if you know who the person who made that comment was. What would you do? (Let's say you don't hate that person to the core)
Whatever it is it wouldn't pay to tell the truth under those circumstances.
So, when the people realise the power that deception can give them, they become cynnical about what they have learnt in civics and moral education. Now that they realise that what they hoped is true is not true, they would have a more bleak outlook of life.
I think that is why people feel happy when reading happy stories. It makes them feel that by following their conscience, their future would hold lots of hope and joy for them. After reading the story, they feel that if they continue to do what is right, and avoid what is wrong and bad, they can have a wonderful future. Effectively, this makes them feel that they can control their future, and hence they would be happy. However, this is most often not the case in real life.
But the thing is, there is a chance that we would be able to have a happy ending, albeit the chance being rather low. If all of us become cynnical, we would not be motivated to work towards that goal, and the chance of attaining it would be even less.
so, without aesop fables, morals and civics textbooks, and the fairy tale about the old man who dropped his rusty iron axe into the river, would we lie more often? are they neccessary?
Assuming that it is true that it is in the human instincts to tell the truth, there would need to be a force acting against this instinct, such that people would want to lie. It may be a reward from lying, or a punishment from telling the truth. Either case, the force has to be strong enough to make a person want to lie.
My hypothesis is that all these fairy tales and fables and things that they teach us since we are young are there not to reinforce this instinct, but to add an extra reward for telling the truth: the faith that you would be rewarded someday, somehow, for telling the truth. This is conditioned and subconscious, and it affects the way we make our decisions .
So, after this conditioning, not only does a person need to got against his instincts to tell the truth in order to lie, he also has to give up the benefits of telling the truth he has faith in. This, in effect, would mean that there would need to be a better reason for him to lie, before he would. Hence, moral and civics education would indeed help in making people lie less often when they don't need to.
However, a problem occurs when people finally realise that the fables they have been hearing since young, are, after all, fables. They must eventually learn the benefits of lying, and the consequences of not lying.
Allow me to sidetrack a bit, and let me give u a scenario(it happened before). During CLE lesson, your form teacher did a sharing session on Dr William Tan's speech, and it was obvious that she felt very inspired. Then she ask: are you inspired by his speech? Someone shouted, "YES! i'll chop off my legs!" You know who that person is. The teacher doesn't. The teacher was very upset about that comment and proceeded to lecture the class for the next 30 minutes. After class, the teacher asks you if you know who the person who made that comment was. What would you do? (Let's say you don't hate that person to the core)
Whatever it is it wouldn't pay to tell the truth under those circumstances.
So, when the people realise the power that deception can give them, they become cynnical about what they have learnt in civics and moral education. Now that they realise that what they hoped is true is not true, they would have a more bleak outlook of life.
I think that is why people feel happy when reading happy stories. It makes them feel that by following their conscience, their future would hold lots of hope and joy for them. After reading the story, they feel that if they continue to do what is right, and avoid what is wrong and bad, they can have a wonderful future. Effectively, this makes them feel that they can control their future, and hence they would be happy. However, this is most often not the case in real life.
But the thing is, there is a chance that we would be able to have a happy ending, albeit the chance being rather low. If all of us become cynnical, we would not be motivated to work towards that goal, and the chance of attaining it would be even less.
Friday, November 18, 2005
i noticed that i am actually not blogging so much for the sake of leaving my thoughts somewhere so that i may refer to it years later, and chuckle at how immature i used to be back then, and use it as a mirror to improve myself. If i wanted to do that i would have kept a diary. it is so much simpler to write down thoughts on paper than to blog. moreover, as long as u don't have internet access, or googleplex catches fire, you cannot find what you wrote before.
so why am i blogging? i think the reason why i am blogging is to that everyone in the world how smart i think i am, hopefully they look and say, "look, this dude thinks, he's smart." so, sometimes i don't really blog about what i'm really thinking about, for fear of letting other people whacked. Also, sometimes i write so that people would want to read it and see how smart i am. but whatever it is, i don't record my thoughts anywhere else so much.
i guess nobody is really interested in what i have been writing about. but by doing this, it makes me feel as though there is hope that someone comes across and understands what i am thinking. it makes me feel better. but what i really hope to get out of this is that people know me better. so that i can communicate more easily.
tell ya what, i really think that i am quite clever. i am trying so hard in so many ways to give people such an impression, yet at the same time, don't come across as proud and overconfident. but from my so many failures i see that i'm really not as smart as i thought i was. the rjc eureka and nsc really shook me hard. they were so important. about 9 months before nsc, i'm rehearsing what it would be like to win the competition everyday, what it would be like to represent RI and thrash the other schools, and i really studied for that very moment. on the day that we lost in the first round, i was really shell-shocked. on my way home i really felt like crying. i was telling myself "its okay, its just a competition" but i knew in my heart it wasn't! worse still, we are appearing on tv.... everybody would be like "WTF RI sucks like shit! Can't even answer those simple questions!" sigh. we knew the answer, but we were too slow on the buzzer. sounds like excuses, excuses, excuses, but that was what really fucking happened. and i was our fault. we lost at something we could have won and that feeling is even worse. it didn't feel that bad to lose in ACJC because we knew by the end we couldn't win liao. everyone knew that ri's niche was in chemistry and i doubt the organisers themselves could answer the harder chemistry questions (the third hardest question required you to divide by 2, use the pythagoras's theorem 3 times then multiply by 2, then express in nanometres. easy, but not in 20 seconds. the second hardest question the organisers got the answer wrong themselves and the judges had to point that out, and the answer for the hardest question was a 3 page solution for a partial differential equation with 4 variables). the "hardest" maths question was the easiest math question. i guess they compromised on fairness too much for suspense and unpredictability.
you'd say, "yeh yeh, sore loser" but then thats the point. i'm not some noble saint who can look past all these achievements and cast them away as "worldly affairs", i am one who is really really concerned with my image. so of course i'm sore about losing. no one likes to lose, and neither do i.
so yes. if i dispense with all the formalities and hypocrisies i'm really an arrogant bastard who is so proud of my intelligence, that i neglect a lot of the work. i'm so proud of myself, i don't work hard. it seemed to me that the past few years i've been telling myself not to be proud, not to be arrogant, not to be complacent etc. but i failed. all i did was to try to keep it away from others. the balance between hypocrisy and arrogance is putting a lot of pressure on. on one hand i try not to be too hypocritical and seem like i am a humble person when i am far from it, yet on the other hand i'm worried that i come across as arrogant and complacent.
I see that many succeed in balancing it well, by expounding on their achievements and putting others down as a part of friendly humourous conversations that close friends are bound to have. I don't have enough close friends. From what i see, when i try to do that people avoid me, and say things like "yar wad, u very smart". so are people making fun of me, or are they really impressed by me?
i hope someday i can find someone who would talk to me about things that i care about, and joke with me, tease me, and i can tease him back about some other things, without any fear that he may someday leave me because i'm too arrogant and narcisistic.
so why am i blogging? i think the reason why i am blogging is to that everyone in the world how smart i think i am, hopefully they look and say, "look, this dude thinks, he's smart." so, sometimes i don't really blog about what i'm really thinking about, for fear of letting other people whacked. Also, sometimes i write so that people would want to read it and see how smart i am. but whatever it is, i don't record my thoughts anywhere else so much.
i guess nobody is really interested in what i have been writing about. but by doing this, it makes me feel as though there is hope that someone comes across and understands what i am thinking. it makes me feel better. but what i really hope to get out of this is that people know me better. so that i can communicate more easily.
tell ya what, i really think that i am quite clever. i am trying so hard in so many ways to give people such an impression, yet at the same time, don't come across as proud and overconfident. but from my so many failures i see that i'm really not as smart as i thought i was. the rjc eureka and nsc really shook me hard. they were so important. about 9 months before nsc, i'm rehearsing what it would be like to win the competition everyday, what it would be like to represent RI and thrash the other schools, and i really studied for that very moment. on the day that we lost in the first round, i was really shell-shocked. on my way home i really felt like crying. i was telling myself "its okay, its just a competition" but i knew in my heart it wasn't! worse still, we are appearing on tv.... everybody would be like "WTF RI sucks like shit! Can't even answer those simple questions!" sigh. we knew the answer, but we were too slow on the buzzer. sounds like excuses, excuses, excuses, but that was what really fucking happened. and i was our fault. we lost at something we could have won and that feeling is even worse. it didn't feel that bad to lose in ACJC because we knew by the end we couldn't win liao. everyone knew that ri's niche was in chemistry and i doubt the organisers themselves could answer the harder chemistry questions (the third hardest question required you to divide by 2, use the pythagoras's theorem 3 times then multiply by 2, then express in nanometres. easy, but not in 20 seconds. the second hardest question the organisers got the answer wrong themselves and the judges had to point that out, and the answer for the hardest question was a 3 page solution for a partial differential equation with 4 variables). the "hardest" maths question was the easiest math question. i guess they compromised on fairness too much for suspense and unpredictability.
you'd say, "yeh yeh, sore loser" but then thats the point. i'm not some noble saint who can look past all these achievements and cast them away as "worldly affairs", i am one who is really really concerned with my image. so of course i'm sore about losing. no one likes to lose, and neither do i.
so yes. if i dispense with all the formalities and hypocrisies i'm really an arrogant bastard who is so proud of my intelligence, that i neglect a lot of the work. i'm so proud of myself, i don't work hard. it seemed to me that the past few years i've been telling myself not to be proud, not to be arrogant, not to be complacent etc. but i failed. all i did was to try to keep it away from others. the balance between hypocrisy and arrogance is putting a lot of pressure on. on one hand i try not to be too hypocritical and seem like i am a humble person when i am far from it, yet on the other hand i'm worried that i come across as arrogant and complacent.
I see that many succeed in balancing it well, by expounding on their achievements and putting others down as a part of friendly humourous conversations that close friends are bound to have. I don't have enough close friends. From what i see, when i try to do that people avoid me, and say things like "yar wad, u very smart". so are people making fun of me, or are they really impressed by me?
i hope someday i can find someone who would talk to me about things that i care about, and joke with me, tease me, and i can tease him back about some other things, without any fear that he may someday leave me because i'm too arrogant and narcisistic.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
today i saw this convo when playing 'Conquer' that really cracked me up.
A: ur from singapore?
B: no
A: then how u know chinese? lolz
B: i'm from china... -_- "
stupid singaporean.
On a side note i allowed commenting on posts. I guess people might have comments to make, that are too long for the tagboard.
A: ur from singapore?
B: no
A: then how u know chinese? lolz
B: i'm from china... -_- "
stupid singaporean.
On a side note i allowed commenting on posts. I guess people might have comments to make, that are too long for the tagboard.
Friday, November 11, 2005
Alwyn and i discussed a bit about cuteness today. He suggests that cuteness actually represents the kind of proportions that make people shower more care and concern for the subject. For example, people show more care to babies that are cute. This seems logical. However, i wonder whether the word "cute" refers to the same thing when directed to a baby and to young person.
However, evolutionary wise the chance of reaching that is quite small. Firstly, there must be a roup of people who have the genes to appreciate cuteness, and you also must have people who are, themselves, cute. The chance of having a high proportion of either evolving together seems quite low. If the cuteness appreciation genes were already there in the first place, then it makes sense to believe that a cute baby is more likely to survive, and hence pass on its cuteness genes, assuming that those exist. However, this is afterall, based on an unsubstantiated assumption that the cuteness appreciation genes were already there. Why do people even have cuteness appreciation genes in the first place? It seems quite unlikely that those genes would actually help them survive and prosper. This means that if they did have cuteness appreciation genes in the first place, it is quite unlikely to evolve to exist anyway. Even if it does, it seems also unlikely that these genes would exist in almost all of us in the current age.
Unless, of course, that cuteness appreciation genes come "bundled" together with cuteness genes. Then perhaps it would make some sense for them to exist.
But I still think that cuteness came before cuteness appreciation. Cuteness appreciation is only favourable to the survivial of the being if cuteness had already existed, and the cute being would also have a higher chance of survival. Basically, i mean that alwyn's suggestion may be right, but i think mine is more probable.
Alwyn also disagreed with my belief that cuteness and beauty are mutually exclusive. Hmm. I guess that has to do with what a person exactly means by cute. This is a very important point. What is cuteness? Crap. I really don't know. I guess it comes into our vocubulary when we see someone or something that someone points to and says "ooooooh so cute...." and then after a few more incidents we automatically somehow find some similarities between them and link the word "cute" with that.
Perhaps every word is like that. Especially the more abstract words. Like love, good, bad, evil, justice... blah. Those concepts that nobody really care to explain but everyone just love to use them (even i am using the word "love" which i have no idea of what it means. I guess it just happens to suit the context). The words are being used differently as we grow up, each person links different things to a word because one hears different ways of the word is being used to describe and explain different scenarios. Therefore, if someone asks about abstract concepts like love, evil, good, and bad, I suppose we do no read too much depth into it. The word means different things to everyone. Just take love as an attraction. Good as things you want to be associated with, bad as otherwise, evil as things against your own conscience. Let's not read too much into these abstract subjective concepts.
While Jingwen says that "love" is a bastardised word, I think that it is okay if one does not use it indiscriminately. A more bastardised word, in my opinion, is "know". Once you use the word know in your own favour, it is quite impossible to argue against you, and that is unfair. What is unfair is not that you know more, but once you start using the word "know" you stop accepting ideas from other people and you would assume that you are right from the very start. Consider this statement:
"Did you know that science is wrong?"
How are you going to respond to that? Yes? No? Whatever it is by using that "know" you are already assuming that whatever statement that is bundled with it is true. We shouldn't do that. There is a joke that stems from the common misuse of the word "know":
"Are your parents gay?" "No."
"Is your brother gay?" "No."
"Is your sister gay?" "No."
"Are you gay?" "No."
"Does your mother know you are gay?" "..."
There is no way you can answer that and still say that you are not gay.
I think that is considered is logical fallacy. Thanks goodness. Let us all try to minimise the use of words, meaning of which we are not sure ourselves.
However, evolutionary wise the chance of reaching that is quite small. Firstly, there must be a roup of people who have the genes to appreciate cuteness, and you also must have people who are, themselves, cute. The chance of having a high proportion of either evolving together seems quite low. If the cuteness appreciation genes were already there in the first place, then it makes sense to believe that a cute baby is more likely to survive, and hence pass on its cuteness genes, assuming that those exist. However, this is afterall, based on an unsubstantiated assumption that the cuteness appreciation genes were already there. Why do people even have cuteness appreciation genes in the first place? It seems quite unlikely that those genes would actually help them survive and prosper. This means that if they did have cuteness appreciation genes in the first place, it is quite unlikely to evolve to exist anyway. Even if it does, it seems also unlikely that these genes would exist in almost all of us in the current age.
Unless, of course, that cuteness appreciation genes come "bundled" together with cuteness genes. Then perhaps it would make some sense for them to exist.
But I still think that cuteness came before cuteness appreciation. Cuteness appreciation is only favourable to the survivial of the being if cuteness had already existed, and the cute being would also have a higher chance of survival. Basically, i mean that alwyn's suggestion may be right, but i think mine is more probable.
Alwyn also disagreed with my belief that cuteness and beauty are mutually exclusive. Hmm. I guess that has to do with what a person exactly means by cute. This is a very important point. What is cuteness? Crap. I really don't know. I guess it comes into our vocubulary when we see someone or something that someone points to and says "ooooooh so cute...." and then after a few more incidents we automatically somehow find some similarities between them and link the word "cute" with that.
Perhaps every word is like that. Especially the more abstract words. Like love, good, bad, evil, justice... blah. Those concepts that nobody really care to explain but everyone just love to use them (even i am using the word "love" which i have no idea of what it means. I guess it just happens to suit the context). The words are being used differently as we grow up, each person links different things to a word because one hears different ways of the word is being used to describe and explain different scenarios. Therefore, if someone asks about abstract concepts like love, evil, good, and bad, I suppose we do no read too much depth into it. The word means different things to everyone. Just take love as an attraction. Good as things you want to be associated with, bad as otherwise, evil as things against your own conscience. Let's not read too much into these abstract subjective concepts.
While Jingwen says that "love" is a bastardised word, I think that it is okay if one does not use it indiscriminately. A more bastardised word, in my opinion, is "know". Once you use the word know in your own favour, it is quite impossible to argue against you, and that is unfair. What is unfair is not that you know more, but once you start using the word "know" you stop accepting ideas from other people and you would assume that you are right from the very start. Consider this statement:
"Did you know that science is wrong?"
How are you going to respond to that? Yes? No? Whatever it is by using that "know" you are already assuming that whatever statement that is bundled with it is true. We shouldn't do that. There is a joke that stems from the common misuse of the word "know":
"Are your parents gay?" "No."
"Is your brother gay?" "No."
"Is your sister gay?" "No."
"Are you gay?" "No."
"Does your mother know you are gay?" "..."
There is no way you can answer that and still say that you are not gay.
I think that is considered is logical fallacy. Thanks goodness. Let us all try to minimise the use of words, meaning of which we are not sure ourselves.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
i remember my sister introduced me to Chobits (the anime) two years ago. Finished 1-10. Yesterday i finished all the rest (11-26) at one sitting. Each episode is 30 mins.
wonderful anime. i tried to clear the thoughts away using paul's wheel, but the feeling remains, and lingers around my mind, affecting whatever i think and do. The reason why one thinks is because of what one feels, and an unfeeling person cannot think. In this case, my mind is so bloggled with feelings and reflections that i couldn't sleep, couldn't play, couldn't think, couldn't read, couldn't study. I think thats what a good anime does to you. The concept forces you to think, and if it doesn't, the images force you to feel. The power of anime is amazing. It can be used or abused.
I wonder why even though some anime characters are out of proportion, we still instinctively find them beautiful. I am quite sure that an anime girl's face wouldn't fit the golden mask [the eyes are far too big and the mouth is far too small]. The anime guy's nose is too small. But why, despite the golden mask thingy, we still find them beautiful?
I've heard that the golden mask measures beauty, but not 'cuteness'. Now that is an interesting comment. what is the difference between beauty and cuteness? Isn't a cute person imperfect in terms of genetics? (I am assuming here that ultimate beauty shows perfection of the genes that control the shape of the face) So is our attraction to cute people, after all, a genetic defect?
On scrutiny, this genetic defect makes evolutionary sense. If the population is only attracted to a small number of people, then there would be harsh competition between species.
Now the thing here is that there must be a balance between competition and propagation. In the case of spiders and crabs, there can be very fierce competition between members of the same species for a mating partner, because their birth rates are very high, and they mature quickly. Fierce competition for mates would ensure that only the best would propagate. Humans, however, cannot afford that. The gestation period is 9 months, the maturity age is 14 years, and most of the time only one is given birth at a time. There cannot be so much competition such that only one in a hundred can mate: if that were so, we would have long been extinct. Also, the chance of genetic defects is also, to a certain extent, lowered by the high sperm count and the rather harsh environment in which the sperms must travel through in order to fertilise the egg.
Back to what I mentioned in the previous paragraph, if the people only competed for the small, say 5-10% with faces that fit the golden mask well, then the remaining would not be able to propagate well. We must also bear in mind that the average human lifespan in the prehistoric times was about 36 years. The average lifespan does not take infant mortality into account.
How was this problem overcome? I think that there were a few ways:
1. lower expectations
2. stronger instinct to reproduce
3. other criteria for choosing a mate
The first one is very subjective, so i would not try to tackle that.
The second one doesn't seem to be true, as almost all other animals are more desperate for sex. Perhaps this is due to education? If that is the case we ought to observe the natives. I would not say whether i agree with this or not.
The third one seems to be quite important, especially since the invention of language. It is not hard to show that people do not only look out for looks, but also other attributes that are easily observed through speech or writing. However, the attraction would not be intuitive, it would only appear after a certain amount of time. However, if the people who did not invent language yet could not survive, then how can we be existing now?
Then the so-called "love at the first sight" come into play (lincoln stated that it is not true love, I agree, but for the purpose in this entry, a physical attraction would suffice). If everyone is only attracted to the 5-10% that are more beautiful, wouldn't there be very few couples, and hence a low fertility rate?
Here is where I think "cuteness" comes into play. My assumption here is that cuteness and beauty are mutually exclusive. So, the physical attraction to cute people is actually a measure that allows for a higher fertility rate.
If beauty is hereditary, and that beauty and cuteness are mutually exclusive, then it would be quite easy to test this hypothesis:
Couples consisting of only cute people would not have children who grow up to be beautiful.
Couples consisting of only beautiful people would not have children who grow up to be cute.
Of course, a surefire way to disprove this theory is to use the golden mask on cute people. If it fits, my argument would all go down the drain. If my hypothesis is correct, then I suppose cuteness is probably second class beauty, technically speaking.
wonderful anime. i tried to clear the thoughts away using paul's wheel, but the feeling remains, and lingers around my mind, affecting whatever i think and do. The reason why one thinks is because of what one feels, and an unfeeling person cannot think. In this case, my mind is so bloggled with feelings and reflections that i couldn't sleep, couldn't play, couldn't think, couldn't read, couldn't study. I think thats what a good anime does to you. The concept forces you to think, and if it doesn't, the images force you to feel. The power of anime is amazing. It can be used or abused.
I wonder why even though some anime characters are out of proportion, we still instinctively find them beautiful. I am quite sure that an anime girl's face wouldn't fit the golden mask [the eyes are far too big and the mouth is far too small]. The anime guy's nose is too small. But why, despite the golden mask thingy, we still find them beautiful?
I've heard that the golden mask measures beauty, but not 'cuteness'. Now that is an interesting comment. what is the difference between beauty and cuteness? Isn't a cute person imperfect in terms of genetics? (I am assuming here that ultimate beauty shows perfection of the genes that control the shape of the face) So is our attraction to cute people, after all, a genetic defect?
On scrutiny, this genetic defect makes evolutionary sense. If the population is only attracted to a small number of people, then there would be harsh competition between species.
Now the thing here is that there must be a balance between competition and propagation. In the case of spiders and crabs, there can be very fierce competition between members of the same species for a mating partner, because their birth rates are very high, and they mature quickly. Fierce competition for mates would ensure that only the best would propagate. Humans, however, cannot afford that. The gestation period is 9 months, the maturity age is 14 years, and most of the time only one is given birth at a time. There cannot be so much competition such that only one in a hundred can mate: if that were so, we would have long been extinct. Also, the chance of genetic defects is also, to a certain extent, lowered by the high sperm count and the rather harsh environment in which the sperms must travel through in order to fertilise the egg.
Back to what I mentioned in the previous paragraph, if the people only competed for the small, say 5-10% with faces that fit the golden mask well, then the remaining would not be able to propagate well. We must also bear in mind that the average human lifespan in the prehistoric times was about 36 years. The average lifespan does not take infant mortality into account.
How was this problem overcome? I think that there were a few ways:
1. lower expectations
2. stronger instinct to reproduce
3. other criteria for choosing a mate
The first one is very subjective, so i would not try to tackle that.
The second one doesn't seem to be true, as almost all other animals are more desperate for sex. Perhaps this is due to education? If that is the case we ought to observe the natives. I would not say whether i agree with this or not.
The third one seems to be quite important, especially since the invention of language. It is not hard to show that people do not only look out for looks, but also other attributes that are easily observed through speech or writing. However, the attraction would not be intuitive, it would only appear after a certain amount of time. However, if the people who did not invent language yet could not survive, then how can we be existing now?
Then the so-called "love at the first sight" come into play (lincoln stated that it is not true love, I agree, but for the purpose in this entry, a physical attraction would suffice). If everyone is only attracted to the 5-10% that are more beautiful, wouldn't there be very few couples, and hence a low fertility rate?
Here is where I think "cuteness" comes into play. My assumption here is that cuteness and beauty are mutually exclusive. So, the physical attraction to cute people is actually a measure that allows for a higher fertility rate.
If beauty is hereditary, and that beauty and cuteness are mutually exclusive, then it would be quite easy to test this hypothesis:
Couples consisting of only cute people would not have children who grow up to be beautiful.
Couples consisting of only beautiful people would not have children who grow up to be cute.
Of course, a surefire way to disprove this theory is to use the golden mask on cute people. If it fits, my argument would all go down the drain. If my hypothesis is correct, then I suppose cuteness is probably second class beauty, technically speaking.
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Many of the things around us are being communicated with words. Words are the medium of communication and expression. They are what allows us to pass on the wisdom of one generation to the other. It allows us to communicate ideas. This is why humans change and evolve fatser than the most lethal of pathogen.
Darwin's theory of evolution postulates that the traits of a species is determined by genetic mutations(which is quite rare) and cannot be changed after birth. This evolution process takes place very slowly. You don't see a monkey giving birth to a human baby.
Lamarck's theory however, suggests that the traits of each species change according to their surroundings, and these enhanced traits get passed on to their offspring. The offspring evolve further and pass on their enhanced traits to the new generation and so on. This evolutionary process takes place very quickly as compared to Darwinian evolution. It was however proven untrue by a cruel and stupid experiment.
Both theories of evolution are concepts show nothing wrong or inconsistent when scrutinised. The Lamarckian theory was empirically disproven. This means to say that the Lamarckian theory may be used to explain something else, if there is sufficient empirical evidence.
I think that mankind evolve with Lamarckian evolution after the invention of language. Knowledge is power, and if people could teach their offspring what to avoid and what to eat, then these enhancements can be added into humans without the times spent in the painstakingly slow process of Darwinian evolution. Without any knowledge and tools, can one survive in the jungle? Unlikely. But if you release fish into the wild waters or a cockroach into jungle, they can survive. This is because their survival capabilities are encapsulated in their genome and they instinctively can survive. However, humans survive because of the ability to pass on advantages and knowledge from one generation to another. We survive because we evolve according to the Lamarckian theory, and not by the Darwinian theory.
There is not a great change in the genome from the victorian age till now, but our behaviour is different. I think it is mostly due to words. The way that we change is based on the information we receive. We evolve extremely fast when we compare ourselves to the other species. No other species adapt, evolve and prgress so fast.
Darwin's theory of evolution postulates that the traits of a species is determined by genetic mutations(which is quite rare) and cannot be changed after birth. This evolution process takes place very slowly. You don't see a monkey giving birth to a human baby.
Lamarck's theory however, suggests that the traits of each species change according to their surroundings, and these enhanced traits get passed on to their offspring. The offspring evolve further and pass on their enhanced traits to the new generation and so on. This evolutionary process takes place very quickly as compared to Darwinian evolution. It was however proven untrue by a cruel and stupid experiment.
Both theories of evolution are concepts show nothing wrong or inconsistent when scrutinised. The Lamarckian theory was empirically disproven. This means to say that the Lamarckian theory may be used to explain something else, if there is sufficient empirical evidence.
I think that mankind evolve with Lamarckian evolution after the invention of language. Knowledge is power, and if people could teach their offspring what to avoid and what to eat, then these enhancements can be added into humans without the times spent in the painstakingly slow process of Darwinian evolution. Without any knowledge and tools, can one survive in the jungle? Unlikely. But if you release fish into the wild waters or a cockroach into jungle, they can survive. This is because their survival capabilities are encapsulated in their genome and they instinctively can survive. However, humans survive because of the ability to pass on advantages and knowledge from one generation to another. We survive because we evolve according to the Lamarckian theory, and not by the Darwinian theory.
There is not a great change in the genome from the victorian age till now, but our behaviour is different. I think it is mostly due to words. The way that we change is based on the information we receive. We evolve extremely fast when we compare ourselves to the other species. No other species adapt, evolve and prgress so fast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)