#foreveralone

This internet meme has become very popular lately. This happens through sharing on popular sites such as facebook, twitter, tumblr, 9gag, etc... in order for others to see them. This fcae means "forever alone" a phrase that has become very common among friends and specially girls who continously say they will never have someone to be with. Since its origins it has repeteadly been used in websites as making fun of socially akward people  thinkthey will be lonely for the rest of their lives. It has become popular because of the humor it causes amongst people.

Give to Recieve... Or Not

            You give what you recieve. Us humans are always looking for power, superiority, and of course, revenge if something bad is done to us. We are always fighting for success, no matter who we may hurt in the process. I related this to what Dawkins talked about"cooperate" and "defect". If I have the chance to lose nothing but let someone else win everything, or win equally as my opponent, or lose along with my opponent, what would I do? Considering these options, I could either take a risk and win or take that risk and lose.

            This is what Dawkins said about Tit for Tat. Both players begin cooperating, both beneffiting themselves equally, "in the next move, each player copies the other´s previous move" (pg. 210). This got me thinking: Having the chance to win everything, why wouldnt I take the risk? But its more complicated than that. We are always looking for competition in order to benefit ourselves and obtain success. This cooperate and defect game made me realize that despite the fact that we could lose, that small chance of achieving success over our opponent is what makes us competitive and fearless (in this case).

            It happened to me when I was playing the game in class. The first two turns, my opponent and myself both scored cooperate, both benefitting ourselves with a total of .6 points each. But in the third turn, I asked myself "what if he cooperates? Why wouldnt he if he has done this for the first two turns?". So I defected, and as a matter of act, I won .5 points while he won none. This brings us back to Dawkin´s theory of Tit for Tat. The next turn, my opponent repeated the action I had done previously. I did the same, costing both if us the loss of .1 points. However, this theory or strategy didnt apply for the fifth and last term. I cooperated, thinking that since we had both lost this time it would be better not to risk it, costing me the loss of .1 points. This was Dawkin´s Naive Prober strategy. "Say on a random one and ten moves, it [the player] throws gracious defection and claims the high temptation score" (pg. 210). This is exactly what happened. Temptation was what led us to take the risk of defecting, and we both won but list as well.

            This blog will be one of the many that I have written that criticize human behaviour and society. We are at a constant competition, our lives revolve around it, even though we may not notice.  However, even though this selfishness and competition may lead us to our wanted success, it may also make it hard to trust others, which is exactly what Darwin shows in this game. In some cases, due to the lack of trust, people cooperate in all their moves. They do this because of the risk there is of defecting if the other person does the same. It is better to lose no points than to lose one right? Or is it better to take the risk of gaining 5 points while your opponent wins none?


            It is a dilemma. But why do we defect if it is the only way that we can win maximum points? Why not cooperate all time, that way, there is a big chance of winning but losing nothing. We defect because of the slight chance we have of making our opponent failing greatly against us, winning advantage, which is in my opinion, what our society really revolves around: our constant urge for success, revenge, and benef

The Selfishness of the Animal World

            I already criticized the book enough so I have no other option than to write about its meaning. Despite my criticism, there is something I found interesting, and it is the way I related the "selfishness" of the genes to the selfishness of people. However, I want to keep clear that I still think the book is very boring. I jumped to this conclusion because of the way I saw that each part of the gene or the process of each organelle and DNA work independently, on their own. Each part occupies itself on doing their job. Independently. I think that thats why Dawkins describes them as selfish, and it is because of how independent and "self centered" they are, as well as humans and animals.

            This has a close relationship to humans. Of course, this does not apply to all of us, but I have to admit that most of the time we put ourselves before everything else. Its our nature: Humans are selfish, and self centered, and independent. Thats the relationship I found that we have with genes, we do everything for our own benefit and we do our part, rarely going beyond expectations to satisfy others. But I believe that society would work no other way. Yes, society is pretty messed up by now, but what if we constantly tried to satisfy others or do everything ourselves? It would be impossible. For example: Doctors are doctors, politicians are politicians, and teachers are teachers. But imagine how the society would be if we tried to be and do everything all at once. It wouldn't work because I believe we are in a way meant to be selfish and independent.

            As a result, we have the whole point of the book: Evolution. Selfishness is what makes us advance, despite the fact that sometimes being selfish may not be the best option. But is this really what Dawkins means? I believe this is why he compares us so much with the animal kingdom. Its our nature.

            However, Dawkins does mention how working together does help our lives (and the ones of animals), and how that is also our nature. "If animals live together in groups their genes must get more benefit out of the association than they put in. A pack of hyenas can catch prey so much larger than a lone hyena" (p.166). Here, Dawkins is saying that even though our genes are independent and selfish, as well as we are, sometimes things can be done better with some help, after all, our society not only relies on our selfishness but also on our need for help or company.

           This is why I agree with Dawkins in the sense that we are very similar to the animal kingdom. By nature, we are selfish and self centered, just as animals are and function through the food chain. Ones die so others can live. Humans ourselves live in our own food cycle, each being selfish and independent to get to the top and succeed yet needing the help of others in order to live properly. That is the cycle of life, which revolves around evolution and natural selection, the mayor topic and message Dawkins wants to transmit through this boring informative book.

Don't Read This Book!

            I hate The Selfish Gene. I feel as if I were reading my biology textbook studying for the final exam. Its like a textbook explained in first person. I believe the book is boring, the font is extremely small, and since nothing aside from facts about genes and reproduction and biology is mentioned, the book is very slow. The only thing I have to admit that is helpful about the book is that it is really going to help me in the final exam, but other than that, i don't even understand how the book can be "The million copy international bestseller".

            Maybe its me that doesn't understand any kind of meaningful message the book may have, but I really feel that I'm reading a textbook. Yes, I have to admit that I can relate the book to the selfishness of people and society, but I don't understand why the author has to talk about it and explain it through writing what I'm supposed to learn in Biology. Nothing in the book happens! Why would I care about cistrons or gene pool or how many pairs of chromosomes we have? Im not going to study medicine or anything related to that, so do I really have to know all this? Sure, it would be fine if the book mentioned a thing or two about genetics, or about reproduction, or even about proteins, but how is it possible to write a 332 page book that goes on and on literally explaining all parts of genetics? Just stating the facts and definitions, nothing else.

            Thank God the book is at least easy to understand! Since it is pure facts and meanings, no further analyzing is needed (in my opinion). But how can there not be a single character or plot? That wouldn't make the book such a pain. Yes, the author is very bright and "original" or however you want to call it, and the book may be interesting for many people, but I just don't want or like to read it. 332 pages? Seriously? How much is there to say?

            Not only does the content of the book bore me, but also the tiny tiny font. I don't even want to imagine how long the book would be like if the font were bigger. Since it is so small, I take even more time reading because I get dizzy. I like to read, but a book that is more informative than my biology textbook that has no illustrations and looks like a dictionary? Not really my thing.

Dreams or Reality?

            I noticed that the book is also related to the movie Inception. I believe this because the whole book is based on the description of cities that don't even exist. They are cities created in the minds and dreams of Khan and Marco Polo, as well as in Inception, where people control their dreams and confuse them with reality. This kind of confusion can also be seen in the book because the cities, despite the fact that they are completely fictional, seem very real to the characters and the audience as well. In my case, even though I knew the cities were just a product of their imagination, the descriptions were so precise and clear that they seemed real, especially to them.

            In the movie and the book, there is a very thin line between imagination (in dreams) and reality. In Inception, the characters sometimes don't know whether they are dreaming or not, since the feeling is so pure, strong, and real. The same thing happens in Invisible Cities to Marco Polo and Khan. For them, the cities are real, even though they are completely aware of the fact that they are just the product of their imagination. The thin line between reality and imagination can also be seen when Marco Polo says that the cities he was making up were actually Venice. This definitely took me by surprise because they were always talking about creating cities and imagining them, and to think that he was referring to Venice through these detailed descriptions of all these cities was completely unexpected.

            When the audience is informed that the cities were actually Venice, the thin line between reality and imagination can be seen significantly, just like in Inception, where it is seen throughout the whole movie. Even though both characters are aware that they are talking about Venice, they keep on describing more cities after that, as if it weren't allowed to describe Venice directly. Inception relates to this because of the way the characters react towards their dreams: Even though they know they confuse reality with their dreams, dreaming and the actual concept of building their dreams with their sub conscience is their natural way of living. They literally design their dreams, just like Kahn and Marco Polo design the cities the audience thinks are fictional until Marco Polo says its Venice.

     


   The ending was surprising, and I never would have figured it out on my own. However, as soon as I knew that the cities were a compilation of Venice, it all made sense. I liked how the author creates an atmosphere of ambiguity and uncertainty through the different descriptions of every city, dialogue between the characters, and the description of imagination turning out to be reality.

The Circles of Hell (and Cities)

            As I kept reading, I found more ways to connect the book to other aspects different from society. One of these relationships I found was the city of Hypatia and the book Dante´s Inferno. Before, even though the descriptions of the different cities were percise, deep, and unique, I thought the way Hypatia was described or the way Hypathia was imagined by Marco Polo was different. It is even said that the city is different "because the change regards not words, but things" (pg. 47).

            I believe this because in this city it seems as if everything and everyone were divided by sections or being assigned to certain places. This differs from the other cities because first of all, the people of the cities were barely mentioned, and second of all, only the aspects the city had were told to the audience (skyscrapers, ports, buildings, and of course, the opinion of the narrator). In Hypatia, not only the physical aspects of the city are described but also the people, as well as what place of the city the people belong to. That is why I related it to Dante´s Inferno.

            In Dante´s Inferno, different souls belong in certain circles of hell depending on what they did. For example, the ones that committed suicide were in a different circle than the ones who were murdered or created suffering. In Hypatia, this is similar. "I walked among the hedges, sure I would discover young and beautiful ladies bathing; but at the bottom of the water, crabs were biting the eyes of the suicides, stones tied around their necks, their hair with seaweed" (pg.47). This is related to Dante´s Inferno because all the suicides are at one place, the hedges, being bitten by crabs, as if they were enduring the same punnishment in a certain way.

            "The central hall was barred by iron gratings: convicts with black chains on their feet were hauling up basalt blocks from a quarry that opened underground" (pg. 47). Again, the convicts, found guilty for crime, were all being punnished this way and were all at the same place, suffering equally just like the miserable souls of Dante´s Inferno. This can also be seen with the musicians of Hypatia, "...to be sought in the cementeries: the musicians hide in the tombs; from grave to grave flute trills, harp chords answer one another" (pg. 48).

            Not only are the city as well as the book similar to each other in the sense that "types" of people belong in the same place but also because these people are suffering or find themselves in tragic, nostalgic, and dark places.

There are Two Sides to Every Story... I Think

         



            At the beginning of the second section of the book, I noticed uncertainty and ambiguity. It starts off with Marco Polo and Khan still discussing Marco Polo´s unuseful voyages and descriptions."At this point Kublai Kahn interrupted him or imagined interrupting him, or Marco Polo imagined himself interrupted, with a question such as: You advance always with your head turned back? or is whar you see always behind you? or rather, does your journey take place only in the past?" (pg. 28).

       
             I believe there is uncertainty here because the current state or situation the characters are in is not completely described or reassured. This is so because its as if the author werent sure or completely clear in describing what was happening. For instance, by saying "...interrupted him or imagined interrupting him", what is happenine it is not clear. Did Khan interrupt him or not? This is questioned thanks to the use of the word "or" since it doesnt give a reassuring or percise image of the situation to the audience. This causes ambiguity since the situation is very vague but however it can be interpreted in more than one way.