Page 31
E S S A Y S
By The Number
e83
DAZED and CONFUSED
During the Gulf war of the early 1990's, the American public was introduced to both a relatively new kind of warfare, and the terminology used to describe it. Called, shock and awe, the idea was to strike an enemy with such swift and overwhelming intensity, employing multitudes of weaponry, that our adversaries would be left incapacitated, dazed and utterly confused during the early stages of an attack. During WWII, the Nazis had utilized a similar technique known as blitzkrieg, or "lightning war".
In the South Vietnamese jungles of the 1960's and early seventies, massive airstrikes by heavily laden B-52 bombers dispensed a similar effect, unloading endless tons of high-explosive bombs on enemy troops and civilians alike, disorienting them, shocking and awing them, terrifying them. The ploy was nearly successful and had all but ended the Vietnam war in America's favor--until the public suffered its own form of shock and awe based on high casualty rates and a less-than-hawkish news media.
Fast forward to a disturbing repeat of history when American television audiences were once again exposed to the hellish death and destruction wrought by a military whose primary purpose was victory, and only secondarily a concern for so-called collateral damage. And again, the gambit of shock and awe had won the day, if only temporarily. But shaken and distressed by graphic scenes of war, worse than those of any natural disaster, Americans once more welcomed the pursuit of compassion over total victory. And once more defeat was snatched from the jaws of triumph, so to speak.
As most any military general might advise, stratagems such as shock and awe are only productive when subsequent measures of reconstruction and education are implemented in ways similar to the forces and powers of destruction which had been brought to bear initially.
In the case of the Middle East wars, huge swathes of land, peoples, and opportunities were left unattended, uncultivated, and in too many instances, those sympathetic to American interests were abandoned to the wrath of unconquered, unswayed foes.
In the tragic wake of these repetitive military and political debacles, a new kind of devastating shock and awe is now in play. Presently global in its proportions, the rise of numerous terror organizations such as Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS, in combination with more focused groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, now deliver unimaginable doses of death and destruction to television and internet users the world over--on a daily basis.
Conflicts, skirmishes, and even wars are no longer temporary, brief, or concluded via clear winners and losers. The waters of world events are today murky and the color of blood, oceans of blood that fill basins that, like great bomb craters, are left over by battles in which permanent victories were never the objective.
Denial and a dazed civilian public -- a work-in-progress, to be continued. Stay tuned.
In the South Vietnamese jungles of the 1960's and early seventies, massive airstrikes by heavily laden B-52 bombers dispensed a similar effect, unloading endless tons of high-explosive bombs on enemy troops and civilians alike, disorienting them, shocking and awing them, terrifying them. The ploy was nearly successful and had all but ended the Vietnam war in America's favor--until the public suffered its own form of shock and awe based on high casualty rates and a less-than-hawkish news media.
Fast forward to a disturbing repeat of history when American television audiences were once again exposed to the hellish death and destruction wrought by a military whose primary purpose was victory, and only secondarily a concern for so-called collateral damage. And again, the gambit of shock and awe had won the day, if only temporarily. But shaken and distressed by graphic scenes of war, worse than those of any natural disaster, Americans once more welcomed the pursuit of compassion over total victory. And once more defeat was snatched from the jaws of triumph, so to speak.
As most any military general might advise, stratagems such as shock and awe are only productive when subsequent measures of reconstruction and education are implemented in ways similar to the forces and powers of destruction which had been brought to bear initially.
In the case of the Middle East wars, huge swathes of land, peoples, and opportunities were left unattended, uncultivated, and in too many instances, those sympathetic to American interests were abandoned to the wrath of unconquered, unswayed foes.
In the tragic wake of these repetitive military and political debacles, a new kind of devastating shock and awe is now in play. Presently global in its proportions, the rise of numerous terror organizations such as Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS, in combination with more focused groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, now deliver unimaginable doses of death and destruction to television and internet users the world over--on a daily basis.
Conflicts, skirmishes, and even wars are no longer temporary, brief, or concluded via clear winners and losers. The waters of world events are today murky and the color of blood, oceans of blood that fill basins that, like great bomb craters, are left over by battles in which permanent victories were never the objective.
Denial and a dazed civilian public -- a work-in-progress, to be continued. Stay tuned.
e84
UNDO VS DELETE
A Real Story of Life and Death
Isn't it interesting that while we have the power to kill ourselves, we had no say-so, no informed consent, if you will, in terms of choosing to live life in the first place. A choice made for us by total strangers.
I don't recall being asked for my permission as to whether or not I wanted to live as a human on planet Earth. On its face, such a statement sounds silly, even foolish, as if asked by a child. But a terrible truth underlies the proposition, and once again demonstrates the amazing power of asking the right questions, instead of guessing at unprovable answers.
Most of us, at one time or another, has thought or said, "If I had only known back then, what I know now." The remark implies that with age, we gain a certain wisdom that would have spared us a lot of grief when we were younger. Or that our business dealings would likely have been much more successful, if only we had been less naive and more knowledgeable about how to do almost anything. If not everything.
Had you to do things all over again, but with the added option of opting out altogether--never playing the game to begin with--would you have decided not to participate? Again, the question seems nonsensical because it suggests that we might somehow have known beforehand, what was involved, what the stakes were, so to speak, versus the benefits.
For example, just to play along with the argument, suppose that after we die, we're given the choice of where to live next. On some other planet, let's say, in some other dimension, or amid some exotic plane of existence, perhaps one that we cannot possibly imagine. But this time around we have two important choices open to us: which place we consider as the most appealing, or simply to cease existing altogether. In other words, we can choose to live nowhere at all if none of the selections suits our fancy, at which time we just vanish from the playing field. No muss, no fuss.
In order to make such a decision, we would no doubt want to know all the particulars. Based on our past experiences on Earth, would we once again live a life subject to excruciating pain? That would do it for me right then and there. No more physical pain; otherwise count me out.
Persons who may have lived a previous life relatively free of pain and discomfort, including a mostly peaceful death, might well consider the trade-off of misery and ecstasy to be worth the effort. I would argue, however, that most would not. Ask the same question of an adult who lived in Africa and knew only pain and starvation -- or enslavement. Or someone who barely survived a life of deprivation while living under a cruel and despotic ruler. Given the choice of another lifetime with no guarantees, and where one were subject to the same or similar conditions, the matter of choosing to hang around for another go-around should involve no real hesitance or deliberation whatsoever.
Ask someone in this temporary nether-region, who had previously suffered from cancer or some other disease and died a prolonged and painful death, whether or not they might be willing to risk a repeat of the same, albeit in some other manner, shape, or form. Entreat these same folks as to how anxious they would be to start over again, only to lose friends and family to terrible, tragic circumstances, including themselves lying helplessly, hopelessly in horrific, unimaginable agony, both physical and mental.
Or maybe they might get lucky this next time around. It's not a certainty that things should go poorly or result in some form of anguish. We just need to know ahead of time that, among the possible outcomes of living a new life, great happiness, joy, love, and pleasure, are always balanced by their opposites. How we don't get the one without the other. And akin to a "roll-of-the-dice", we will awaken amid any number of possible circumstances. Maybe good, maybe bad. Maybe horrendous. With death in some form, once more our only way out. Our only escape from what is either a Heaven or a Hell.
I don't remember being offered the chance, beforehand, to study the conditions on this place we call planet Earth. I possess no personal recollection of examining a checklist of the good versus the negative. Gains weighed against losses, after which I could then make an informed decision as to whether or not I wished to experience this thing known as life. Especially when the caveat is included that, once born, I might just as easily suffer hunger in Africa, or live under tyranny, or be stricken with some dread disease. Again, it's that whole roll-of-the-dice, luck-of-the-draw thing.
Ladies and gentlemen, please step up and place your bets. 'Round and 'round she goes, where it stops, nobody knows. Still wanna play? What would you have answered, way back when, knowing then what you know now? Be born on Earth or wait for the next bus? Or just tear up your ticket once and for all?
I've lived a fairly decent life. And still don't know how it will end ultimately. We hope the end is fast and relatively free of discomfort. And even I, having lived in America, never knowing real hunger or thirst, though some real pain here and there -- both physical and mental -- would have to admit to a degree of hesitation given the option of retracing my steps. Add to that the idea that a do-over could result in my being born anywhere at any time, and I think my answer should be fairly obvious. Which is to exclude me--categorically. Absolutely. I want no part of any of it. I've seen enough of the miseries in this particular world, despite its deceptive beauty and grandeur.
Were an "undo" possible, I'd like to think that an abortion might return me to the star dust from whence I came. It was only by the queerest quirk of fate that I was born to begin with. Could I do so gracefully, I'd like to ask my parents if they felt they were doing me a favor by bringing me into the world. Did they do it for me or for themselves? Does any parent feel they're making some great sacrifice or bestowing some marvelous gift upon the "fruit of their loins"? I think the answer is a combination of both.
My parents didn't know me before I was me. Nobody asked my opinion, or if I would want to be born--had I known what I was getting into. What of the child who suffers a dreadful disease and dies a hundred years before his or her time? Who asked him what he wanted? What parents hold themselves responsible for bestowing suffering upon a child, as well as the possible alternative of a long life filled with family, friends, and financial success? Such questions make no sense and would be extremely unfair if actually posed. For the whole system is rigged. We take it all for granted. As if it was the natural order of things.
But it isn't! Only birth, death, and the instinct for survival are the natural order of things. And only then, it's because life evolved in the way with which we're all familiar, and not in some other way. Which it likely did elsewhere on other worlds. Or within other dimensions of existence.
Equally fascinating is how concepts that surround the hypothetical process of reincarnation, incorporate the notion that human souls, prior to birth, do indeed make certain choices. Sometimes these are preordained based on how one lived their previous life. In other situations, a soul may voluntarily decide to enhance its enlightenment by purposely choosing one way of life over another-- by being born into conditions which provide an environment necessary for emotional and mental growth.
It's an interesting theory and not that different from what is discussed in this article. The major discrepancy, however, is in reference to "in the beginning". For example, a brand new soul which has no prior experience or knowledge to draw upon. Is birth into a human body some kind of mandatory reward, or is it a punishment, even a curse? The soul who conforms to my conundrum would be informed--briefed as it were--of all the pros and cons of life on earth. Only afterward and strictly by its own decision one way or another, would that soul agree to the risks involved and opt for its own birth. Even then, the negative odds that one's life would be full of miseries, deprivations and depravities alike, are overwhelmingly in opposition to anything better. And yet souls allegedly choose lives, more frequently than not, that oblige their human hosts to lifetimes of pain and suffering. What kind of childish nonsense is this?
I, for one, if able to confront these mythical entities, would love to punch them in the face, to slap them senseless for obligating me or anybody else to live a certain way. Which is usually in the worst ways possible. But the idea is worth expanding upon because it encapsulates the grievance I feel over this business of informed consent, and the lack thereof when it comes to our being conceived.
And once brought into the world, through no fault or volition of our own, we find ourselves imprisoned like some death row inmate slated for execution at some vague, unspecified moment. Typically a moment determined by statistical, numerical, purely arbitrary odds. Other than the impassioned gratitude one might feel about an infant who is born free of any immediate infirmity, I don't see childbirth as being all that worthy of any grand celebrations. That we might share in the happiness such events bring to the parents of newborns, is both understandable and to be expected. But when we examine these births more closely, free of the emotionalism attached to them, things are not quite so straightforward as they might seem otherwise.
In the original movie, Planet of the Apes with the actor Charlton Heston, a quote from early in the film hears him remark, "Somewhere in the universe, there must be something better than man." Likewise upon my death, and if offered the chance to live again, my response would be, "Anywhere but Earth. Thank you."
I don't recall being asked for my permission as to whether or not I wanted to live as a human on planet Earth. On its face, such a statement sounds silly, even foolish, as if asked by a child. But a terrible truth underlies the proposition, and once again demonstrates the amazing power of asking the right questions, instead of guessing at unprovable answers.
Most of us, at one time or another, has thought or said, "If I had only known back then, what I know now." The remark implies that with age, we gain a certain wisdom that would have spared us a lot of grief when we were younger. Or that our business dealings would likely have been much more successful, if only we had been less naive and more knowledgeable about how to do almost anything. If not everything.
Had you to do things all over again, but with the added option of opting out altogether--never playing the game to begin with--would you have decided not to participate? Again, the question seems nonsensical because it suggests that we might somehow have known beforehand, what was involved, what the stakes were, so to speak, versus the benefits.
For example, just to play along with the argument, suppose that after we die, we're given the choice of where to live next. On some other planet, let's say, in some other dimension, or amid some exotic plane of existence, perhaps one that we cannot possibly imagine. But this time around we have two important choices open to us: which place we consider as the most appealing, or simply to cease existing altogether. In other words, we can choose to live nowhere at all if none of the selections suits our fancy, at which time we just vanish from the playing field. No muss, no fuss.
In order to make such a decision, we would no doubt want to know all the particulars. Based on our past experiences on Earth, would we once again live a life subject to excruciating pain? That would do it for me right then and there. No more physical pain; otherwise count me out.
Persons who may have lived a previous life relatively free of pain and discomfort, including a mostly peaceful death, might well consider the trade-off of misery and ecstasy to be worth the effort. I would argue, however, that most would not. Ask the same question of an adult who lived in Africa and knew only pain and starvation -- or enslavement. Or someone who barely survived a life of deprivation while living under a cruel and despotic ruler. Given the choice of another lifetime with no guarantees, and where one were subject to the same or similar conditions, the matter of choosing to hang around for another go-around should involve no real hesitance or deliberation whatsoever.
Ask someone in this temporary nether-region, who had previously suffered from cancer or some other disease and died a prolonged and painful death, whether or not they might be willing to risk a repeat of the same, albeit in some other manner, shape, or form. Entreat these same folks as to how anxious they would be to start over again, only to lose friends and family to terrible, tragic circumstances, including themselves lying helplessly, hopelessly in horrific, unimaginable agony, both physical and mental.
Or maybe they might get lucky this next time around. It's not a certainty that things should go poorly or result in some form of anguish. We just need to know ahead of time that, among the possible outcomes of living a new life, great happiness, joy, love, and pleasure, are always balanced by their opposites. How we don't get the one without the other. And akin to a "roll-of-the-dice", we will awaken amid any number of possible circumstances. Maybe good, maybe bad. Maybe horrendous. With death in some form, once more our only way out. Our only escape from what is either a Heaven or a Hell.
I don't remember being offered the chance, beforehand, to study the conditions on this place we call planet Earth. I possess no personal recollection of examining a checklist of the good versus the negative. Gains weighed against losses, after which I could then make an informed decision as to whether or not I wished to experience this thing known as life. Especially when the caveat is included that, once born, I might just as easily suffer hunger in Africa, or live under tyranny, or be stricken with some dread disease. Again, it's that whole roll-of-the-dice, luck-of-the-draw thing.
Ladies and gentlemen, please step up and place your bets. 'Round and 'round she goes, where it stops, nobody knows. Still wanna play? What would you have answered, way back when, knowing then what you know now? Be born on Earth or wait for the next bus? Or just tear up your ticket once and for all?
I've lived a fairly decent life. And still don't know how it will end ultimately. We hope the end is fast and relatively free of discomfort. And even I, having lived in America, never knowing real hunger or thirst, though some real pain here and there -- both physical and mental -- would have to admit to a degree of hesitation given the option of retracing my steps. Add to that the idea that a do-over could result in my being born anywhere at any time, and I think my answer should be fairly obvious. Which is to exclude me--categorically. Absolutely. I want no part of any of it. I've seen enough of the miseries in this particular world, despite its deceptive beauty and grandeur.
Were an "undo" possible, I'd like to think that an abortion might return me to the star dust from whence I came. It was only by the queerest quirk of fate that I was born to begin with. Could I do so gracefully, I'd like to ask my parents if they felt they were doing me a favor by bringing me into the world. Did they do it for me or for themselves? Does any parent feel they're making some great sacrifice or bestowing some marvelous gift upon the "fruit of their loins"? I think the answer is a combination of both.
My parents didn't know me before I was me. Nobody asked my opinion, or if I would want to be born--had I known what I was getting into. What of the child who suffers a dreadful disease and dies a hundred years before his or her time? Who asked him what he wanted? What parents hold themselves responsible for bestowing suffering upon a child, as well as the possible alternative of a long life filled with family, friends, and financial success? Such questions make no sense and would be extremely unfair if actually posed. For the whole system is rigged. We take it all for granted. As if it was the natural order of things.
But it isn't! Only birth, death, and the instinct for survival are the natural order of things. And only then, it's because life evolved in the way with which we're all familiar, and not in some other way. Which it likely did elsewhere on other worlds. Or within other dimensions of existence.
Equally fascinating is how concepts that surround the hypothetical process of reincarnation, incorporate the notion that human souls, prior to birth, do indeed make certain choices. Sometimes these are preordained based on how one lived their previous life. In other situations, a soul may voluntarily decide to enhance its enlightenment by purposely choosing one way of life over another-- by being born into conditions which provide an environment necessary for emotional and mental growth.
It's an interesting theory and not that different from what is discussed in this article. The major discrepancy, however, is in reference to "in the beginning". For example, a brand new soul which has no prior experience or knowledge to draw upon. Is birth into a human body some kind of mandatory reward, or is it a punishment, even a curse? The soul who conforms to my conundrum would be informed--briefed as it were--of all the pros and cons of life on earth. Only afterward and strictly by its own decision one way or another, would that soul agree to the risks involved and opt for its own birth. Even then, the negative odds that one's life would be full of miseries, deprivations and depravities alike, are overwhelmingly in opposition to anything better. And yet souls allegedly choose lives, more frequently than not, that oblige their human hosts to lifetimes of pain and suffering. What kind of childish nonsense is this?
I, for one, if able to confront these mythical entities, would love to punch them in the face, to slap them senseless for obligating me or anybody else to live a certain way. Which is usually in the worst ways possible. But the idea is worth expanding upon because it encapsulates the grievance I feel over this business of informed consent, and the lack thereof when it comes to our being conceived.
And once brought into the world, through no fault or volition of our own, we find ourselves imprisoned like some death row inmate slated for execution at some vague, unspecified moment. Typically a moment determined by statistical, numerical, purely arbitrary odds. Other than the impassioned gratitude one might feel about an infant who is born free of any immediate infirmity, I don't see childbirth as being all that worthy of any grand celebrations. That we might share in the happiness such events bring to the parents of newborns, is both understandable and to be expected. But when we examine these births more closely, free of the emotionalism attached to them, things are not quite so straightforward as they might seem otherwise.
In the original movie, Planet of the Apes with the actor Charlton Heston, a quote from early in the film hears him remark, "Somewhere in the universe, there must be something better than man." Likewise upon my death, and if offered the chance to live again, my response would be, "Anywhere but Earth. Thank you."
e85
Why I'm Afraid of my Own Shadow!
As you should be, too.
The late, great thinker and writer, Michael Crichton, in his popular novel, Jurassic Park, wrote about the eerie, seemingly otherworldly nature of all the non-mammalian animals who inhabit the Earth. He touched upon the insular, parochial perspective that all mammals, humans in particular, share with respect to recognizing the sounds, movements, appearance and other attributes exhibited by our fellow, warm-blooded vertebrates.
Such a view contrasts sharply with our responses and reactions to other creatures, be they reptiles, birds, insects, fish or octopuses. Even plants and trees to a lesser extent, often seem alien compared to how mammals behave and interact within a given environment. Global ecosystems which are often harsh and unforgiving as regards human occupation--and accommodation. Equipped with hairless bodies, absent claws and fangs, homo sapiens are relatively ill-suited for life in-the-wild.
Accordingly, large brains with highly cognitive, intuitive faculties, helped to offset human vulnerabilites, but also gave rise to vivid imaginations.
To be continued, a work in progress.
Such a view contrasts sharply with our responses and reactions to other creatures, be they reptiles, birds, insects, fish or octopuses. Even plants and trees to a lesser extent, often seem alien compared to how mammals behave and interact within a given environment. Global ecosystems which are often harsh and unforgiving as regards human occupation--and accommodation. Equipped with hairless bodies, absent claws and fangs, homo sapiens are relatively ill-suited for life in-the-wild.
Accordingly, large brains with highly cognitive, intuitive faculties, helped to offset human vulnerabilites, but also gave rise to vivid imaginations.
To be continued, a work in progress.
e86
Autumnal Son
The old man peered at the setting sun, the fading brightness shining through the autumn leaves like a kaleidoscope of colors. He felt a chill as winter sneezed an early breath through the park where he sat alone, watching quietly, wondering where all the years had gone. He accepted, though begrudgingly, that lifetimes were indeed like seasons, and he'd never see another Spring. Riding a small bike, a youngster then peddled past the bench where the man just sat and stared. And instead of bitterness, he smiled with envy.
e87
On Soul Mates and Sole Mates
English is a funny language. Sometimes the same words, though spelled differently, with different meanings altogether can both mean exactly the same thing if used a certain way. Such is the case with sole and soul. In ancient egypt, the hieroglyphic symbol for the soul -- the ankh and the symbol for sandal, or sole of a shoe -- are similar. Even the image of an ankh looks like the top view of a sandal (or thong).
In modern America, the word, sole, means single, the only one. He was the sole survivor of the airplane crash. The word soul, on the other hand, refers to a mystical energy force that inhabits human bodies. That preacher has a good soul. The word also refers to a non-religious meaning where soul can simply mean "person". There was too much for one soul to do.
Another meaning for sole, referring to the bottom of a shoe, has no place in this discussion. But it is interesting that the overlap of ankh, sandal, sole and soul connection may or may not be a pure coincidence.
When we talk about people being soul mates, we usually mean that their souls--the mystical kind--recognize each other from another time and place. Another realm, perhaps, inhabited only by souls without bodies. So even when these souls inhabit different bodies, but are both alive at the same time, these inner energies may recognize each other. Sometimes the souls are both quick to know, or one is faster to recognize the mysterious magnetism than does the other.
It can be frustrating, even depressing when one soul knows, and the other one does not. Or refuses to know, for one reason or another. Or one is married, or too old or too young. All kinds of things can prevent the souls who might otherwise know each other, from either meeting in the first place, or from recognizing themselves.
Soul mates almost always refers to human beings who were in love at one time. Maybe during more than one lifetime. Usually a tragedy separates them, and their souls get lost, residing in people who live in different countries, or at different times. It is therefore almost a miracle when one soul recognizes, in someone else, the soul of their former lover. It is all very romantic, and many stories have been written about such things.
But is it true? Is it possible? Many people believe so. And here's an interesting twist: the term, in modern times, has come to mean more than its original definition. It can be meant literally, which is to say that one or two souls actually do recognize each other, or, it can be used in a far more informal manner. When used informally or colloquially, the idea is that a man or woman is so enamored of another person, so taken with them, that a kind of crush or infatuation feels like love. The emotion is so strong in some cases, that we label the slang-like response as someone feeling like they have found their soul mate. Regardless of whether it's literally true or not.
This is where that double-meaning Egyptian stuff, mentioned at the beginning of this commentary, comes into play. If a person said they met their sole mate, meaning the only one for them, the single person they were meant to be with, this would then convey a meaning almost identical to what soul mate refers to. Yet the words sole and soul could not be more different as originally intended.
She is the sole person with whom I'd like to spend the rest of my life.
She is the only soul with whom I'd like to be in love.
She is my soul mate, and I'd like to spend the rest of my life with her.
I think of her as my soul mate because she is the sole mate with whom I can see myself spending the rest of my life.
As mature people, whether married, single, or divorced, our hearts are often vulnerable to being swayed, turned, or captured under the most unlikely of circumstances and events. Most of the time--nearly all of the time--we go about our busy, daily lives giving little thought to romance or changing partners if we have one. Even younger people, for one reason or another, sometimes take a wait-and-see attitude, and rarely date or seek serious relationships. Others, of course, move into and out of love relationships like incoming and outgoing tides.
All of us are constantly surrounded by these kinds of people, all of them engaged in storms of activity as they go about their everyday lives. And all of it largely remains a casual, ongoing form of melodrama, neither dull nor particularly eventful.
Until, that is, lightning strikes! Penetrates your chest, and defibrillates a heart that suddenly beats as though we'd just run a marathon. This is an exaggeration, but not by much. And not always an exaggeration. The thunderbolt comes in the embodiment of another person, someone whose presence, appearance, smell, demeanor, or some other quality or characteristic, sends us into a momentary tailspin. One from which we may recover rapidly or not at all, depending on the circumstances.
Generally speaking, folks who are bonded to their religious beliefs, or firmly entrenched in family, friends, and acquaintances, are proportionately less susceptible to being " knocked for a loop" as the saying goes. Common sense, good sense, senses of propriety and decency typically restore the heart palpitations, in short order, to their usual rhythms. But in those rare instances where practicality and desirability are both conducive to further exploration, the best and strongest of us can fall prey to impulsive, even deceitful behavior. It is a phenomenon that, when it happens, gives us a peek at the overwhelming power of our human emotions. Feelings that can, over periods of time, whether long or short, defy and mock almost everything we might otherwise hold near and dear as beliefs in right and wrong.
Maybe it's someone we meet on the street or in a park. Or somebody in a club we belong to. Someone at work maybe. Perhaps it's someone we have access to only via the internet. Where email pen-pals become email lovers whose consummation is restricted forever to cyberspace. The heart, while finicky about who it loves, is almost never fussy about where or how it loves. When it does.
Soul and sole mates can be, but don't have to be, part of this lightning-strike affair. Sometimes the process moves slow and grows over time. On other occasions, the switch is thrown lightning fast. It's a very unpredictable business that's not happened to everyone. For those who've experienced it at one time or another, the chances are good that it might happen again. Or almost worrisomely, that it will happen again.
Conversely, those who have never been struck in such a fashion, meaning a somewhat inappropriate manner, the likelihood is that they needn't be concerned that their routine will be turned upside down anytime soon.
And even then, the many whose heart takes an unexpected leap, have the willpower to keep things under control, never allowing impropriety to subdue their better judgment. Again, it will always be a matter of the stakes involved. The gains versus the possible losses. The potential for harm weighed against the varying levels of harmlessness.
Regardless of the exact details, the concepts of sole mates and soul mates plays a big role in the lives of some, and no part at all in the lives of many if not most. One important distinction, however, identifies a relationship as being a matchup between so-called soul mates, versus a casual affair based primarily on physical attractiveness. That single quality involves love as the primary bond that melds mind, body, and soul into an all-in-one complement to how we feel about ourselves.
True soul mates are living mirrors who reflect our own images of perfect mind, body, and spirit. And because we know and understand that perfection cannot exist, we fall for persons who, while they see the same qualities in ourselves, love us in spite of our imperfections. Therein lies the true definition, perhaps, of what all of this means. Which is to suggest that having a soul mate implies a longevity of affection based upon someone loving us in a way that doesn't segregate our flaws from our qualities. But rather accepts us as imperfectly flawless.
In modern America, the word, sole, means single, the only one. He was the sole survivor of the airplane crash. The word soul, on the other hand, refers to a mystical energy force that inhabits human bodies. That preacher has a good soul. The word also refers to a non-religious meaning where soul can simply mean "person". There was too much for one soul to do.
Another meaning for sole, referring to the bottom of a shoe, has no place in this discussion. But it is interesting that the overlap of ankh, sandal, sole and soul connection may or may not be a pure coincidence.
When we talk about people being soul mates, we usually mean that their souls--the mystical kind--recognize each other from another time and place. Another realm, perhaps, inhabited only by souls without bodies. So even when these souls inhabit different bodies, but are both alive at the same time, these inner energies may recognize each other. Sometimes the souls are both quick to know, or one is faster to recognize the mysterious magnetism than does the other.
It can be frustrating, even depressing when one soul knows, and the other one does not. Or refuses to know, for one reason or another. Or one is married, or too old or too young. All kinds of things can prevent the souls who might otherwise know each other, from either meeting in the first place, or from recognizing themselves.
Soul mates almost always refers to human beings who were in love at one time. Maybe during more than one lifetime. Usually a tragedy separates them, and their souls get lost, residing in people who live in different countries, or at different times. It is therefore almost a miracle when one soul recognizes, in someone else, the soul of their former lover. It is all very romantic, and many stories have been written about such things.
But is it true? Is it possible? Many people believe so. And here's an interesting twist: the term, in modern times, has come to mean more than its original definition. It can be meant literally, which is to say that one or two souls actually do recognize each other, or, it can be used in a far more informal manner. When used informally or colloquially, the idea is that a man or woman is so enamored of another person, so taken with them, that a kind of crush or infatuation feels like love. The emotion is so strong in some cases, that we label the slang-like response as someone feeling like they have found their soul mate. Regardless of whether it's literally true or not.
This is where that double-meaning Egyptian stuff, mentioned at the beginning of this commentary, comes into play. If a person said they met their sole mate, meaning the only one for them, the single person they were meant to be with, this would then convey a meaning almost identical to what soul mate refers to. Yet the words sole and soul could not be more different as originally intended.
She is the sole person with whom I'd like to spend the rest of my life.
She is the only soul with whom I'd like to be in love.
She is my soul mate, and I'd like to spend the rest of my life with her.
I think of her as my soul mate because she is the sole mate with whom I can see myself spending the rest of my life.
As mature people, whether married, single, or divorced, our hearts are often vulnerable to being swayed, turned, or captured under the most unlikely of circumstances and events. Most of the time--nearly all of the time--we go about our busy, daily lives giving little thought to romance or changing partners if we have one. Even younger people, for one reason or another, sometimes take a wait-and-see attitude, and rarely date or seek serious relationships. Others, of course, move into and out of love relationships like incoming and outgoing tides.
All of us are constantly surrounded by these kinds of people, all of them engaged in storms of activity as they go about their everyday lives. And all of it largely remains a casual, ongoing form of melodrama, neither dull nor particularly eventful.
Until, that is, lightning strikes! Penetrates your chest, and defibrillates a heart that suddenly beats as though we'd just run a marathon. This is an exaggeration, but not by much. And not always an exaggeration. The thunderbolt comes in the embodiment of another person, someone whose presence, appearance, smell, demeanor, or some other quality or characteristic, sends us into a momentary tailspin. One from which we may recover rapidly or not at all, depending on the circumstances.
Generally speaking, folks who are bonded to their religious beliefs, or firmly entrenched in family, friends, and acquaintances, are proportionately less susceptible to being " knocked for a loop" as the saying goes. Common sense, good sense, senses of propriety and decency typically restore the heart palpitations, in short order, to their usual rhythms. But in those rare instances where practicality and desirability are both conducive to further exploration, the best and strongest of us can fall prey to impulsive, even deceitful behavior. It is a phenomenon that, when it happens, gives us a peek at the overwhelming power of our human emotions. Feelings that can, over periods of time, whether long or short, defy and mock almost everything we might otherwise hold near and dear as beliefs in right and wrong.
Maybe it's someone we meet on the street or in a park. Or somebody in a club we belong to. Someone at work maybe. Perhaps it's someone we have access to only via the internet. Where email pen-pals become email lovers whose consummation is restricted forever to cyberspace. The heart, while finicky about who it loves, is almost never fussy about where or how it loves. When it does.
Soul and sole mates can be, but don't have to be, part of this lightning-strike affair. Sometimes the process moves slow and grows over time. On other occasions, the switch is thrown lightning fast. It's a very unpredictable business that's not happened to everyone. For those who've experienced it at one time or another, the chances are good that it might happen again. Or almost worrisomely, that it will happen again.
Conversely, those who have never been struck in such a fashion, meaning a somewhat inappropriate manner, the likelihood is that they needn't be concerned that their routine will be turned upside down anytime soon.
And even then, the many whose heart takes an unexpected leap, have the willpower to keep things under control, never allowing impropriety to subdue their better judgment. Again, it will always be a matter of the stakes involved. The gains versus the possible losses. The potential for harm weighed against the varying levels of harmlessness.
Regardless of the exact details, the concepts of sole mates and soul mates plays a big role in the lives of some, and no part at all in the lives of many if not most. One important distinction, however, identifies a relationship as being a matchup between so-called soul mates, versus a casual affair based primarily on physical attractiveness. That single quality involves love as the primary bond that melds mind, body, and soul into an all-in-one complement to how we feel about ourselves.
True soul mates are living mirrors who reflect our own images of perfect mind, body, and spirit. And because we know and understand that perfection cannot exist, we fall for persons who, while they see the same qualities in ourselves, love us in spite of our imperfections. Therein lies the true definition, perhaps, of what all of this means. Which is to suggest that having a soul mate implies a longevity of affection based upon someone loving us in a way that doesn't segregate our flaws from our qualities. But rather accepts us as imperfectly flawless.
Rumors of Extraterrestrial Intelligence are Highly Overrated!
It's my belief that contemporary ideas about extraterrestrial intelligence tend to mislead those who rely on the theories and opinions of so-called experts on the subject. In point of fact, intelligence is neither a beneficial or detrimental end in and of itself, but rather a secondary attribute/characteristic whose only real value (maybe) is a matter of enhancing one’s chances for survival. Meaning odds more favorable to an offspring’s survival.
In this respect it might be argued that all courses of evolution and/or processes of natural selection invariably reach a dead-end, so to speak. One that may or may not result in either extinction or a high degree of intelligence, let along sentience. By dead-end, I refer to a point in time whereby a species has become so well suited to its environs, that any further [advantageous] genetic adaptations are superfluous. Just one example of this are those animals who have no natural enemies due to size, defense mechanisms, or intelligence. Save incidental human predation or harmful changes in an environment, such creatures exist at what’s called the top of the food chain. This is especially true for what are known as apex predators. Of which humans play no small role.
An animal (or plant) need not, however, be a predator. One need only be so well protected from predation by others, that any additional alteration in behavior or physical structure is of little if any consequence.
As for any discussion about extraterrestrial life in general and intelligence specifically, certain assumptions must be made. For instance, astrophysicists believe that the laws of physics operate the same way throughout the universe, save black holes and other, little understood phenomena. Secondly, that all life regardless of form, is governed by a perpetual struggle to survive i.e. to go on living. Primarily so that some kind of reproduction results in successive generations of likeness. Success in this regard is further defined as to whether an ongoing lifeform, prior to its inevitable extinction, is able to produce one or more subsequent generations of unlikeness.
Modern whales represent a good example of a stable and hardy form of life that, for all intents and porpoises, has reached a dead-end of sorts. One in which extinction, short of human intrusion, may well have been postponed indefinitely. The present world is rife with endless instances of successful species that, given a continuance of homeostatic environmental conditions, have attained a quasi-permanent status of ancestral immortality – with few, if any, future changes in body or brain.
More to the point is to question how one might make a better whale, given that the power to do so was possible. Regardless of whatever anatomic improvements may be introduced via mutations of one sort or another, are the whales’ chances for survival improved? The answer, I believe, is a resounding no.
Our uber-whale would live alongside its older, original version which has already, over millenniums of time, overcome every obstacle that would have otherwise led to the extinction of its offspring. Had whales not done so, some other creature would have filled their newly available niche. So on and so forth until a critical point – the dead-end referred to earlier – could have so endowed our new ocean-going entity, that it was no longer vulnerable to the routine threats that typically drive such animals to extinction. Maybe. A query that must go unanswered in this essay, begs to know how many ecological niches, old and new, remain unoccupied.
Note that use of the word, niche, is played here fast and loose, so to speak. In actuality, niche refers to a grouping of one or more species that [can] live nowhere else on earth. To my mind, niches are also places as well as collections of the rarest plants and/or animals. For example, extremophiles live in hostile environments such as deep-water thermal vents. Such environs were therefore niches just waiting to happen.
It could also be suggested that such (physical) niches are themselves subject to either long lived existence or come and go in much the same way as the animals who occupy them. For instance, an inland, salt-water lagoon that slowly changes to a fresh-water body, yet does so rapidly enough that most (if not all) resident organisms die-off. Only to be replaced (maybe) by a host of newcomers. Or the water simply evaporates and is no longer a niche of any kind whatsoever. Most if not all successful species fill niches that accommodate the specific qualities they offer, whether plant or animal. Particularly if the niche remains unchanged for an extended period. It is believed that dinosaurs became so keenly adapted to their environments, that even small changes wreaked havoc with their ability to reproduce.
Not to belabor the subject of evolutionary perfection, but the dinosaurs will likely hold the all-time records for species longevity. For nearly a billion years, such animals roamed the Earth, all the while constantly refining and honing their dominance over the planet. Continuous and merciless extinctions, relatively speaking, ran parallel with whole and sudden new species or new and improved versions of older ones.
And yet, not a truly intelligent bone to be found anywhere, after all those countless eons of proud existence. Razor-sharp instincts to be sure, but likely not one moment of introspection despite unmarked hundreds of millions of years of producing finely tuned offspring. Not until one or more extinction-level events interrupted the dinosaurs’ momentum towards sempiternity.
But I digress.
No better evidence exists for nonessential genetic mutations having little or no impact on the longevity of a species, than as found among human populations. Except for rare occurrences whereby a genius is born to average parents, or an immunodeficient child to an otherwise healthy mother and father, both random birth defects and genetic enhancements express no inherent disadvantage or advantage. This is because, among humans, the weak and sickly often survive equally alongside those who are strong and physically superior.
As concerns most life on our planet, only when a profound, mutational benefit is passed to offspring from one or both parents, does the pendulum of survival swing in favor of a species’ progeny. The process is conditional on two fronts: The first results in a youngster(s) who is more aptly suited to exist in an unchanged environment, while the second allows offspring to better cope (than did the parents) within an ecosystem that is, relatively speaking, rapidly changing.
Regardless of where and/or how life gains a foothold, so to speak, it can be argued that akin to the laws of physics, certain immutable relationships will remain true-to-form. For example, extraterrestrial predators and prey would likely follow patterns that should appear extraordinarily similar, if not identical to what exists closer to home, here on terra firma. All such relationships, whether symbiotic, parasitic, or purely predatory in nature, must be assumed to operate in ways that are subject to both the same limitations and excesses of evolutionary momentum – again as found on Earth.
Evolution and Darwinian natural selection are somewhat interchangeable terms, and with respect to how each functions throughout the cosmos, whether acting together or separately, we must again rely on the notion that life on Earth is a common and reliable model that reflects universal designs to which all living things should be expected to conform.
On Earth, living in trees was a defining challenge that not only afforded safety and great diversity, but the development of certain physical attributes which, purely by fortuitous circumstances, allowed for the gradual descent from the forest canopy, to a far more prodigious (albeit dangerous) life amid the vast savannahs and veldts of prehistoric Africa. Examples of only a few beneficial mutations that granted to common tree-dwellers increasingly sophisticated anatomies, were dexterous hands and feet, stereoscopic vision, and quasi-upright stances.
Although an oversimplification, those who ponder the nature of extraterrestrial life might do well to think of trees more, and wildly exotic lifeforms a lot less. Once again in appreciation for the idea that Earth serves as a more or less routine template for how life might evolve – once sparked into existence – the anatomy of a planet’s geology may well dictate the anatomy of its living inhabitants. As for the brains of various organisms, it must be remembered that all of our Earthly arboreal predecessors who eventually went stomping around forest floors, did so with the same small cerebrums that occupied their formerly unimproved bodies. In other words, intelligence, however it’s defined, is only a byproduct of advanced instincts and more acrobatic bodily designs. For instance, elevating one’s eyes above the tall grasses so that an approaching cheetah is spotted before its jaws chomp down on your throat.
One of the big reasons why so many genealogical lines of early hominids went extinct, is likely due to the proposition that increased intelligence was among the last changes to affect the behaviors of our prehistoric forefathers and mothers. Almost needless to say, the advantages bestowed by a bigger brain greatly improved one’s chances of survival. And the children of parents who passed along the genetic propensity for smartness, then possessed important aptitudes for rational thought and problem solving. An early example of which was the spear-thrower device which was a boon to killing prey animals.
https://www.google.com/search? q=spear+thrower&oq=spear+th&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l2j46j0l4.7952j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Spear-throwers: one of the great innovations that changed the course of human history.
Located among the muck, mire, and slime that coagulates upon the mud and rocks of some distant planet, a final, necessary strand of molecular chemicals – probably delivered by a comet or asteroid – has found its way into one of the many pools waiting for an all-important missing (structural) link. Maybe lightning then strikes the bog and sends its prickly fingers racing everywhere. Where numberless chains and filaments of exotic substances and countless, complex molecules bond, break apart, then link together again and again. Until one thing starts making copies of itself. Which is not necessarily the giant leap it was previously imagined to be.
Fractal entanglements and liquid water with its potentially vast storehouses of information (memories) are perhaps creating myriad forms of life – constantly. Only a few of which, however, go on to survive the hazards (and benefits) inherent to otherwise harsh environments.
Natural selection, on the microbial and/or subatomic levels, is as real and significant as it is for the most complex of organisms.
Instead of trees, however, this hypothetical world is covered by tall, rocky spires where each summit stands wrapped in multiple layers of molds and lichen-like growths; all of which defy description. Lifeforms that live atop such peaks derive some safety from the many predators who dwell far below, among the small rocks and colorful pebbles that carpet uneven floors and surround iridescent pools. Standings of liquid water, also brought here by cometary debris from the depths of space, churn and bubble and froth as living lawns of plants or animals move like the slow crawls of cooling lava flows.
Last, but not at all least, is a brief commentary about technology – another misunderstood talent that may or may not favor advanced, well adapted entities. Both curious introspection and a desire to improve one’s life are the result of a species’ attainment of leisure time. Many if not most [intelligent] animals are inherently lazy, for lack of a better term. By this, I mean to say how, if given half a chance, certain kinds of animals will instinctually seek the easiest route (effort) that leads to accomplishing a desired goal or reward. And for good reason.
On Earth, and likely elsewhere, metabolic energy stored either in fat cells or as available sugars, are as vital to an animal’s survival as is fuel to any other kind of machine. In times of scarcity, conserving such resources can mean the difference between life and death. An interesting comparison can be made with regard to poisonous animals and insects. Such creatures depend on their venom as much for self-defense as for killing or disabling their prey. When certain circumstances arise, such as a rattlesnake who becomes annoyed or threatened, a successful strike will inject a minimum of its toxin. Just enough to make good a getaway. With plenty in reserve for when its needed most. The same is true for some species of spiders and wasps that must rely on limited quantities of their toxicant, and who save large doses for when things get serious.
Thus the same is true for one’s metabolism and the ever-present need to expend and regulate precious energy for one reason or another.
Furthermore, almost all prey animals on Earth spend their entire waking hours foraging for food. Plants of one sort or another offer so little nutritional value, that those who graze on them need to eat on a more or less constant basis. Creatures who live like this have little time to think about, let alone develop ways to improve their stock in life. Save just enough mutations, such as improved camouflage, to stave off extinction. A zebra genius is no more likely, in all probability, to escape a pride of lions than the dumbest of his breed.
Predators, on the other claw, enjoy lots of leisure time in between hunting. This is due, of course, to the fatty, protein-rich flesh of the animals upon which they feed. Early hominids, in this respect, would have been either clumsy procurers of scavenged meat, or masters of predation. While gorillas are vegetarians, for example, chimpanzees do eat meat on occasion. Recent evidence points to excessive levels of savagery among chimps who dine frequently upon the flesh of other animals. Though not a perfect analogy, the comparison does point to the colloquial expression of someone having way too much free time on their hands.
The exact point at which an advanced species acquires sentience is still unknown. So we are forced to assume that, as we imagine sentient creatures living on a more or less earthlike planet, they are indeed self-aware in nature. With lots of that free time available. Time to, like a dog, cock their collective heads to one side as they try to comprehend the vast world in which they find themselves. Time enough to wonder about who or what they are, themselves.
If we recall my mention earlier about laziness, it’s easy to envisage how, over long periods of time, multiple geniuses would be born among various tribes (or their like) to which they belonged. Such persons (again for lack of a better description) would develop their own [alien] versions of spear-throwers, so to speak. Signifying a grand and steady march forward of all manner of inventions and excogitative ingenuities. The increasing desire for more and more leisure time leads invariably to a constant need to satisfy more and more sophisticated appetites. Subsequent this successful ability to feed themselves, both from farmed fields and killed animals, the question arises as to what end?
The world for these individuals is still a brutal place filled with dangerous predators and other terrors. Perhaps they fear disassociated others who would threaten them, enslave and/or kill them. The desperate need for added protection from both the elements and outside menaces would necessarily fuel the rewards of inventive thinking – from those few who were the most skilled at doing so. Who would then pass along to others all they knew and had learned. All of which were marvelous examples of self-perpetuation. Or, if you will, the kind of things spawned by a preferred, work-shy desire to nap in a hammock under a noonday sun.
While scientists still ponder the how and why the Big Bang banged when it did, once set in motion we have some understanding as to how all the rest fell (and continues to fall) neatly into place. Still minus the why, however. In similar fashion, it would appear to be the case that once life springs into existence, all the subsequent and myriad events with which we are somewhat familiar, also follow certain evolutionary paths of progress, meaning ever increasing sophistication. Again minus the exact nature of how such a seeming miracle transpires.
Fast-forward to a point where humanlike entities have those large amounts of free time on their hands, and stare in wonder at the nighttime stars overhead. They also stare at one another as well. Forward again to a time when planet-wide civilizations of one kind or another have sprung up, times inhabited by great thinkers, philosophers, and eventually scientists who yearn for, lust after, ever more ingenious tools with which they might increase their knowledge of a world that literally begs to be understood.
It is not an overstatement to submit that technologies, both hard and soft, are extremely addictive forces for any civilization that chooses to, at first, use tools for hunting game and protection from enemies, and only secondarily to create a sundry list of luxuries, stave off diseases, and explore the nature of their very existence.
One, very important requisite must be mentioned, of course. I refer to the necessity for dexterous hands (or their equivalent) and other bodily accoutrements which allow-for and favor some type of [digital] manipulation of one’s environment. Manipulation in this instance referring to tool-making on a vast and increasingly complex basis. In my fanciful essay entitled, The Leprechauns of Eden,
http://www.dragonia.net/ast13-the-leprechauns-of-eden.html
the argument is made as to a near absolute requirement – for all big-brained extraterrestrial entities – that they possess certain physical attributes which enable them to change, alter, and otherwise convert their immediate environs into ever more suitable constructs. This plus an unquenchable quest for knowledge as they seek to slake endless questions via their mighty telescopes and intricately lensed microscopes.
Mammalian whales, for example, are among the most intelligent species on Earth, yet they do not, of course, have an ability to do anything with their large flippers except swim. Chimpanzees and other primates, though endowed with hands, are so successful a species that any [beneficially] significant genetic mutations should lead to whole new species of hominids – which is exactly what happened. On Earth. And there is little reason to doubt that the same kind of mechanism(s) will operate in similar fashion elsewhere.
No written commentary that delves into the topic of technology would be complete without some mention as to the topic of self-destruction. No doubt the nuclear genie is an ever present danger for any civilization that rubs the lamp and then seeks to dominate other, equally capable civilizations.
Three other factors play critical roles in the lives of our elevated, extraterrestrial brethren. These being bombardment from outer space by asteroids and comets, FRBs (Fast Radio/Gamma-ray Bursts), and rapid geological/atmospheric changes. Each item on what might be called, a bucket list of disasters, deserves its own essay which may or may not be penned by this particular writer.
Suffice it to say how one is faced with the most sobering of realizations when we contemplate what is perhaps an enormous number of failed civilizations, let alone precious but obliterated lifeforms in any respect. Thus it is perhaps no wonder that we [seemingly] find ourselves amid a vicinity of space strangely reminiscent of writer Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. An analogy whereby it is the idiosyncratic arbitrations of numerical statistics, otherwise known as luck or fate, by which so few might emerge from the multitude.
There’s an old tale about a genie trapped in his lamp for so long a period, that he decided he would grant endless wishes to the one who released him from his lonely prison. As what seemed endless years continued to pass with no relief for the hapless djinni, he grew angry and bitter. At long last, he came to decide that whoever should end his misery, would be rewarded with death instead of treasure.
I chose this story to end my long essay because it suggests to me an interesting, albeit disturbing, appraisal of two, ultimate outcomes that might arise from extraterrestrial civilizations that successfully escape the bondages of their home planets. Genies, if you will, who are finally capable of exploring the vastness of space, and do so with impunity. But what might be the state-of-mind of such individuals?
None other than Stephen Hawking himself proposed the notion that instead of friendly aliens who bear no one ill will, others of distinctly different temperaments might well follow parallel paths. Jules Verne’s War of the Worlds may indeed turn out to be more fact than fiction. Where cold, indifferent beings are, in this case, spawned by endless epochs of bitter struggle and long legacies of conquest and defeat.
A final few words need to touch upon the idea of robotics, and the roles such machines might play regardless of their creators’ attitudes and moods – be they either benevolent or malevolent. Peculiar, emotionless, and spectacular, such entities would display striking talents we might barely imagine. I suspect that of those numerous UFO sightings for which no explanation satisfies the curious mind, that many are piloted by sentient but unfeeling automata, whose lack of sympathy is simply a matter of unnecessary programming. Exploratory probes, maybe. Whose designers still wish to greet a benefactor who might release them from their depths of extraordinary isolation and loneliness. Or, perhaps, whose sociopathic builders wait to receive a remote signal from one of their many drones, that another world has been found, ripe for conquest and exploitation.
No matter the case, whether one of optimism or subjugation by heartless superiors, our salvation may well depend upon our ability to collectivize and settle human grievances. And thus first spare ourselves, from ourselves.
In the original Hollywood movie of War of the Worlds, prior to when actor Gene Barry realizes that the aliens are, let’s say, mean spirited, a priest or pastor, I forget which, approaches the strange craft which has landed nearby and awakened from its temporary slumber. Then slowly put forth a snakelike appendage.
As the clergyman makes clear his intentions, his friends shout for him to come back, that he’s in danger and needs to return to the military bunker where Barry and the others are holed up. The reverend turns about and assures the others that if these aliens are far advanced beyond ourselves, then they are closer to the Creator accordingly.
A moment later, the fatherly man-of-the-cloth is vaporized by a deadly ray that has spewed forth from the aforementioned appendage.
There’s a moral here, a lesson to be taken away by some, ignored by others. As for myself, I tried to refrain from being preachy, and simply put forth my own personal ideas and observations. For better or worse. Perhaps, for better or worse, might not be a bad way to end this. Or to get others to start up conversations with themselves. The kind of introspection that makes for a good marriage between both ideas and people.
I, for one, will probably choose to stay huddled inside that entrenchment, surrounded by tanks and missiles, and wait to see if our extraterrestrial visitors are atheists or not.
In this respect it might be argued that all courses of evolution and/or processes of natural selection invariably reach a dead-end, so to speak. One that may or may not result in either extinction or a high degree of intelligence, let along sentience. By dead-end, I refer to a point in time whereby a species has become so well suited to its environs, that any further [advantageous] genetic adaptations are superfluous. Just one example of this are those animals who have no natural enemies due to size, defense mechanisms, or intelligence. Save incidental human predation or harmful changes in an environment, such creatures exist at what’s called the top of the food chain. This is especially true for what are known as apex predators. Of which humans play no small role.
An animal (or plant) need not, however, be a predator. One need only be so well protected from predation by others, that any additional alteration in behavior or physical structure is of little if any consequence.
As for any discussion about extraterrestrial life in general and intelligence specifically, certain assumptions must be made. For instance, astrophysicists believe that the laws of physics operate the same way throughout the universe, save black holes and other, little understood phenomena. Secondly, that all life regardless of form, is governed by a perpetual struggle to survive i.e. to go on living. Primarily so that some kind of reproduction results in successive generations of likeness. Success in this regard is further defined as to whether an ongoing lifeform, prior to its inevitable extinction, is able to produce one or more subsequent generations of unlikeness.
Modern whales represent a good example of a stable and hardy form of life that, for all intents and porpoises, has reached a dead-end of sorts. One in which extinction, short of human intrusion, may well have been postponed indefinitely. The present world is rife with endless instances of successful species that, given a continuance of homeostatic environmental conditions, have attained a quasi-permanent status of ancestral immortality – with few, if any, future changes in body or brain.
More to the point is to question how one might make a better whale, given that the power to do so was possible. Regardless of whatever anatomic improvements may be introduced via mutations of one sort or another, are the whales’ chances for survival improved? The answer, I believe, is a resounding no.
Our uber-whale would live alongside its older, original version which has already, over millenniums of time, overcome every obstacle that would have otherwise led to the extinction of its offspring. Had whales not done so, some other creature would have filled their newly available niche. So on and so forth until a critical point – the dead-end referred to earlier – could have so endowed our new ocean-going entity, that it was no longer vulnerable to the routine threats that typically drive such animals to extinction. Maybe. A query that must go unanswered in this essay, begs to know how many ecological niches, old and new, remain unoccupied.
Note that use of the word, niche, is played here fast and loose, so to speak. In actuality, niche refers to a grouping of one or more species that [can] live nowhere else on earth. To my mind, niches are also places as well as collections of the rarest plants and/or animals. For example, extremophiles live in hostile environments such as deep-water thermal vents. Such environs were therefore niches just waiting to happen.
It could also be suggested that such (physical) niches are themselves subject to either long lived existence or come and go in much the same way as the animals who occupy them. For instance, an inland, salt-water lagoon that slowly changes to a fresh-water body, yet does so rapidly enough that most (if not all) resident organisms die-off. Only to be replaced (maybe) by a host of newcomers. Or the water simply evaporates and is no longer a niche of any kind whatsoever. Most if not all successful species fill niches that accommodate the specific qualities they offer, whether plant or animal. Particularly if the niche remains unchanged for an extended period. It is believed that dinosaurs became so keenly adapted to their environments, that even small changes wreaked havoc with their ability to reproduce.
Not to belabor the subject of evolutionary perfection, but the dinosaurs will likely hold the all-time records for species longevity. For nearly a billion years, such animals roamed the Earth, all the while constantly refining and honing their dominance over the planet. Continuous and merciless extinctions, relatively speaking, ran parallel with whole and sudden new species or new and improved versions of older ones.
And yet, not a truly intelligent bone to be found anywhere, after all those countless eons of proud existence. Razor-sharp instincts to be sure, but likely not one moment of introspection despite unmarked hundreds of millions of years of producing finely tuned offspring. Not until one or more extinction-level events interrupted the dinosaurs’ momentum towards sempiternity.
But I digress.
No better evidence exists for nonessential genetic mutations having little or no impact on the longevity of a species, than as found among human populations. Except for rare occurrences whereby a genius is born to average parents, or an immunodeficient child to an otherwise healthy mother and father, both random birth defects and genetic enhancements express no inherent disadvantage or advantage. This is because, among humans, the weak and sickly often survive equally alongside those who are strong and physically superior.
As concerns most life on our planet, only when a profound, mutational benefit is passed to offspring from one or both parents, does the pendulum of survival swing in favor of a species’ progeny. The process is conditional on two fronts: The first results in a youngster(s) who is more aptly suited to exist in an unchanged environment, while the second allows offspring to better cope (than did the parents) within an ecosystem that is, relatively speaking, rapidly changing.
Regardless of where and/or how life gains a foothold, so to speak, it can be argued that akin to the laws of physics, certain immutable relationships will remain true-to-form. For example, extraterrestrial predators and prey would likely follow patterns that should appear extraordinarily similar, if not identical to what exists closer to home, here on terra firma. All such relationships, whether symbiotic, parasitic, or purely predatory in nature, must be assumed to operate in ways that are subject to both the same limitations and excesses of evolutionary momentum – again as found on Earth.
Evolution and Darwinian natural selection are somewhat interchangeable terms, and with respect to how each functions throughout the cosmos, whether acting together or separately, we must again rely on the notion that life on Earth is a common and reliable model that reflects universal designs to which all living things should be expected to conform.
On Earth, living in trees was a defining challenge that not only afforded safety and great diversity, but the development of certain physical attributes which, purely by fortuitous circumstances, allowed for the gradual descent from the forest canopy, to a far more prodigious (albeit dangerous) life amid the vast savannahs and veldts of prehistoric Africa. Examples of only a few beneficial mutations that granted to common tree-dwellers increasingly sophisticated anatomies, were dexterous hands and feet, stereoscopic vision, and quasi-upright stances.
Although an oversimplification, those who ponder the nature of extraterrestrial life might do well to think of trees more, and wildly exotic lifeforms a lot less. Once again in appreciation for the idea that Earth serves as a more or less routine template for how life might evolve – once sparked into existence – the anatomy of a planet’s geology may well dictate the anatomy of its living inhabitants. As for the brains of various organisms, it must be remembered that all of our Earthly arboreal predecessors who eventually went stomping around forest floors, did so with the same small cerebrums that occupied their formerly unimproved bodies. In other words, intelligence, however it’s defined, is only a byproduct of advanced instincts and more acrobatic bodily designs. For instance, elevating one’s eyes above the tall grasses so that an approaching cheetah is spotted before its jaws chomp down on your throat.
One of the big reasons why so many genealogical lines of early hominids went extinct, is likely due to the proposition that increased intelligence was among the last changes to affect the behaviors of our prehistoric forefathers and mothers. Almost needless to say, the advantages bestowed by a bigger brain greatly improved one’s chances of survival. And the children of parents who passed along the genetic propensity for smartness, then possessed important aptitudes for rational thought and problem solving. An early example of which was the spear-thrower device which was a boon to killing prey animals.
https://www.google.com/search? q=spear+thrower&oq=spear+th&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l2j46j0l4.7952j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Spear-throwers: one of the great innovations that changed the course of human history.
Located among the muck, mire, and slime that coagulates upon the mud and rocks of some distant planet, a final, necessary strand of molecular chemicals – probably delivered by a comet or asteroid – has found its way into one of the many pools waiting for an all-important missing (structural) link. Maybe lightning then strikes the bog and sends its prickly fingers racing everywhere. Where numberless chains and filaments of exotic substances and countless, complex molecules bond, break apart, then link together again and again. Until one thing starts making copies of itself. Which is not necessarily the giant leap it was previously imagined to be.
Fractal entanglements and liquid water with its potentially vast storehouses of information (memories) are perhaps creating myriad forms of life – constantly. Only a few of which, however, go on to survive the hazards (and benefits) inherent to otherwise harsh environments.
Natural selection, on the microbial and/or subatomic levels, is as real and significant as it is for the most complex of organisms.
Instead of trees, however, this hypothetical world is covered by tall, rocky spires where each summit stands wrapped in multiple layers of molds and lichen-like growths; all of which defy description. Lifeforms that live atop such peaks derive some safety from the many predators who dwell far below, among the small rocks and colorful pebbles that carpet uneven floors and surround iridescent pools. Standings of liquid water, also brought here by cometary debris from the depths of space, churn and bubble and froth as living lawns of plants or animals move like the slow crawls of cooling lava flows.
Last, but not at all least, is a brief commentary about technology – another misunderstood talent that may or may not favor advanced, well adapted entities. Both curious introspection and a desire to improve one’s life are the result of a species’ attainment of leisure time. Many if not most [intelligent] animals are inherently lazy, for lack of a better term. By this, I mean to say how, if given half a chance, certain kinds of animals will instinctually seek the easiest route (effort) that leads to accomplishing a desired goal or reward. And for good reason.
On Earth, and likely elsewhere, metabolic energy stored either in fat cells or as available sugars, are as vital to an animal’s survival as is fuel to any other kind of machine. In times of scarcity, conserving such resources can mean the difference between life and death. An interesting comparison can be made with regard to poisonous animals and insects. Such creatures depend on their venom as much for self-defense as for killing or disabling their prey. When certain circumstances arise, such as a rattlesnake who becomes annoyed or threatened, a successful strike will inject a minimum of its toxin. Just enough to make good a getaway. With plenty in reserve for when its needed most. The same is true for some species of spiders and wasps that must rely on limited quantities of their toxicant, and who save large doses for when things get serious.
Thus the same is true for one’s metabolism and the ever-present need to expend and regulate precious energy for one reason or another.
Furthermore, almost all prey animals on Earth spend their entire waking hours foraging for food. Plants of one sort or another offer so little nutritional value, that those who graze on them need to eat on a more or less constant basis. Creatures who live like this have little time to think about, let alone develop ways to improve their stock in life. Save just enough mutations, such as improved camouflage, to stave off extinction. A zebra genius is no more likely, in all probability, to escape a pride of lions than the dumbest of his breed.
Predators, on the other claw, enjoy lots of leisure time in between hunting. This is due, of course, to the fatty, protein-rich flesh of the animals upon which they feed. Early hominids, in this respect, would have been either clumsy procurers of scavenged meat, or masters of predation. While gorillas are vegetarians, for example, chimpanzees do eat meat on occasion. Recent evidence points to excessive levels of savagery among chimps who dine frequently upon the flesh of other animals. Though not a perfect analogy, the comparison does point to the colloquial expression of someone having way too much free time on their hands.
The exact point at which an advanced species acquires sentience is still unknown. So we are forced to assume that, as we imagine sentient creatures living on a more or less earthlike planet, they are indeed self-aware in nature. With lots of that free time available. Time to, like a dog, cock their collective heads to one side as they try to comprehend the vast world in which they find themselves. Time enough to wonder about who or what they are, themselves.
If we recall my mention earlier about laziness, it’s easy to envisage how, over long periods of time, multiple geniuses would be born among various tribes (or their like) to which they belonged. Such persons (again for lack of a better description) would develop their own [alien] versions of spear-throwers, so to speak. Signifying a grand and steady march forward of all manner of inventions and excogitative ingenuities. The increasing desire for more and more leisure time leads invariably to a constant need to satisfy more and more sophisticated appetites. Subsequent this successful ability to feed themselves, both from farmed fields and killed animals, the question arises as to what end?
The world for these individuals is still a brutal place filled with dangerous predators and other terrors. Perhaps they fear disassociated others who would threaten them, enslave and/or kill them. The desperate need for added protection from both the elements and outside menaces would necessarily fuel the rewards of inventive thinking – from those few who were the most skilled at doing so. Who would then pass along to others all they knew and had learned. All of which were marvelous examples of self-perpetuation. Or, if you will, the kind of things spawned by a preferred, work-shy desire to nap in a hammock under a noonday sun.
While scientists still ponder the how and why the Big Bang banged when it did, once set in motion we have some understanding as to how all the rest fell (and continues to fall) neatly into place. Still minus the why, however. In similar fashion, it would appear to be the case that once life springs into existence, all the subsequent and myriad events with which we are somewhat familiar, also follow certain evolutionary paths of progress, meaning ever increasing sophistication. Again minus the exact nature of how such a seeming miracle transpires.
Fast-forward to a point where humanlike entities have those large amounts of free time on their hands, and stare in wonder at the nighttime stars overhead. They also stare at one another as well. Forward again to a time when planet-wide civilizations of one kind or another have sprung up, times inhabited by great thinkers, philosophers, and eventually scientists who yearn for, lust after, ever more ingenious tools with which they might increase their knowledge of a world that literally begs to be understood.
It is not an overstatement to submit that technologies, both hard and soft, are extremely addictive forces for any civilization that chooses to, at first, use tools for hunting game and protection from enemies, and only secondarily to create a sundry list of luxuries, stave off diseases, and explore the nature of their very existence.
One, very important requisite must be mentioned, of course. I refer to the necessity for dexterous hands (or their equivalent) and other bodily accoutrements which allow-for and favor some type of [digital] manipulation of one’s environment. Manipulation in this instance referring to tool-making on a vast and increasingly complex basis. In my fanciful essay entitled, The Leprechauns of Eden,
http://www.dragonia.net/ast13-the-leprechauns-of-eden.html
the argument is made as to a near absolute requirement – for all big-brained extraterrestrial entities – that they possess certain physical attributes which enable them to change, alter, and otherwise convert their immediate environs into ever more suitable constructs. This plus an unquenchable quest for knowledge as they seek to slake endless questions via their mighty telescopes and intricately lensed microscopes.
Mammalian whales, for example, are among the most intelligent species on Earth, yet they do not, of course, have an ability to do anything with their large flippers except swim. Chimpanzees and other primates, though endowed with hands, are so successful a species that any [beneficially] significant genetic mutations should lead to whole new species of hominids – which is exactly what happened. On Earth. And there is little reason to doubt that the same kind of mechanism(s) will operate in similar fashion elsewhere.
No written commentary that delves into the topic of technology would be complete without some mention as to the topic of self-destruction. No doubt the nuclear genie is an ever present danger for any civilization that rubs the lamp and then seeks to dominate other, equally capable civilizations.
Three other factors play critical roles in the lives of our elevated, extraterrestrial brethren. These being bombardment from outer space by asteroids and comets, FRBs (Fast Radio/Gamma-ray Bursts), and rapid geological/atmospheric changes. Each item on what might be called, a bucket list of disasters, deserves its own essay which may or may not be penned by this particular writer.
Suffice it to say how one is faced with the most sobering of realizations when we contemplate what is perhaps an enormous number of failed civilizations, let alone precious but obliterated lifeforms in any respect. Thus it is perhaps no wonder that we [seemingly] find ourselves amid a vicinity of space strangely reminiscent of writer Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. An analogy whereby it is the idiosyncratic arbitrations of numerical statistics, otherwise known as luck or fate, by which so few might emerge from the multitude.
There’s an old tale about a genie trapped in his lamp for so long a period, that he decided he would grant endless wishes to the one who released him from his lonely prison. As what seemed endless years continued to pass with no relief for the hapless djinni, he grew angry and bitter. At long last, he came to decide that whoever should end his misery, would be rewarded with death instead of treasure.
I chose this story to end my long essay because it suggests to me an interesting, albeit disturbing, appraisal of two, ultimate outcomes that might arise from extraterrestrial civilizations that successfully escape the bondages of their home planets. Genies, if you will, who are finally capable of exploring the vastness of space, and do so with impunity. But what might be the state-of-mind of such individuals?
None other than Stephen Hawking himself proposed the notion that instead of friendly aliens who bear no one ill will, others of distinctly different temperaments might well follow parallel paths. Jules Verne’s War of the Worlds may indeed turn out to be more fact than fiction. Where cold, indifferent beings are, in this case, spawned by endless epochs of bitter struggle and long legacies of conquest and defeat.
A final few words need to touch upon the idea of robotics, and the roles such machines might play regardless of their creators’ attitudes and moods – be they either benevolent or malevolent. Peculiar, emotionless, and spectacular, such entities would display striking talents we might barely imagine. I suspect that of those numerous UFO sightings for which no explanation satisfies the curious mind, that many are piloted by sentient but unfeeling automata, whose lack of sympathy is simply a matter of unnecessary programming. Exploratory probes, maybe. Whose designers still wish to greet a benefactor who might release them from their depths of extraordinary isolation and loneliness. Or, perhaps, whose sociopathic builders wait to receive a remote signal from one of their many drones, that another world has been found, ripe for conquest and exploitation.
No matter the case, whether one of optimism or subjugation by heartless superiors, our salvation may well depend upon our ability to collectivize and settle human grievances. And thus first spare ourselves, from ourselves.
In the original Hollywood movie of War of the Worlds, prior to when actor Gene Barry realizes that the aliens are, let’s say, mean spirited, a priest or pastor, I forget which, approaches the strange craft which has landed nearby and awakened from its temporary slumber. Then slowly put forth a snakelike appendage.
As the clergyman makes clear his intentions, his friends shout for him to come back, that he’s in danger and needs to return to the military bunker where Barry and the others are holed up. The reverend turns about and assures the others that if these aliens are far advanced beyond ourselves, then they are closer to the Creator accordingly.
A moment later, the fatherly man-of-the-cloth is vaporized by a deadly ray that has spewed forth from the aforementioned appendage.
There’s a moral here, a lesson to be taken away by some, ignored by others. As for myself, I tried to refrain from being preachy, and simply put forth my own personal ideas and observations. For better or worse. Perhaps, for better or worse, might not be a bad way to end this. Or to get others to start up conversations with themselves. The kind of introspection that makes for a good marriage between both ideas and people.
I, for one, will probably choose to stay huddled inside that entrenchment, surrounded by tanks and missiles, and wait to see if our extraterrestrial visitors are atheists or not.
You're currently on page NOU31
listed under NOUMENOMICON.
listed under NOUMENOMICON.
