Erhan Önal's Blog

Sunday, January 27, 2008

An Existential Case for Zapffe

Figure 1a


Zapffe was right in stating that the human being is a paradox. According to him, evolution overreached in a sense when it created humans. Humans can indeed act against their design. But, what is this design, and how can something act against its own nature? After all, our nature is what drives us, how can we possibly be against that nature?

A being with conflicting objectives is a paradox. Imagine the following examples:

- A being evolves to be attracted to sexual images but also evolves abstract thought that results in technological feats such as LCD screens and computers. The being spends its time in watching sexual images on the LCD screen instead of looking for a potential mate, which it was designed to do in the first place (Figure 1a).
- A being enjoys sex because it once led to babies. The being, with the ability for abstract thought, finds several ways to enjoy sex without making babies. The enjoyment, it looks like, amounts to almost nothing now.
- A being finds the sight of certain foods to be appetizing, but does not find a saline drip that way - despite the fact that the drip is probably much better for his health and well being.
- A being finds the idea that his wife be fertilized in-vitro by his identical twin brother's sperm disgusting, despite the fact that it makes absolutely no difference when it comes to the child's genetic make-up.
I can understand that evolution cannot be the answer to all this weird set of technological achievements. But as the technology advances more and more every day, each of the adaptive responses of humans becomes less so, to the point of irrelevance. In other words, our abstract thought evolved to such an extent that it renders our other adaptations invalid. If this is not a paradox, I do not know what is.

Friday, January 04, 2008

A Short Fictional Story

In a fictional country far, far away, the presidential election was near. Many expected the opposition party to win since the incumbent president had a really low approval rating. The party had three main candidates, "The Populist," "The Professor," and "The Woman." They were to participate in a televised debate after the first round of primaries, which was won by The Professor.

What they didn't know was that a group of disaffected TV crewmen wanted to pull a prank on the candidates. They would put a sort-of-psychedelic drug into the candidates' drinks to suppress the center of judgment in their nervous systems. The result was going to be extremely honest politicians that would answer any question truthfully, very truthfully! They even tried the drug on one of their own before the debate to make sure it worked. It worked all right, the poor guy who agreed to take the drug talked all night about his secrets - if they could be still called that, of course.

The plan went something like this: The crewmen secretly put several drops of the liquid into the drinks in front of the candidates just before the debate. As they drank them, they would start answering the questions honestly, and fun would pursue. Little the crewmen cared about the consequences, they were cynics trying to have some fun for a change.

The debate started with ordinary questions and answers. By the middle of the debate, all three candidates had already drunk some of the tainted water. The last portion of the debate was rigged so that the more scandalous questions were to be asked in it; the break between the two portions of the debate was long enough to make sure that the drug was absorbed by the candidates' central nervous systems just in time.

The first question was for The Populist. The mediator began: "Former Senator, what do you think was your greatest mistake so far in your campaign?"

He replied: "Getting that really expensive haircut. See, I don't have much money in this race, and pretty much all I have is a populist message. After that haircut, I was left with even less money and a tainted message - stupid move on my part."

The crowd started laughing and applauding. This answer, though a bit too honest, was still fair game and, although barely, within the realm of usual politics. The crew was starting to think that the drug was perhaps not going to work that well. Maybe the politicians were so used to telling lies that this drug did not have much effect on them. They were to find out how wrong they were momentarily. The mediator, in the meanwhile, addressed The Professor:

"Senator, you won the first round, mostly because of the support you got from the youth. What do you think is the reason for this support?"

The Professor replied, "I think that the youth in this country is really stupid, that is why they think my obscure sophisms are special and important. The current president's lack of sophistication also helps me stand out as the smart one. So, you see, it is all a pretty window dressing that appeals to young voters, I don't have any special solutions to our problems or anything. In fact, if you look at my ideas closely enough, they really don't make that much sense at all."

This reply almost sounded like a joke - the pranksters were exhilarated. Many in the hall started booing, some started shouting obscenities - the mediator was also stunned.

"That was an unexpected answer," the mediator continued. He urged the audience in the hall to be quiet. "I would like to ask the next question to the Madam Senator", he said. "Madam Senator, what makes you special among all the other candidates?"

The Woman first began by thanking the TV station for bringing forth this discussion, like she did at the beginning of the debate. Then she continued: "I would say the enormity of my ego and ambitions is probably my main differentiator, everyone who knows me says so. I took in all my husband's antics, for example, he slept, well sort of slept, with that intern when he was at the office for God's sakes... Stained dresses, presidential cigars, I took them all in. But see, I don't care, so long as his connections help me get elected president one day." The cigars and the stained dress were all a part of her husband's affair with that intern when he was the president, it had made headlines for many days. "I don't care who he sleeps with, I am here because of him, and I will use his connections for my own political gain, that I can promise."

As expected, the TV stopped airing this charade of a debate soon enough. The plot was soon discovered, and the perpetrators were put to jail for a long, long time. Oh, how much they wished they could do this to the incumbent party's candidates as well! "The Guitar Hero," "The Slick," "The Mayor," and "The Torture Survivor" could have shared so much with the voters! But they could do this trick only once; and sometimes, even once is more than enough indeed!