Women's Full Power

Since the beginning of time, females in the human population have been seen as the weaker sex, as the ones whose only purpose is child bearing and the domestic care. Women were discriminated and denied various rights which now a day are granted to everyone freely. Men, on the other hand, are considered to be the ones who 'bring home the bacon', the ones who are supposed to deal with all the real problems, even in politics. Although there still might be this perception in some places in the world, overall in recent times this so called difference between the sexes has died down. Women are now allowed to vote, to participate in activities that they were not permitted in the past, they are now viewed as rivals at work, they are now viewed as competition. Even though, they do child bear and on rare cases do men ever handle any domestic problems, the role of women in the society has changed and is slowly changing. 

Not only is this true in humans but it is also true in animals. Females and males have different roles within their environment. Sadly, nature chose to grant females the great opportunity of experiencing child caring and in an indirect way keeping control over the male.

The other perception given relating to females vs. males. Is that males usually pursue the females. Although this may not apply to certain animal species, in humans this is fairly accurate. Males usually take the first step. But like Dawkins stated at the end of the chapter, has this role changed? Are males now the ones being pursued? And the most important question, why? How will this affect our genes and their survival machines?

Competition

A lot of the ideas established in this chapter are fairly accurate. They can be tested in our daily lives and they are very notable. Over the years, in order to succeed whether it be professionally or personally, competition will always be involved. In sports, at work, even in the classroom we can find competition happening. People compete to defend their ideas, their morals, to achieve a certain goal, and at times this competition may be very mild and at other times it may be very strong. Dawkins has explained throughout the last chapters that it is in our nature, in the nature of our genes, to compete, to be the survival machines we are and survive. 

 In fact, I can actually relate the idea of rivalry between the generations or within the generation itself. I have a younger brother who most of the time is preferred by my mom because he is little. There are times in which we compete with each other to gain something from our parents before the other does. 

Also I have seen, from living with my brother, that newer generations are more 'advanced' compared to when my generation was their age. Now a days, there are lesser restrictions on TV, and younger people are experiencing things that they were supposed to experience later on. I bet this is also true when you compare my generation to that of my parents or grandparents. 

Adoption=Solution?

"In this chapter we look at how they should decide whether to bring new individuals into the world." ( pg. 110)

Most people consider that creating their own family is one of their goals in life. On average, the basic plan for an individual in today's society is: Graduate from high school, attempt to achieve a good career, have a family, and retire. In fact, once you have children you life will begin to revolve around these, their education, in other words child caring will become a big part of your life. 

In recent years we have seen the idea of adopting. This idea has grown over the years and is has become more common among us. We no longer make it a big deal, and are more open to it. I must say that I have shared with some people over the years that have a clear view of how they want to create their family. As if to say, they may say "I want so and so amount of children" or "I want to adopt; I want to have children of my own". 

This is the reason why I found this chapter quite interesting. Although I don't even know if I want to have children in the future. I think  I know that I want to adopt in the future. The reason for this, is I believe that instead of being selfish and bearing and caring for a child that will have everything, there are other children out there that need more help. That need that same love you wish to give your own child. Instead of contributing to the over population of the earth, why not reduce it, or at least try to. But I have also heard that by not having children and passing on my genes, I am being selfish to the gene pool. 

Whether you look at the pros and cons, the point that Dawkins makes about child bearing and child caring in this chapter was quite interesting to me. And it left me with other ideas I shall take in mind in the future.

Math Class

The first thing I want to point out from chapter 6 is the various math equations Dawkins establishes in relation to your relatives. I found it quite funny that he should use math (which gives you literal results; 'hard core' facts; statements) to explain certain relationships in one's life that are not so 'straight to the point', that contain feelings which make them much more complicated. But I also find it quite interesting, how Dawkins could come up or at least research that there does exist equations that could tell you how exactly a person in genetically related to you. 

"Genetically speaking, your first cousin is equivalent to a great grand child..." (pg 92)

This passage for example, was created a huge impact on the way I viewed my cousin. Don't get me wrong, it's not like I will treat him/her as if he/she was my great grand child. But it does create a funny image of him/her as my great grand child. 

The second thing I want to point out, is the amount of stress Dawkins puts into explaining how over the years the common theory of 'altruistic parent behaviour' has been transformed. In this chapter, Dawkins talks about parent-child relationships over and over again, since in our eyes this relationship is considered to be the most 'strong' one. He relates it to both altruism and kin selection. 

The fuel of today: Ambition

In the beginning of chapter 5 Dawkins explains how survival machines and their genes constantly compete or benefit from their environment. He states that all the other survival machines in the environment, whether they being from the same species or from another, as a survival machine containing the selfish genes, you may either benefit from these other machines. Clear examples of benefits are seen in altruistic behaviour. 

As humans, our life revolves around relationships, especially social ones. We have parent-child, friend, love, hate, teacher-student, etc. In all of these relationships, if we truly observe them, we realize that there is always one survival machine gaining something from it or at times all the machines involved may be gaining something. 

The funny thing about what Dawkins says about using other machines for your own purposes is that this is completely true. Throughout our entire lives we are taught that we must share and be 'good' people. As if to say, we should have teamwork skills and never 'walk over' anyone to achieve your own goals. But this is basically impossible, not only is it in our nature but current world circumstances oblige us to act like that. 

For example, if you are working in a company and you would like to be ascended, you only have 2 options of doing so. Either waiting for your 'big break' which at times could take up your whole career life, slowly ascend your way up the ladder, or you may use your colleagues as 'steps'. As if to say, benefit from them. Globalization today has taught us that the most important thing you need to do in order to succeed in this world, is ambition. Hitler, Mussolini, Ernesto Guevara, etc. All of these great leaders had it. They may not have used their power for the best purposes but they had ambition. And this was their fuel to achieve the great things they did, all the changes they created. 

So aggression is in our nature, but in our current situation aggression may be the only way to be the last survival machine standing. 

Time to fly...

As previously stated in my past blogs, one of Dawkins key strategies in helping the reader fully comprehend the scientific terms and his theories on selfishness is creating certain analogies that enable the reader to relate to. 

Most of his analogies are quite interesting and at times funny if you picture them in your mind. In this chapter for example there were certain analogies that caught my attention. 

For example, after analyzing the 'computer chess' analogy I realized that this is most accurate. Dawkins basically explains that the programmer simply inputs the basic knowledge into the program and the program acts based on this. But obviously there does not exist the possibility that the computer is thinking on its own nor is it programmed to completely understand the situation and choose the best option. It simply uses the basic knowledge and chooses randomly. Once Dawkins connects this to the 'father, son, chess' the reader realizes that this is quite true in real life. As if to say, when you are a child you are given all the necessary tools and you are taught the basic rules, but this does not mean you are fully prepared lead a successfull life. It just increases the possibility, but you truly learn by experiences. Take a baby bird for example. The mother attempts to explain to it how to fly but he truly knows if he can do it once he does it. Until he jumps of his nest will he really know and learn. 

Row, Row, Row your boat, gently down the stream...

Throughout chapter three of "The Selfish Gene" Dawkins explains basic genetics. He explains what a gene is and how this is related to both DNA and sexual reproduction. In fact, he even explains how the crossing over of genes occurs in humans and why it is we are unique from each other, in other words the variation between "the four letters" and their sequence. 

For those of us who have had Biology class already know all of this inside and out, we are completely aware how exactly DNA acts on our cells and why this is considered to contain the 'building blocks'. We even understand how mutations and occur and how these may affect evolution of the species in the long run. But the most important concept of this chapter is that even though Dawkins does explain basic genetics, he gives his definition of the gene. This definition simply 'backs up' his theory on why and how humans are selfish due to their genes. 

Although his definition may be accurate it leads the reader to think that since genes are immortal and we are their survival machines, and these genes have been and currently are, are we always going to be selfish? Does there exist a solution to this problem? Or must we simply keep on acting as their selfish survival machines?

I have noticed that since the book is full of scientific terms Dawkins must find a way to put these scientific theories in simple and clear words in order for the reader to completely understand their meanings. He does this by using many analogies throughout the book, and not only does he use them in one chapter but he also refers back to them in future chapters. Personally the analogy on 'architecture' , 'fertilizer', and 'oars men' made me understand the text better and created an imagery in my head that helped me connect certain ideas. 

Biology Class...

Based on my knowledge gained from my previous biology classes, I have learned that the building blocks of life itself are proteins. And these proteins are the ones that make up our DNA which is the one thing that makes us unique. Also theories such as evolution and natural selection have immense connection with who we are today. All of these different biological terms were mentioned throughout Chapter 2 of "The selfish gene", they were used to explain philosophical theories with those of scientific theories. Dawkin's does a great job in explaining how the replicators became to be and at times your so caught up in the reading that when the end approaches and Dawkins relates his theory to the behavior of humans you are left speechless. 

One of the most important ideas that Dawkins tries to get across is the idea of how simplicity could be turned into complexity. In fact, he states that the most accurate reason of how this happens is the theory of natural selection but apart from this there does not exist any other as accurate. 

Also, after explaining why and how the replicators came to be he establishes one of the most important ideas, that we as humans are the replicators survival machines. I have a strange feeling that this will not be the only time Dawkins will bring this up. In fact, it may be one of the main themes of the book and in understanding how this statement is true we may be able to completely grasp his thoughts. 

Do we eat shell fish? Or are we the self-ish?

" To put it in a slightly more respectable way, a group, such as a species or a population within a species, whose individual members are prepared to sacrifice themselves for the welfare of the group, may be less likely to go extinct than a rival group whose individual members are place their own selfish interests first. Therefore the world becomes populated mainly by groups consisting of self sacrificing individuals." pg. 7

Since we were little we have been taught to share and not act selfish in any way possible. We learn to depend on one another, work in groups, trust in others, and at times reach our goals by using one an others different abilities. In fact, based on my past knowledge, natural selection and evolution depends on species and their survival. Mutations and adaptations can only be passed on after several generations and several individuals. Sadly, evolution does not depend on one individual only. 

What I am trying to get at is that one individual cannot affect evolution. As if to say, the last phrase "consisting of self sacrificing individuals" contradicts itself, especially when it is related to groups that compete against other groups. If the world is composed of self sacrificing individuals, then we wouldn't be considered a group. But then again we are, we are considered to be a group- humans. I am not going against what the author says. I do believe we are driven by our instinct of survival and therefore enabling our selfishness. Our world is full of selfish people, even though we admire those who put the needs of others before their own, most of us do not have the 'guts' to do this and in a way become selfish. 

Another aspect I would like to mention is the tone of the book. At first, it seems as any ordinary science column in a newspaper. The author talks about Darwin theory and other biological subjects. But as you read, you realize that the author simply uses scientific notations or evidence in this case to confirm his theories on human behavior. 

Live in the present

While I was reading "Handbook of Epictetus" I realized that many of the ideas mentioned in it could be related to the ideas of the Tralfamadores in Slaughterhouse Five. In fact, it seems as if Vonnegut would have taken these ideals and placed them in his own words along with his own storyline. 

The first impression I got from the Tralfamadore's ideas was that they seemed very laid back and accepted life as it came instead of putting much thought into it as many people usually do. To me, their the typical example of 'leavers', those who adapt their needs to the world. They take things as they come, concentrate on thier present and believe in 'there are no ordinary moments'. 

"Do not seek to have events happen as you want them to, but instead want them to happen as they do happen, and your life will go well."

This passage taken from section 8 in the handbook, can be related to not only the time traveling of Billy Pilgrim and the 4 dimension theory but also to the 'so it goes' and its meaning to completing a 'circular' life. If things are meant to be they WILL happen and if their not meant to be then they simply won't happen. We must learn to accept and realize that we were not meant to analyze many things in life. 

Ultimate Goal

In the past I have said that as humans our ultimate goal is to achieve complete happiness. This is impossible due to the fact that we create our own problems with factors such as love, anger, resentment, ambition, etc. We will always want what we don't have, and once we have it, we will think there is much more to have therefore denying us happiness. Why is it that we always think there is something else to achieve? Something else to look forward to? Why not just accept that what we have is simply what we have? In other words, we do not enjoy the present. We are always thinking of the past and how our present may affect our future. But we never truly concentrate on our present. 

In section 1 and 5 of the 'Handbook of Epictetus', it is mentioned that somethings are not up to us. That the reasons why we live in in conformity is not our problems but our perceptions of them or judgments. These judgments may be linked to the factors I mentioned earlier, reinforcing the idea that we are the ones to blame, in the end WE create our own problems. 

I also found it quite interesting section 3, which talks about love and how we are misguided by the idea of it. I have seen many cases, not only in my personal life, but also in movies and books where society implies the idea that death and love should create grief and pain. But this perspective is changed with the idea that instead of falling in love with something or someone we should just be fond of it and respect it for the time being. 

"If you kiss your child or wife, say that you are kissing a human being; for when it dies you will not be upset."

Although this may sound a bit to harsh since it suggests that humans be treated as things or its, I am in complete agrees with this. If we applied this to our daily life we could avoid much pain. You don't necessarily have to give everything up for love, you should simply respect those things that you love while you have them. 

Men on the moon

After reading several books over the years whether it was out of pleasure or for a class, I have noticed that one of the best ways that an author can use to make the reader understand the impact of their statement or his/her idea is to either relate to the reader or use comparison methods. 

Since SF is about the bombing in Dresden we would think that when the book gets to the part where the bombing actually happens, this would be described in an 'impacting' way. Although this would be appropriate, I rather have picked the way Vonnegut did it in the book. He used a simile which in a way put the bombing in simple terms but also left an impact. 

He compares the sight of Dresden after the bombing to the face of the moon, desolate and grey. (pg. 179-180)

Vonnegut makes an impacting statement that shows exactly how desolate Dresden was, in other words, how many survivors were there. 

"Absolutely everybody in the city was supposed to be dead, regardless of what they were, and that anybody that moved in it represented a flaw in the design. There were to be no moon men at all." (pg. 180)

Like I mentioned before, comparing a bombing to the moon appeals to the reader and leaves room for imagination. But since the comparison is in a way childish it also leaves a huge impact. 

Even sweeter than maple syrup?

"It's the sweetest thing there is" - Paul Lazzaro (pg.138)

Anyone who hasn't read 'Slaughterhouse Five' and read this passage would probably think that this character was referring to candy or maple syrup. They would never think that he was actually talking about revenge. 

Although most of us say that revenge isn't actually that sweet since it harms others, we are actually lying to ourselves. Everyone, I mean everyone, has experienced the pleasure of revenge. It does not necessarily have to involve killing or cutting someone up or anything gory but it could be the simplest thing. It's a well known fact, sometimes revenge is the best way to move on or even forgive that certain person. 

The craving for revenge only reveals how weak humans really are. Personally, I believe that one of the best qualities you can have is the ability to forgive. You can't avoid being hurt at some point in your life by the actions of others, but being able to forgive them will let you be a good person and live in harmony with yourself. Not only that but you are demonstrating better morals than the other person. Just as if you wouldn't throw yourself of the balcony because that person jumps off, you wouldn't harm them if they harm you. But, as I mentioned earlier revenge is inevitable. We are constantly being motivated to follow this trend in things such as movies, books, and TV. For example, if you pay close attention to horror flicks most of the time the villain in the story is usually terrorizing because he wants revenge. The movie 'SAW' and its sequels is one of the most obvious examples. 

What's your address?

All your life your taught that you mustn't judge books by their covers nor their titles. Although most of the time you try not to let the cover of the book interfere with your choice, it is inevitable. In fact, sometimes the cover or the title may be one of the reasons why you choose the book and it could happen that the book isn't as good as the title or cover is. 

When you do buy a book and the title is an unusaul one, you usaully search for clues in the book that have a relationship with the book. 

So the question comes up, 

Why did Vonnegut name the book 'Slaughter House- Five' ?

Before hand, we already knew the book was about war and the bombing of Dresden therefore we automatically made the connection between the words 'slaughterhouse' and 'war'. Both of these deal with death and suffering. 

There are several passages that explain to us why Vonnegut named the book.

"...who took us to the slaughterhouse where we had been locked up at night as prisoners at war." (pg. 1)

"The parade pranced, staggered and reeled to the gate of the Dresden slaughterhouse..." (pg. 152)

"Their address was this: ' Schlachthof-funf '. Schlachcthof meant slaughterhouse. Funf was good old five." (pg. 153)

Most of these passages are very self explanatory and immediately lets us understand why the book is titled as it is.