The Problem Then, Is Choice

According to Dawkins, human culture has created a new kind of replicator: the meme. He describes the meme as a piece of culture (A song, an idea, a law) that can be transmitted from person to person and from generation to generation. After analyzing memes, their origins and their effects, Dawkins realizes: "Our genes may be immortal but the collection of genes that is any one of us is bound to crumble away...But if you contribute to the world's culture, if you have a good idea, compose a tune, invent a sparking plug, write a poem, it may live on, intact, long after your genes have dissolved in the common pool." (Dawkins 199)
This, then, is what we should really be striving for. I'm not gonna lie though, my genes do have to get passed on. However, having kids in our culture shouldn't really be looked at in this way. We have kids and families because we cherish the personal bonds that they create, not because I want my genes passed on. As Dawkins points out: "We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators." (Dawkins 201) We don't have to do anything if we don't want to. Animal behavior is easy to explain because they live on pure instinct. They are born. They eat. They have babies. They eat some more, and then they die. Humans, on the other hand, aren't like this at all.
In fact, we are influenced much more by memes than our actual genes. Genes lay out my structure. They tell my body to make me skinny and have a big nose. They tell my hair to grow upwards instead of the normal growth, turning it, after a while with no hair cut, into some weird afro. They make my eyes green.
That, however, does not define me in the least bit. I am who I am because of the music I listen to, the things I've learned in and out of school, and because of how I perceive society. The memes present in my brain are far stronger than my genes. The clearest indication of this is that I have actually considered not having kids when I am an adult. This wouldn't even cross a regular "survival machine's" head.
As the architect of the Matrix tells Neo in The Matrix Reloaded: "The problem then, is choice." The immortal genes have created thousands of "survival machines" to do their bidding. By doing so, they have created a certain order in nature. Although lions and cheetahs hunt antelope, there is never an overpopulation of either one. It works. It’s balanced. The system the genes have created has worked since they began replicating. As these "survival machines" evolved, so did the brain. We, because of our brain capacity, present the replicator genes and consequently the order in nature, with a huge problem.
As soon as the memes began controlling our lives, we were liberated. Choice. Free-will. Liberty. Whatever you want to call it. Culture and its memes have been giving genes a huge headache from the beginning. Today, we are reaching the point where we are threatening the order of nature. This, is essentially what global warming truly is. A huge collapse was gonna come, one way or another. When we chose to do whatever we wanted, we took the reins right out of the hands of our genes. It's like when Anakin Skywalker becomes too powerful and starts destroying order in the galaxy. As much as Padme and Obi Wan try to prevent this, his power is too strong. So, like Anakin, our power has grown too strong. Although we set out innocently, this ultimate power has never escaped from our minds. If god is a meme which has survived for a very long time in the meme pool, so has the idea of total power. Now we are endangering the order which our genes have created in nature. Until recently we had no idea that destroying this order would kill us too. As much as we don't like it, we are part of this world and its destruction will send us into the blackness along with it.
Aside from this point, I also believe that Dawkins hasn't given enough time to this idea. If he says: "If it is a popular tune, its spread through the meme pool may be gauged by the number of people heard whistling it in the streets," he clearly hasn't given it enough thought. A meme is an idea. Whether it's a song, a dance, or a particular law, each meme has an idea behind it. The strength of this idea must be put in with longetivity, fecundity, and copy fidelity when talking about memes because it is exactly this idea that makes the meme last in the gene pool. I guarantee that Flo-Rida's "Right Round," for example, will fade away in four months tops, maybe even less. According to Dawkins, a tune is passed on by "how many people whistle it in the street." However, just as this song became popular recently through extensive radio exposure, it will be replaced by another one shortly. Although people are whistling it or singing it right now, it will soon fade away.
The older music that has survived has done so because of the idea it represents, not because people have whistled it for so long.

The Terrible Unnatural Institution Of Slavery

We tend to think of slavery as one of the worst things to have developed in our society. We believe that one man's enslavement by another man is one of the most despicable acts of humanity. The institution of slavery has been called a lot of nasty names, and rightfully so. However, until now, I had always thought that it was a pure human invention: unnatural in every way.
Dawkins says, however, that a certain species of ants tend to have slaves. "Soldier" ants from a strong colony go to a weaker one and steal the developing eggs. When the eggs are born in the strong colony, they have no idea that it actually isn't their home, and they become the worker ants of that colony.
This really isn't a good way to compare slavery because our definition of it is very different. First of all, ants aren't conscious, so they don't know that they have been enslaved. Secondly, it's not as if there is money to pay the worker ants, it is just a part of their "society." Also, ants have no way of understanding morality and it isn't feasible to them that they are doing anything wrong.
Chapter 10 has been one of my favorite chapters so far. It explains in detail a lot of the features of animal altruism and how cheating can evolve. I especially like his example of Suckers, Cheats, and Grudgers. I find it fascinating how this ESS thing works.

A Normal Day At The Cafeteria

As Sam finished serving his food, he saw Jill sitting all by herself at a table. Knowing she was also reading The Selfish Gene, he decided to approach her and converse about the book.
SAM: Hey Jill, how are you?
JILL: Pretty good, Sam. And you?
SAM: I'm okay. Everything is pretty normal. Say, what chapter of Selfish Gene are you on?
JILL: I just finished chapter 9 last night. And you?
SAM: Hey, so did I. What did you think about it?
JILL: It was okay. That stuff kind of bores me anyway.
SAM: Are you kidding? That chapter was great. It explains all human sexual relationships by describing animal behavior and how genes come into play. It's awesome.
JILL: I don't really get a lot of what I'm reading. I was watching America's Next Top Model so I really wasn't paying attention.
SAM: You were watching that as you read? You might as well not read at all. (Chuckle)
JILL: The point of reading it is to do good on the test isn't it? Who cares.
SAM: Wow, that's a really bad way to look at studying and school. It was a great chapter though. I mean the way he explains girls having a tendency to play hard to get and how men have a tendency to be lying dogs. It really makes you realize why a lot of that stuff happens.
JILL: You're right. It was actually pretty cool.
SAM: Yeah, that guy is a genius.
JILL: Yeah, I really like the way he puts a lot of human nature into perspective through some random thing about like genes and stuff.
SAM: Yeah, I always realize that too. How bout the part where he talks about the different strategies and how they could work out? Kinda like the Ess's in chapter 5. That part was awesome.
JILL: Yeah I liked that too. Hey I gotta go to English. Tangen always bothers people when they get to class late. See you, Sam.
SAM: Jaja. Later, Jill.

10 Commandments Are A Load Of Crap

Chapter 8 of The Selfish Gene was about the struggle between parents in their kids and how this is explained genetically. In his explanation of these different battles, Dawkins describes some really horrible behavior of birds and their brothers in the nest. Apparently, the first one to be born in Cuckoos throws out the rest of his siblings from the nest in order to be the one who receives all the parental attention. Talk about being jealous of your brother. He also describes how young deceive their parents in different ways in search of the utmost parental investments. One of the main commandments, states: " Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you."
If this is so common in nature, we can safely say that this commandment is not natural at all. It is an invention that was made to keep order in culture. If we can say it about one of them, all 10 commandments, then, go out the door. Not to say that they haven't done good. These 'laws' have created the system of morality with which people have lived under for hundreds of generations. However, why follow all of them if the rest of the living creatures on Earth have no regard for this so called 'order?'

Picking Up Chicks: Animal Style

So far, in every chapter, Dawkins has discussed the behavior of only males in the different species. Sure, he mentions females and how many eggs they lay and so forth, but it seems to me like the males are doing everything in their power to get the women. They fight over territory, they try to get a high "social" rank. Males, as Dawkins describes, are always competing with each other to see who mates.
Sure, females do begin to play a role after they have had kids. Building the nest. Hunting. Feeding the young. However, what do single females do during mating season? My understanding so far is that they just sit there waiting for the winner of this eternal struggle between males to be the ones who reproduce.
Is nature sexist? In every species the man is constantly fighting for the woman and doing everything in his power to be the one that gets to reproduce. Sexism in humans is different because of the whole voting thing and equal job opportunities, etc, but the same basic principle of this sexism is there in all species. The female is chilling while the males are breaking their balls trying to win out. Also, the repercussions of losing the fight for the female are disastrous. As Dawkins describes, males who don't breed soon die of starvation. How come everything developed this way? Why, since the beginning of species, has the man been the one to try and win the woman?

Sartre? Genes talk?

"I am the only individual that any one of my selfish genes can be sure of." (Dawkins 106) That, right there is the fundamental point of existentialists such as Jean-Paul Sartre. The only reality that exists is you and nothing else. Going back to what I said in my previous blog, Dawkins is accidentally making some great points about humanity.
Another thing which has sparked my curiosity a couple of times throughout the novel is when Dawkins explains how a gene 'says' one thing or the other. For example: "A gene that 'says', in effect: 'Body, if you happen to be an adult male, defend the troop against leopards', could become more numerous in the gene pool." What does this mean? Genes give the body coded information through amino acids and consequently proteins. How in the hell could this eventually translate an if and then statement? How, for that matter, are any messages translated?

Are You Sure That's An Evolutionary Stable Strategy?

Dawkins, in his explanation of aggression in animals, inevitably discusses fighting. All the forms of fighting are there, those who pick the fight, those who run away, those who win, those who lose, and those who defend their territory. What is interesting about all of this is the ESS. One would think that someone who wins all fights would be the best. However, as Dawkins explains, that is not always the evolutionary stable strategy. Maybe I should start telling people that before they even think about picking a fight with me.
What's really interesting about this book is the way it kind of unconsciously explains human nature. I have started to realize in the past couple of chapters, that in his explanation of this or that evolutionary thing, Dawkins accidentally makes a great point about human nature. That might turn out to be the conclusion to the book. In it he will explain how although he has explained genes and evolution, every chapter has also dealt with human nature. Maybe not.

Why Living Is So God-Damn Hard

Along with the other things Dawkins discusses in Chapter 4 of The Selfish Gene comes the topic of genes as instructors. To explain this point, Dawkins introduces an analogy with computers playing chess and how they do it. "When it is actually playing, the computer is on its own, and can expect no help from its master. All the programmer can do is to set the computer up beforehand in the best way possible, with a proper balance between lists of specific knowledge, and hints about strategies and techniques." (Dawkins 52)
Likewise, all genes can do to help their survival genes live, is to set them up in the same way. "But life, like the game of chess, offers too many different possible eventualities for all of them to be anticipated. Like the chess programmer, the genes have to 'instruct' their survival machines not in specifics, but in the general strategies and tricks of the living trade." (Dawkins 55)
As people always say, it is human nature to screw up and fall, so to speak. Life presents too many different possibilities which we cannot forsee. All we can hope to do is attack each moment with the 'hints' our genes have given us and hope that it benefits our survival. And if we do happen to fall, luckily our genes have programmed our brains with the power of learning so that, next time we confront the situation, we wont fall as we did the first time.

Death Of Old Age Explained

Among the things that Dawkins explains in chapter 3 of The Selfish Gene is death of old age. I've often wondered why exactly it is that everything, including humans, dies of old age. Dawkins explains that this is because of lethal or semi-lethal genes that rise up after our reproductive years. This poses a theorietical way of living longer except that it is only theoretical.
I also really liked what Dawkins says about genes and teamwork. A gene that is good for survival and reproduction doesn't make it along by itself but rather gets along because it is good in a group. Although I don't believe this was the intention, this is telling us how humans should behave. Although selfishness is the fundamental quality a gene should have, it only survives so long because of its ability to work in its group of chromosomes. Likewise, as much as we strive for personal success or happiness or whatever, we will only truly achieve it in group.

Evolution A Mistake

I really like what Dawkins says about evolution being a mistake. If it wasn't for all the random mutations and mistakes during copying, humans would not be here right now. When you think about it like that, it is weird to think that we started off as simple replicator cells.
He also says that no species actually wants to mutate, which is very true. All of this really makes you think about everything that could've gone wrong throughout history. Imagine of all of these mutations would have never existed. What if these replicator cells got the copying process flawlessly correct on the first try? Humanity, then, is the result of a million mistakes.

Altruism vs. Selfishness

Richard Dawkins, in the first chapter of The Selfish Gene, tells us that what separates us from the animals is that we aren't really controlled by our selfish genes. Animals, throughout all time, have really been controlled by their genes and not by the individual. Whether altruistic or selfish, Dawkins says that every animal really has selfish intentions at the roots because they are at the mercy of their genes. Our minds are advanced enough that we really aren't controlled by our genes, as demonstrated by the invention of several things such as the contraceptive pill.
I really like that Dawkins knows every counter-argument that could be made against him and knows how to beat it. He frequently says that his book is not this or that but rather something else.

Let it Be

"Remember, you must always behave as you do at a banquet. Something is passed around and comes to you: reach out your hand politely and take some. It goes by: do not hold it back. It has not arrived yet: do not stretch your desire out towards it, but wait until it comes to you." (Epictetus' Handbook #15)
This is telling us that we should let things be and pass and not necessarily try to intervene with it too much. Although this doesn't present a direct connection to Slaughterhouse Five, it did make me think about it. The Tralfamadorian view on life represents one that you cannot even live, much less intervene. These are kind of steps in the ladder of living I guess.
The very bottom is the 4th dimension which doesn't allow life because everything is already written. The top would be a full-led life where you intervene with everything and live every moment to the fullest. Epictetus' point of view is near the top but in the middle of these two.

Critiques Against Society

Both Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five and Epictetus' Handbook critique society in some way. "Do not be joyful about any superiority that is not your own. If the horse were to say joyfully, 'I am beautiful,' one could put up with it. But certainly you, when you say joyfully, 'I have a beautiful horse,' are joyful about the good of the horse." (Handbook of Epictetus, #6) This is critiquing people's tendency to boast about their possessions. This is similar to Vonnegut's critique of people's dislike of bad breath. He explains this to us through one of Kilgore Trout's novels in which people hate this man for his bad breath but not because of how many people he has killed.
Throughout society people have always created an importance on things that shouldn't really be important. These two writers mock these things and consequently point out how stupid and unimportant they really are.

Buddha, Epictetus, Vonnegut

I think this text not only has correlations to Slaughterhouse Five, but to Buddhism as well. One of the main aspects of Buddhism is to avoid suffering. Vonnegut escapes his suffering by turning to the 4th dimension. Epictetus creates guidelines by which we can avoid certain forms of suffering.
All of these, I believe, represent a very cynical way of thinking about the world. Instead of talking about the world in a way which highlights its happy attributes, these texts show that the world is full of sorrow and suffering.

Poo-tee-weet??

The most obvious meaning of this is a bird chirping. What does that mean figuratively? Why would Vonnegut choose to end his novel this way?
After some analyzing of the entire novel and its themes, I reached one conclusion that might or might not be correct about what Poo-tee-weet means.
One of the things questioned in this novel is human nature. Why so much war and destruction? The satirical comments of Kilgore Trout about humanity caring more about someone's breath than if they kill dozens of people is another example of Vonnegut questioning human nature. Just as humans will always fight wars, then, birds will always chirp. Birds will always say, "Poo-tee-weet." However, why is it a question. Is the bird itself questioning human nature. Vonnegut doesn't say that Billy saw a bird chirping. Instead, he says, "One bird said to Billy Pilgrim, 'Poo-tee-weet?' " (Vonnegut 215) The bird specifically says it to Billy. Although I am no expert, I think I can say with some security that this was Vonnegut's meaning:
He has questioned human nature because of Dresden to the point where even birds begin to question it. They don't understand so much destruction and death either.

The 4th Dimension: Vonnegut's Escape

" 'It had to be done,' Rumfoord told Billy, speaking of the destruction of Dresden. 'I know,' said Billy. 'That's war.' 'I know. I'm not complaining.' 'It must have been hell on the ground.' 'It was,' said Billy Pilgrim. 'Pity the men who had to do it.' 'I do.' 'You must have had mixed feelings, there on the ground.' 'It was all right,' said Billy." (Vonnegut 198)
The first chapter of the novel, where the main character is Kurt Vonnegut and not Billy Pilgrim, emphasizes Vonnegut's depression since Dresden. In order to try and deal with it, he goes back to Dresden, and he talks with his friend O'hare, not to mention his exessive drinking. He is very deeply affected by the bombing of Dresden, and cannot really deal with his feelings about it.
The rest of the book portrays a protagonist with no feelings. With so many connections, I came to the conclusion that Billy Pilgrim is a made up person used by Vonnegut to tell his experiences not only of the war but life itself. Throughout the book, however, Billy doesn't really show any true feelings. As I've mentioned in my other blogs, it's as if he's watching his life on a screen, rather than living it. The passage that i mention above is a clear indication of this. Finally Billy has the chance to tell someone how he feels about Dresden, and what he says instead of showing depression and anger is, "I'm not complaining." What? Huh?
What do you mean hes not complaining? Then I realized something that's not only key in understanding this small passage, but the entire novel. By coming unstuck in time, Billy has stopped living. All sorrow, happiness, surprise, anger, and excitement have been completely removed because he has come unstuck in time. By seeing the world as the Tralfamadorians see it, Billy can just use the phrase, "So it goes," for every moment of his life. His entire life has already been written so that all Billy does is constantly time-travel. He doesn't live anymore, and that is why Billy seems indifferent to everything in his life, the war, his marriage, his children, even his own death.
With that in mind, is that what Vonnegut's message is? By appointing this 4th dimensional, Tralfamadorian view of life, he can just shed the blame for Dresden on destiny or fate. It no longer becomes a question of human morality, but simply turns into something that is inevitable. "So it goes," he can say. This way of thinking is Vonnegut's way of dealing with his thoughts and feelings about Dresden.

The Destruction of Dresden

Vonnegut finally describes to us the long-awaited destruction of Dresden. Right before he does so, however, he reminds us of the horrible feeling Billy Pilgrim gets every time he remembers or encounters something to do with Dresden. This indicates the same pain and suffering that Vonnegut himself feels at the memory of such destruction.
"When the Americans and their guards did come out, the sky was black with smoke. The sun was an angry little pinhead. Dresden was like the moon now, nothing but minerals. The stones were hot. Everybody else in the neighborhood was dead. So it goes." (Vonnegut 178) "Billy told her(Montana Wildhack) what had happened to the buildings that used to form cliffs around the stockyards. They had collapsed. Their wood had been consumed, and their stones had crashed down, had tumbled against one another until they locked at last in low and graceful curves." (Vonnegut 179) "American fighter planes came in under the smoke to see if anything was moving. They saw Billy and the rest moving down there. The planes sprayed them with machine-gun bullets, but the bullets missed. Then they saw some other people moving down by the riverside and they shot at them. They hit some of them. So it goes. The idea was to hasten the end of the war." (Vonnegut 180)
This is really the first time I've read about what actually happenned in Dresden. It's horrible. It's clear to me now why Billy, and Vonnegut, for that matter are forever haunted by the experience.

Home in time of Confusion

In chapter 7 of Slaughter House Five, not much happens. Vonnegut does, however, tell us about Billy’s plane crash. When he was rescued, he overheard his Austrian helpers speaking German, and in his confusion, muttered to them his address: “Schlachthof-funf.” Slaughter House Five, his home during his stay in Dresden. It’s weird that of all things to say in such a moment, Billy chooses his address in Dresden.
This is huge. It's as if the only thing that becomes clear is this memory. Not his name, not his kids or wife, not his home in Ilium. Not even "Help." The only clarity in his life is Slaughter House Five and Dresden.