| The Human Condition The human condition is the state of being human. Unfortunately, anyone capable of reading this is stricken with this abhorrent ailment for which there is no cure (that is, unless you count death) for only humans possess the great property of rumination (not to be confused wit a cow’s ability to ruminate). But I contest the greatness of this asset, and the prominence of man altogether. “But how can you, a human, objectively observe this?” you say. “Quite easily, actually, because, you see, that my life has been almost completely devoid of human relationships and entirely devoid any close relationships, even in the realm of family ties (which I assume you know was the title of a TV series),” I’d say. Therefore, I am able to make relatively objective observations simply because I’ve had minimal contact with society in general. With that over with I’d like to add that there are various reasons humans are imperfect, repulsive and, in general, horrible creatures (myself included). Cogitation is the first thing I would like to address simply because most people assume this is what makes man superior to everything, and is also the cause of all its problems. The ability to reason has always been a great focus of humanity’s pride and also spawned intrinsically pretentious quotes by intellectuals of ancient lineage such as “I think, therefore I am.” But existence is prevalent whether or not the being has the ability to convey thought. You see a sponge does not “think” but it, in fact, “is”. So, simply to place humans above all other creatures because of this sole trait is rather foolhardy and ignorant. The divine endowment of thought has given man the “gift” of ideas. You say, “What could possibly be wrong ideas? I mean look at all the cool crap we have.” Yeah, that is true. We do have a lot “cool crap” as you put it, but at what price? All the horrible things, that’s what. First there is the augmentation of desire caused by the immense amounts of things society says we need. Those nice shoes, the spiffy clothes, the PS2; all crap that is useless for survival (I know, you may argue that the shoes and clothes are necessary for survival, but the modifiers placed upon them distinguish them from the bare essentials and designate them as superfluous. You then may argue that the better (more expensive) clothing you wear will make you more successful, but that has not worked for me so I deem it untrue). In addition to creating things people don’t need, humans have the innate ability of devising was to destroy its own kind. From clubs to atom bombs, humans thought of it, and no animal could. And contrary to the physical damage that can be rendered by those devices, humans have devised countless other mechanisms to each other’s fragile emotional balance. Religion is one of these and civilization another. Both press on people’s minds to manipulate and sculpt them to the proverbial mold and spawns abject animosity, which in turn promotes the populace to spurn those not possessing their beliefs. Only man could conceive a system to relay hatred of certain supposed imperfections. And then, through the use of that system and the technology created for destruction wage countless campaigns to extinguish themselves. All this from a species that abhors cannibalism. Would it not be better to consume the hunted beasts than to let them simply go to waste? Or maybe the poachers should just quit the hunt instead? Either way, thought cannot be so unequivocally good if it can cause such harm, ergo it should not be used in making the point that humans are the end all, be all of living things. Similar to the bubonic plague, human beings are a scourge over the land. Unlike the plague, however, humans tend to not follow a logistic trend. That is because, unlike the bacteria that cause the plague, they can create their habitat, effectively making them a virus (a la The Matrix). Sure there are mammals that create their own habitats, like the beaver that makes dams and lodges. Though a difference is extant between man and beaver for man destroys the habitats of others and of itself and the beaver does not. As we all know viruses make their own environment by commandeering a cell in their victim and replicating in it until it can no longer hold the virus, hence destroying the cell. Humans use similar methods. Take, for example, the ever-expanding urban areas of the United States. Lack of available space in cities has forced industry to continually venture into the wilderness, destroying the environments of various species of animals and plants (some of which are more precious than others). Eventually, there will no longer be any area for the populace to spread, leaving them no place to live (unless they conquer some other country) and deteriorating living conditions, which hinders their survival. And I know that isn’t the greatest of examples, but I assume another will more than rectify that grievous error. Let us say that the planet as a whole is our locale as the cell is the virus’. Now humans reproduce exponentially without slowing because of medical technology and various living improvements that allow pathetic people, such as myself, to survive (it is for certain I would already be dead otherwise). Without slowing, of course, the cell runs out of space, in which case the planet would be obliterated and we would all die, but unlike the virus that has more cells to conquer, there is no other earth (and no, there’s no way we’re going to mars. It’ll take years to develop that technology and we’ll all be long dead before then). The deforestation, desertification, pollution and overall expansion will soon leave this land useless to the general dismay of our progeny for they will perish because of it (if the inevitable nuclear holocaust doesn’t. The third human malady would be their constant misconception of success being a social goal rather than life process. This is a basic hindrance that will ultimately end in the cessation of mankind as a species. You see, success for any species is persistent propagation or in laymen terms, reproduction. But the view humans have, that success is social, assumes that success is acquired when gaining social status e.g. a boy who stems from an abhorrently destitute family becomes middle management. Even small steps upward in a socially mobile civilization, such as today’s, is considered quite an accomplishment with which many are satisfied. Though this confusion seems okay, and even would be if it led to greater copulation at rapid rates or produced a befitting brood for the individuals’ succession, but that is not the case. Often times, wonderful successes go awry when great benefactors of mankind end their lives at apogee of their careers without producing any offspring. Also, in search of societal achievement most of the current era tend to leave procreation by the proverbial wayside until the more stagnant elder years (late 30’s, 40’s) at which time the quality of their gametes has decreased so much so that the probable offspring will be nothing special and average at best (in both social and biological aspects), and more prone to defects. And it is quite a shame that they do so because statistics show that promiscuity is growing (regardless of that stupid “Not Me, Not Now” campaign), which also means contraception is actually being used better (those stories of “Babies having babies” only get so much press because it so much less common nowadays). That, of course, isn’t really a good thing (or a mixed blessing at best. I mean who would you rather be having your kid: a nubile young vixen or an equally attractive (though much more mature) old bag. I’d assume the former, am I correct?). Now you may say that average kids, or even essentially defective ones, are okay since we have such great technology so population increase won’t actually slow down, in fact it’ll probably go up. And though that is true the specimens that live on won’t be the finest of the bunch because of their dependence on technology (I, myself, am on of these pathetic beings and would be better of dead (if I were not conveying such wisdom to you, of course)) and will eventually end man’s lineage through the next geological changes. Finally, the travesty of human thought, man’s disease like nature and its misconception of accomplishment all thoroughly add to its current condition, one that in reality is increasingly problematic and will eventually lead to its demise, if not that of all beings. My suggestion to resolve the situation would the swift and utter eradication of humanity as a whole for the betterment of all life. Such a small sacrifice is not really much to ask is it? Humans destroy many species of animals all the time to no benefit, so why not themselves as martyrs in life’s history? You may say it would be inhumane to kill all those cognitive beings, but we kill each other all the time. What argument do you truly have to defend man’s continued existence? None. And though my arguments may be slightly biased because I am a misanthrope, it does not mean yours are better. If there were two things that were imperfect, would you not choose the one imperfect to the lesser extent? Of course you would. |