an interesting conversation

I was talking to my friend the other day; I didn’t want to go to school. She says, “But it’s fun! Stressful, tiring fun!”

“I guess.”

“…But but but…. without it…we’d all be mindless blobs and end up on the stupid Maury show!!”

“Hahaha. Your assumptions (I meant to say implications) are amusing.”

“Hahaha…..thank you?”

“You are welcome!”

“But seriously…..that show…. *shudder*”

“It’s funny sometimes.”


“It’s mostly sad, though. It makes me worry about the future of humanity.”

“……It makes me wish humans still had natural selection…..:P …Then the world would just be really smart or really beautiful/handsome people!!! With the occasional very smart…very beautiful/handsome person :P… Then we’d be able to get somewhere in the world :D”

While in the conversation, I mostly agreed with her, because the thought of that was just … awesome. But after the conversation ended, I kept going back to those lines and just thinking about what she said. I don’t know if I agree with her anymore. I mean, if humans still evolved through natural selection, it would imply that none of us are smart enough to make choices of our own. The reason the weak survive is that we manipulate nature to fit our needs rather than allow nature to help us weed out the weak.

It sounds rather primitive and heartless thought; I realize that.  However, that’s really what it is. In keeping those who are weak alive, we are going in the opposite direction of evolution. And these weaknesses are being passed on through to our offspring. Instead of weaknesses dying off, they’re multiplying. All for some “everybody deserves a chance” phooey.

But then, if you think about it, if we never evolved our way out of natural selection, none of us would actually be here. There would be a bunch of hot idiots running around, making babies left and right.  But that’s a small price to pay. If even one.

There has been the issue of people becoming stronger mentally through their physical weaknesses, but not vice versa. It’s rather strange. I imagine it would have been the other way around in Neanderthalean times.

Well, I guess this has just been another random dump of thoughts.  No structure whatsoever. Yay.


5 thoughts on “an interesting conversation

  1. Maybe you should try organizing your thoughts and forming cohesive arguments in your head before you write them down.

    You might actually improve as a writer if you put some fucking effort into your delivery instead of spewing out random drivel like this.

  2. Excuse me if there’s a flaw in my thinking but…must everything be an argument? Argument after argument, it would be all too repetitive (in a way) and boring. But I guess depending on the topic, an argument would be nice.

    The thing I like most in your blogs are your random dumps of thoughts. And it doesn’t bother me at all that there’s no structure, because what’s more important is the ideas in your posts. In your random dumps of thoughts, like this one, you start with a big idea and then it branches off into other ideas; all of the thinking is included. Another thing that seems good about random dumps of thoughts is that they’re less one-sided than arguments. I don’t know where I’m going with this, but basically, your random dumps of thoughts are very interesting to me, and I like reading them (kinda creepy sounding, I know).

    If you made a book like Thoreau’s ‘Walden’, I would totally buy it(maybe I’m wrong, but to me, it doesn’t seem like Walden has a solid structure, it’s just an organized train of thoughts). So, kudos to you, and keep on posting!

    • I appreciate the concern and all, but:
      A) Everything is an Argument. If you’re taking Russell, you’ll learn soon. If you aren’t or won’t, you missed out. On a ton of pointless busywork. Lucky you.
      B) Dave Gibbons was actually in my English class, and he stands as witness–my blogs and my essays actually turn out in similar fashions. They’re totally unstructured. He’s just saying that if I tied and practiced good writing practices when I didn’t actually need to, maybe I’d get better at it when I actually did need to.
      But again, thanks.

  3. Walden is very meticulously organized and actually has a point and consistent themes, even if the narrative wanders a little bit. There’s nothing like that here. This is a random dump of unorganized thoughts and disconnected ideas, and that’s just sloppy writing.

    But I apologize if I came off as overly critical, I was merely suggesting that the writer could convey his thoughts better if be put some effort into his presentation and form.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s