Wednesday, August 5, 2009

a tale of two species

i love squirrels. nobody i know even fancies squirrels. but i love them. i find them to pathetically entertaining.

“look! theres a morsel of food!” one may think to his or herself. hop hop hop. stop! look around. “is there anybody else who has spotted that delicious looking morsel? is there anything bigger than me that wants to eat me? doesnt look like.” hop hop hop. stop! “here it is!” he or she might think, as they triumphantly stuff it in their mouths for safekeeping.

what a smart idea.

and then—theyre off! they bound to the nearest tree or building and—! up they go! they climb the damned thing like it were nothing.

i dont know about you, but to me—that seems like just about the coolest thing.

and what a smart idea: what in the hell is going to eat you 80 feet above the ground, concealed by branches and leaves? answer: not a whole lot.

most people probably dont like squirrels for the very example presented. they consider them varmint, as every morning, they wake up—just like everybody else—and jump from garbage can to garbage can, from dumpster to dumpster, from junk pile to junk pile—doing anything they can to find food.

how disgusting this must seem to most people.

and as i turn my own sleepy eyes from these delightful creatures—who didnt ask to be born anyway, who are simply doing what darwin suggested they could only do, which is fight, forage, and fuck—i observe another urban species waking up—just like everybody else—going from garbage can to garbage can, from dumpster to dumpster, from junk pile to junk pile—doing anything they can to find food.

what is this other organism, you ask? here is the answer: homo sapiens.

homo sapiens—meaning, ‘wise man’, an utterly stupid scientific name to give to such an utterly stupid organism—are the very same species—in fact—that put this particular subclass of homo sapiens in that particular occupation.

classes—of course—being defined by what one has, and what another does not have. homo sapiens richus have oodles of money that they could burn for fun—if theyd liked—and not be anymore poorer than before the demolition. homo sapiens poorus have not a cent—not a morsel of food—and are reduced to that darwinian definition of an organisms’ sole purpose in ‘life’: fighting, foraging, and fucking.

fucking outdoors where simply any passerby could see you has got to be so exciting.

it would seem that the former species—homo sapiens richus—has dwindled in numbers, or, evolved from your ‘everyday’ homo sapiens—a species that at one point owned only what it needed—as there are simply very few of them in existence, at least in the united states of america.

does this mean that soon homo sapiens richus will become extinct, making way for homo sapiens poorus? i dont think so.

the aforementioned—however—is not true. it is simply that homo sapiens richus appears to require the absolute minimum number of additional members of its species of the opposing sex to promote the cycling of its species. thus—evolutionarily—it makes sense that their population has indeed remained miniscule.

or is that how it really works?

it would seem that the latter species—homo sapiens poorus—are either increasing in number, or are at least more reproductively active than homo sapiens richus, because there are so damned many of them, at least in the united states of america.

this however, is not true. it is simply that because the population of homo sapiens richus is so absolutely tiny that the population of homo sapiens poorus has been able to grow to its current gargantuan size.

or is that how it really works?

maybe it is. its called ‘density-depended population growth’. and i never thought id use a term i learned in general ecology ever again in my life, subsequent to graduating. i shudder.

i dont think that is how it really works.

keep reading:

it is interesting to note, though, that homo sapiens poorus may be as close to the original species of homo sapiens as one could get in this day and age in the 21st century, as they are doing exactly what their ancestors did: woke up every morning, and did what they could to find food, a good fuck, and theyd fight to the death for it—if necessary. they are not slaves to free enterprise—to capitalism—but are instead at the whim of natural selection.

homo sapiens richus—on the other hand—are hopelessly reliant on capitalism. and here is where the true tale that explains the origin of and the current populations sizes of the two species in question is told:

homo sapiens richus require a boss to tell them what to do with their life—which could be spent doing many other far less servile things. they do what their boss tells them to do with their life, and then they get paid. they take that money and buy the very services they provide, thus giving their boss even more money, and he becomes evermore power-drunk off of green paper. eventually this addled employee—hopelessly dependent on his boss for instructions and money—becomes an esteemed employee. he moves up the social ladder—whatever that is. he starts getting more slips of green paper biweekly. next thing you know it, twenty years go by, and hes the power-drunk boss. he is god. eventually him and his former boss—now a cohort—end up owning so much of the money in circulation and the ground underneath everybody’s feet, that there are no more green papers to go around for anybody else—there is no place for anybody else to stay.

and thus was homo sapiens poorus born, as the result of all the fucking around homo sapiens richus were doing. what an invigorating, motivating tale.

what a sad tale. we cant all be successful. and what is success anyway when somebody else is suffering?

maybe homo sapiens richus are more darwinian than i originally thought.

for fucks sake: a little boy—who by no means asked to be born into the shitty circumstances he is most certainly living in—was picking through jefferson streets’ garbage last week.

give me a fucking break.

No comments: