Report 12a: Other interesting species

The dominant species on Planet X is, like us, exoskeletal in structure, with a strong centralized information/analytic core operating over numerous individual foraging operative units, again like our own configuration.  This should not be surprising, as all of our projections have strongly suggested that this is optimal for species to progress intellectually.  This species, or more accurately, array of species, in the native taxonomy, is designated Blatta or Blatella, colloquially cockroach.

However, there are several other life structures more or less successful on the planet, most of them part of the Blattoid survival system, but still of interest in their own right.  The closely associated Homo genus is particularly fascinating, as it has developed a kind of neuronal autonomy, all while fulfilling its primary function as Blattoid food aggregator.  This neatly illustrates the principal of progress within dominance driving progress among subordinates as well.  The benefits trickle down, as it were.

This group is a part of a large subgroup of life that has internalized skeletal structures, strange as it may seem that such an adaptation could survive the rigors of planetary change.  No doubt it was successful only due to its usefulness to the more abundant exoskeletal populations.  The internalization process appears to have been more general as well, since most species live outside the protective and nourishing saline water environment; they have evolved a means of carrying these essentials within them.  Not terribly efficient, one might argue, but there they are.  Indeed, the Blattoids themselves largely live outside water, as well.

Homo is a very homogeneous genus, having survived a major killing episode some 2,000 generations earlier as a single breeding population, or at most 2-3 such populations in close contact.  The only extant species is the sapiens sapiens variety, others having died out.  As a result of the extremely short breeding history since geographic expansion, they are a remarkably uniform species genetically, differing only by tenths of a percent.  Nevertheless, much appears to be made of such trivial differences as can be identified, perhaps as a mechanism to evolve to accommodate diverse Blattoid species;  more study is required, since this tendency is dysfunctional.

Perhaps the most curious attribute of Homo is the complete decentralization of species intelligence.  Instead, each individual carries its own ideational complex built upon a central nervous system; so specific is this center, that if the head, where it is located, is removed, the individual immediately shuts down, and is therefor incapable of fulfilling its role in the species from that instant.

The explanation, of course, of such an unlikely array of evolutionary elements is in the role of Homo in service to Blattoids.  Such extreme self-containment suddenly makes sense when seen as a response to the diverse situations in which roach populations find themselves; with primary food aggregators able to act spontaneously and autonomously to procure proper Blattoid habitats, any unforeseen problems can be easily averted.

The committee hopes  this study will be helpful in making full contact with the dominant intelligent species on planet X; it may well be simplest to proceed through the intermediation of their Homo servants, as unpalatable as that may seem.  Actually, though, they may be quite palatable, once their usefulness to us is ended.

What blurb is this?

My imaginary fan keeps insisting on more how-to posts, hence this, on how to interpret book blurbs.

On the back of every book* you will find helpful comments and short reviews of the contents, so you can make a wiser decision whether to read it or not.  My investigative unit, however, has discovered that these reviews are not always what they seem.  For example, sometimes quotes are shortened, and meanings can be subtly changed by elision.  Here are some comments overheard at a local Starbucks; see if you can pick out what parts might end up as book blurbs:

“That book was horrible.  I’d rather be riveting my eyeballs shut than read it again.”

“I’ll say, I couldn’t put it down fast enough when I tried to read it!”

“If I were a real barn burner, I’d throw that book in with it.”

Another Tolstoy, he ain’t!”

If you don’t read another book this year, it’ll be because you read this one.”
______________________________________________________________________
*An ancient medium consisting of bits of paper and ink bound together.

How to build a fire

The woods around Frankfurt am Main, Germany, in the late 60s were scrupulously maintained by a cadre of forstmeisters.  Deadfall was cleared promptly, and cords of firewood kept at intervals along the well-groomed paths.  This was to be used elsewhere; open fires in these woods were strictly prohibited.  Germany, like all of Europe, was well trodden through centuries of settlement and resettlement, and Mother Nature was more a well kept mistress than a matriarch.

But this was, after all, the late 60s, and certain paths through certain quarters were undeclared free zones, and the minions of the psychedelic diaspora ran unfettered there.  In one such area, we maintained a kind of salon-in-the-wildwood, with a commandeered military shelter overlooking a campfire that was more or less permanently smoldering.  That fire saw faces and feet, new and familiar, come and go through many nights.  Tall tales, laughter, music, and in one case, an improvised artistic stick-throwing contest, filled those days and nights like the billowing cannabis smoke pouring from the tent.  It was, as I believe I’ve mentioned, the late 60s.

On one particular sodden day, after a solid week of rain, a friend, call him Chuck, and I arrived with the idea of cheering things up with a nice, cozy fire.  After a half hour of rummaging through the surrounding woods, we managed to collect a halfway decent pile of not-so-wet wood.  For kindling, there was always sufficient litter in the tent, partly collected for that purpose, partly the natural detritus of exuberantly youthful living.

So we began.  First, a crumpled piece of paper, with informally piled twigs atop, failed to catch.  Then Chuck suggested a teepee.

“What?”  I said, “You mean the tent?”   Chuck snorted and rolled his eyes.

“No, it’s a Boy Scout thing.  You stack small firewood in a kind of pyramid, then light it.”

“You were in the Boy Scouts?”

The teepee, too, smoldered hopelessly, as another friend, Herbie, arrived, surveyed the situation, and declared the obvious solution.

“You need a log cabin.”  Great, I thought, we’re going to run through the entire history of architecture here.

Nevertheless, what we were doing wasn’t working, so we carefully laid small sticks, of a size precisely to Herbie’s specifications, and stuffed paper from the dwindling supply into the ground floor.  The lighting ceremony was accompanied by the lighting of a large joint Chuck had been preparing.  All went marvelously well.

Except for the part involving the campfire.  It produced lots of smoke, but not much else.  Herbie declared all was going according to plan, that the wood just needed to dry out a bit.  Chuck pointed out the fire had been planned for that day, and not the next.  Chuck and I laughed uproariously.  Herbie grunted and stuffed the last remaining kindling into the structure.  We watched as the fire blazed up, consumed the dry paper like it was … dry paper, then died back to a dull occasional flicker.

Jens arrived.  Jens was from Antwerp, and as far as any of us could figure, had been on the road since shortly after birth.

“What’s happening?” he said.  From anyone else, this was a standard hippie greeting, the equivalent of a grunt of acknowledgment.  From Jens, it was a reasonable question.

“Trying to build a fire,” I offered, “but it’s just too wet.”  Gloom.

Jens looked at the pathetic little pile of semi-charred sticks, and, without a word, turned and walked away.  Just not willing to sit in the damp woods without a fire, I thought.

We continued our discussion of what to do next, whether the attempt was even worth continuing, when he returned.  He was dragging a sodden-looking, moss-covered log, about a foot in diameter and roughly five feet long, which he promptly dropped squarely on top of the remains of our fire building exercise.  A few halfhearted sparks flew out in protest.  A collective groan arose to compete with them.

“Jesus, Jens, thanks a hell of a lot!”  Herbie said.  He had still not used up the last of his theories in defense of the log cabin method.  Jens shrugged and sat down to join us.

We moped in silence for a good ten minutes, until the first flames began licking up the sides of the log.  In a few more minutes, the fire was roaring away; I was dumbfounded.  I looked at Jens with incredulity.

“What?”  he said.

IMG

“Jens,” not his real name

Faith alone

Recently, a blogger whose views I usually respect wrote a piece about Easter, lamenting that people just don’t believe in anything these days.  There were  lot of comments; mine was the only one that disagreed with the writer’s premise.  I’d like to go further, and examine the widely held notion that faith, in and of itself, is a great and wondrous thing, without which we would soon founder.

You hear this a lot, accompanied by a lot of sage nodding, amening, and otherwise approving responses.  Faith supposedly saves us from all manner of barbarism we would otherwise inflict on one another.  I don’t see any evidence for it, period.  It wasn’t 19 atheists who flew their hijacked airplanes into public buildings full of innocent people on September 11, 2001.  It wasn’t in the name of evolution that the Tsarnaev brothers blew up the Boston Marathon.  Down through history, you will find almost no atrocities perpetrated upon innocent victims by people who lacked faith, even the Nazi and Communist atrocities arguably fall in the category of faith despite lack of a supernatural power.  Where is there a single shred, the merest mote, of evidence that our hearts’ desire is to maim and persecute, and that we would cheerfully indulge ourselves were it not for faith?  I’ll grant you that we seem to torment each other with glee when it is to our perceived benefit, but belief in a higher cause only seems to confer a sanctity to it.  I’m reminded of Himmler’s famous admonition to the SS that while it may be emotionally difficult to slaughter Jews, one must grit one’s teeth and do it for the greater good of humanity.  He was only echoing Torquemada and all the other grand inquisitors since time immemorial.

And isn’t it more than a bit disingenuous to profess respect for all people of faith, when almost all religious faiths stipulate that those who believe differently will suffer an eternity of anguish?  Think about it.  You believe that if I have a different faith than yours,  after a few years of life on earth, I will suffer incomprehensible torment, not for a few millennia, but for all eternity.  Because you believe your God is perfectly just and merciful, you also believe I deserve every bit of it.  Yet you insist you respect me, and my faith.  Now that’s a Mystery!

Still, you might say, a person needs something to believe in, if not a religion, then at least a coherent set of principles.  That’s certainly an interesting assertion; it’s not clear what it actually means.  Will just anything do?  The ancient Assyrians believed their god Assur commanded them to conquer and humiliate as many people as possible as brutally as possible.  Very clear and consistent; their inscriptions brag about the heaps of flayed enemy youth left at the gates of conquered cities, and the rape and enslavement of the women and children.  Men of strong faith, all, not an atheist among them.

mesopo63

Victory stele of Naram-Sin

But wait, don’t faith and religion do a lot of good?  Yes, some do.  And some do a lot of evil.  Essentially, it’s a wash, so what’s the point of lamenting a lack of it?  The biggest irony of all, of course, is that far from suffering from a dearth of faith in these particular times, we seem to be positively deluged with it.  Religion is everywhere, and New Age faux religions seem to flow endlessly from an inexhaustible source.  Ideology has become a way of life even in this most pragmatic of nations.

A crisis of faith?  I’ll say.  We’re drowning in it.

Religion

Religion is a mode of thinking in which someone’s repeated assertions that he is the son of man can be taken as proof that he is the son of God.