They’re changing traits that cannot be passed on genetically – if anything it’s social evolution enforcing a change in the traits of every new citizen of the society. You might not be born with blue hair but if society says blue hair is required you’ll get it later.
Movie stars get a lot of plastic surgery hoping to become more successful, but it’s success in society not success as an organism. It’s not like Madonna is birthing a child for every $100,000 she accumulates to pass on her genes more effectively. She’s gathering money to have money and when she dies she’ll have been less genetically successful than a Basque peasant with ten kids.
How do our circumstances differ from those before us? People cite “new technologies” or “globalism,” when those ideas have been analyzed since, at least, the early 1900s. Their categorization proves their antiquity. Growing up means we learn to play the game better, but when we lose, we say the rules have changed.
Also, Madonna’s trying to save Malawi or something. Does she help a global ecology?
The blue hair thing.. They may be changing traits that aren’t passed on genetically, but they do this as a result of a genetic trait. People who avoid trends don’t mix their genes with those who do; as a result, divergent species emerge. Ostracized people are eventually eradicated from the planet. :(
Or due to the “new technology”, ostracized people are better able to search and be found. They can commiserate instantly, celebrate their anomaly, populate a society of their creation. Draw others in who wouldn’t entertain their eccentricities without the safety of numbers. The bleeding together of first world cultures ensures an ever broadening pool of shared familiarity, if not experience. Maybe you got beat up (alot) for being the only kid in school with blue hair. But there’s probably someone somewhere who would love it.
A person’s legacy used to be their progeny. Success was finding the fittest mate, being able to feed largest number of puppies, protecting the herd. Success was genetic success. That changed as society grew more complex. Success moved from genetics to nobility to celebrity.
In our sphere, any idiot can (and frequently does) breed. Day care, wellfare, grandparents who lived well enough, long enough to be able to “take the kids for the weekend”. There’s minimal notoriety in simply raising a child. People don’t watch that on TV, track the stats in the newspaper. No one gets a Grammy for teaching their 2 year old to share. Madonna might not have ten kids of her own womb, but do you know the name of that Basque peasant? You want to live forever? You have to light up the sky with your name.
Notable exceptions:
Paris Hilton. Renowned for doing fuckall.
The Octo-mom. Found fame solely for her ability to produce young. However, she arguably altered her body chemistry and function to do this.
well, it wouldn’t make sense for the limit to be shorter than the number cat and girl used on this page. dorothy is wordy sometimes. probably as a joke. i think it’s great.
One can live by their values and still have a miserable life. And they can point to their adherence to their values as a form of success. So yeah, sure.
February 5, 2009
Maybe altering oneself is an effort at continued evolution? Our circumstances are changing faster than anything our ancestors had to deal with.
February 9, 2009
They’re changing traits that cannot be passed on genetically – if anything it’s social evolution enforcing a change in the traits of every new citizen of the society. You might not be born with blue hair but if society says blue hair is required you’ll get it later.
Movie stars get a lot of plastic surgery hoping to become more successful, but it’s success in society not success as an organism. It’s not like Madonna is birthing a child for every $100,000 she accumulates to pass on her genes more effectively. She’s gathering money to have money and when she dies she’ll have been less genetically successful than a Basque peasant with ten kids.
April 27, 2009
How do our circumstances differ from those before us? People cite “new technologies” or “globalism,” when those ideas have been analyzed since, at least, the early 1900s. Their categorization proves their antiquity. Growing up means we learn to play the game better, but when we lose, we say the rules have changed.
Also, Madonna’s trying to save Malawi or something. Does she help a global ecology?
The blue hair thing.. They may be changing traits that aren’t passed on genetically, but they do this as a result of a genetic trait. People who avoid trends don’t mix their genes with those who do; as a result, divergent species emerge. Ostracized people are eventually eradicated from the planet. :(
May 17, 2009
Or due to the “new technology”, ostracized people are better able to search and be found. They can commiserate instantly, celebrate their anomaly, populate a society of their creation. Draw others in who wouldn’t entertain their eccentricities without the safety of numbers. The bleeding together of first world cultures ensures an ever broadening pool of shared familiarity, if not experience. Maybe you got beat up (alot) for being the only kid in school with blue hair. But there’s probably someone somewhere who would love it.
A person’s legacy used to be their progeny. Success was finding the fittest mate, being able to feed largest number of puppies, protecting the herd. Success was genetic success. That changed as society grew more complex. Success moved from genetics to nobility to celebrity.
In our sphere, any idiot can (and frequently does) breed. Day care, wellfare, grandparents who lived well enough, long enough to be able to “take the kids for the weekend”. There’s minimal notoriety in simply raising a child. People don’t watch that on TV, track the stats in the newspaper. No one gets a Grammy for teaching their 2 year old to share. Madonna might not have ten kids of her own womb, but do you know the name of that Basque peasant? You want to live forever? You have to light up the sky with your name.
Notable exceptions:
Paris Hilton. Renowned for doing fuckall.
The Octo-mom. Found fame solely for her ability to produce young. However, she arguably altered her body chemistry and function to do this.
May 17, 2009
I wonder if Dorothy ever considered a more restrictive character limit.
I wonder of she will now.
May 24, 2009
well, it wouldn’t make sense for the limit to be shorter than the number cat and girl used on this page. dorothy is wordy sometimes. probably as a joke. i think it’s great.
January 2, 2010
I like how everyone commenting here seems to assume that there is now, or has ever been, a single quantifiable definition of success.
Living things are not inherently better than non-living things. Rather, our thinking places value on life over non-life.
If someone lives according to what they value, then surely they know success.
February 17, 2017
One can live by their values and still have a miserable life. And they can point to their adherence to their values as a form of success. So yeah, sure.