An Introduction

We seem incapable of grasping infinity, either in time or space. Something, as exists in our universe, was preceded by something else, which in turn followed another thing. The only way to account for something infinite in a plane that experiences such blatant causality, is to imagine something in perpetual motion, where movement is counterbalanced by symmetrical movement, leaving the whole system in a state of equilibrium that we could conceivably label as infinite. This however, does not explain how the movement began.

Whatever this plane of existence is or wherever it derived its energy, it produced our species, in a process that took roughly four billion years. It seems the farther our universe grew from its dramatic birth, the greater chemical complexity it found, as the system cooled and amassed into stellar bodies. New elements appeared, and in intricate combinations, called molecules. Eventually, in an unremarkable corner of the nondescript galaxy we inhabit, a particular combination of molecules became animate, perhaps once or continuously, but nonetheless of great consequence for what would develop there.

These living “cells” grouped together to form bodies, and, guided by the holy tenets of Darwinian evolution, exploded into a vast array of new and wonderful organisms. For many millions of years, they would continue to assume wildly variable forms, leading in no particular direction and for no foreseeable purpose. At long last, a fateful pattern of circumstances would produce something new, an animal that solved problems and selected for intelligence, in a runaway process of encephalization that would yield our species, homo sapiens, capable of hunting, gathering, and contemplating its existence in a computer document.

This is where I begin to have something to say.

To be blunt, I am interested in reproduction. Not necessarily the physical act, where I lack credibility, but the behaviors and calculations that precede it, which consume our existence and provide us with the only purpose we can reasonably account for. Following relatively idyllic childhood years, our species becomes predictable, set on the same path as every other living organism, towards courtship, procreation, raising of offspring, and, if everything goes as planned, allowing them to repeat the process, towards no particular end. Though the outcomes prove unspectacular, the acts of beauty and ingenuity achieved in their pursuit are a marvel to behold, unique on Earth and a true testament to intelligence, admittedly prodded by hormones but often transcending them. Achievement for its own sake, rare as that may be.

Hopefully the ideas expressed on this website are useful, and can aid us in some measurable way. They are concise, to put it kindly, but represent what I am capable of, that being short bursts of inspiration on disconnected subjects. If readers are willing to connect the dots themselves, as I once aspired to, then there may be something meaningful here, besides the underwhelming product of a life poorly spent. Make of them what you want, but keep this writer in mind, as a person who desperately wanted to make a difference but simply lacked ability. These thoughts are my justification for existence, and I hope you will give them consideration.

Intragenerational Evolution

12/11/25

It feels like there might be something useful to say here, though I have been unable to find it to this point.

Evolution has been defined in many ways, but an interesting variant I have been using imagines the process as “the acquisition of traits or characters to most advantageously conform an organism to its environment.” Though the process affects all forms of life, it most often describes sexual species, where new information is acquired each generation through reproduction. Organisms exploit a niche to demonstrate fitness, and a selective decision is made that roughly mixes male and female information to create new variety. This form of evolution may be called intergenerational, as new fitness is acquired between generations.

An alternate form, which I have been so far unable to characterize, but which theoretically should exist, is intragenerational evolution, where an organism acquires fitness within its lifetime that more precisely adapts it to an environment.

In searching for the best way to articulate this concept, I have observed that the process usually scales with intelligence, and could represent a way in which animals use their intellect to target and acquire new varieties of fitness to assist them in navigating both natural and sexual selection. Though most species on this planet evolve solely between generations, the ability to problem-solve allows solutions to be found within them.

These solutions seem to fall neatly within the bounds of “acquired fitness,” a familiar subject at this point. Acquired fitness, which includes the measures of wealth, status and knowledge, also accounts for the concept of culture, and culture duly appears wherever these measures are exploited. Whether appraising language, custom, clothing or any other cultural hallmark, a path may be discerned linking it to some variety of fitness, which means it affects the adaptive process and can be therefore delineated as both evolutionary and intragenerational.

All three forms of acquired fitness can be accumulated within a generation, and can be invaluable in supplementing our genetic fitness. Though an organism might begin its life with only genes, by sexual maturity it may possess a suite of adaptive strategies that fundamentally alter its original reproductive desirability. This flexibility allows for unprecedented variation in strategy and adequately explains the flourishing of culture seen in homo sapiens through recent times.

Another aspect of intragenerational change I would like to address is why it arose. So closely is it linked with intelligence that this would seem an easy answer, though I suspect there is more to it. While intellect allowed us to recognize new opportunities, it may be the reproductive mobility it encouraged which made it so attractive. Mental abilities in general cannot be observed directly, and are poorly understood even in modern times. This ambiguity would theoretically discourage strict reproductive hierarchies, and extend the adaptive flexibility of the species. To again cite myself, it would introduce interpretive error.

An issue that must also be addressed is the reproducibility of intragenerational measures. At birth, all that is guaranteed to be inherited are genes; varieties of acquired fitness may be transmitted, and indeed often are, but must be distinguished from classical, intergenerational evolution, which deals specifically with genes. Though many strategies are demonstrably reproducible, actual genetic information remains the most resilient and potent currency to possess.

This dichotomy informs a new term: genetic conversion, an unnecessary but interesting idea I would like to introduce referring to the imperative to convert intragenerational advantages into intergenerational ones. Though acquired fitness may be passed on, perhaps even reliably, it should remain the objective of biological organisms in general to build and fortify a genetic profile, which may not, with current technology at least, be taken away.

Correlated Success

11/26/25

I have little prepared material for this post, and will just have to see what comes of improvising.

The concept under consideration, what I am calling “correlated success,” is simple, and differs little from content explored in a previous essay. It simply describes whether reproductive success correlates with fitness, either genetic or acquired. An opposing term, “random success,” represents the contrary, where little or no correlation exists between success and quality.

My first observation upon considering these terms, is that random success is most likely in response to some previously unknown or underappreciated selective pressure, and simply marks a lack of understanding. However, the concept does make theoretical sense, and surely a significant portion of success can occur without merit.

The relationship between the terms, both “correlated” and “random,” can be described by a third term, “adaptive ambiguity,” which makes a qualitative assessment of the nature of selection being experienced. Low ambiguity would mark clear adaptation, with high ambiguity signaling a less developed, or understood, adaptive regimen. These terms are especially, and perhaps exclusively, useful in analyzing human evolution, where measures of fitness, the strategies employing them, and sheer volume and diversity of options can lead to higher ambiguity than would be expected by less numerous or flamboyant species.

I feel the key to understanding these different types of success lies in the existing term, “experiential knowledge.” Animals with long life spans, and memories that expand in content and acuity over that time, will have greater opportunity to succeed beyond the limit of their initial genetic confines. While success from this accumulation of experience could represent an underlying measure of quality, perhaps of memory, creativity, work ethic or some other poorly understood attribute of the brain, it seems possible, and perhaps even likely, that success could be discovered and won solely by circumstance. Though an individual would have to demonstrate adequate recognition, recall and ingenuity to convert such an opportunity, a requisite amount of these traits exists in nearly all specimens, and therefore would not represent a competitive advantage. As such, we could conclude that random success is realistic, and perhaps prevalent, and obscures a productive evolutionary agenda, if such a thing exists.

Maintain Metabolism

11/15/25

This will likely be a short essay.

Much of my recent work seems to assume that evolution is directed, not towards any final destination, but in the vague proximity of an organism more finely adapted. Obviously there is no end product, but continuous change does share a trajectory, reacting and conforming as the environment dictates. When that environment is easily described, the pursuit of fitness is obvious and its path well understood.

However, in a more complex environment, like the one modern humans inhabit, this pursuit can become obscured. With so many variables confounding the process of selection, it can seem that so much ambiguity exists as to make the elucidation of direction hopeless, and concession of any evolutionary agenda unavoidable.

This is all to say that I feel I understand now an underlying principle directing all lifeforms. Stipulating life as “the maintenance of structure through metabolism,” an unconventional but broadly inclusive definition, we can easily conclude that the goal of living organisms is to maintain and fortify a metabolism, however simplistic or complex that process may be. Whether unicellular or a homo sapiens, all environmental or reproductive challenges can be anchored to this dictate, that any action taken help to appreciably preserve the metabolic process.

To understand this in a sexual species, the steps are simple. To maintain a metabolism, an organism must avoid any obstruction to the process. Most of these obstructions will invade from, or be in some way affected by, the environment. The organism must therefore adapt to the environment, which can only be achieved through variation. This variation, whether acquired in recombination, mutation or some other process of molecular machinery, must then be perceived and selected by a member of the opposite sex, of whatever species is being scrutinized. Therefore the familiar goal of selecting the optimal variant, a decision wholly determining the success of any sexual being, can be said to conclusively affect a metabolism, whether within a lifetime or between them.

I realize this requires the description of another property that is not as intuitive. Life, though often characterized as a process that starts, stops and restarts with every generation, is more accurately thought of as a transitive phenomenon, where birth and death are simply necessary junctures adapting a continuous flow of unique mass and energy to the circumstances of its existence. Similar to how a computer program endlessly iterates in response to new requirements from its users, reproduction represents an update to a metabolizing body, and senescence the removal of obsolete variants who would otherwise consume resources. Instead of giving us immortal bodies, evolution has given us immortal information, which allows the refreshing body to adapt while unfortunately shedding the unique experiences that define individual lives.

Animal Model

07/05/25

I am not sure if I have enough original thought to justify an essay, but I would like to expand on the “animal model” I have been working through on my phone. With the technicalities of artificial intelligence beyond my capabilities, this thought exercise may be the closest I can come to a useful contribution.

First, I would like to work through some thoughts on consciousness. It seems a subject inadequately explained, and has similarly eluded me. Comparing a system with agency, and therefore clear consciousness, with a passive system like a camera, where information is captured and stored without appraisal, it is clear that the concept is emergent from the processing between capture and storage. To me, it seems characterized by a scrutiny, or evaluation of sensory information, either entering the system or recirculated from memory. If the brain can be defined as a problem-solving system, which broadly describes its evolutionary usefulness, consciousness arises to direct and coordinate the nervous system in solving its problems.

What confuses me is whether the processing underlying consciousness exists independently of information to be processed, or is more like an “on” switch when the nervous system begins collecting and storing said information. It seems to me, when you look at dormant systems, which can be found in sleeping animals or unborn offspring, that consciousness remains. In the latter case, no substantive memories exist to constitute dreams, meaning the system arises and functions in the absence of information. So what is consciousness?

I feel it is important to differentiate the concept from self-awareness. A simple animal, like the one I am modelling, likely has little perspective on what it is or why it does what it does; it is simply a basic system directing all effort and resources towards reproducing itself, with any more complex behaviors emergent from that simple program. Whether this program relates to consciousness, or relies on it to achieve its goals, it would seem that both are fundamental to living organisms and appear very early in their development.

To begin, it is the goal of a simple animal to extend their bloodline. Driven by genetic priority, they seek to mate, raise offspring to maturity, and repeat the process as many times as they can before death. In order to mate, they must avoid death until sexual maturity, and continue to elude it as long as possible. Avoiding death means maintaining preservative function, which means acquiring inputs to maintain a metabolism, and further avoiding any disruption to that metabolism, in the innumerable ways it can occur.

The first means of maintaining preservative function, through acquiring inputs, requires their identification and location. Identification is accomplished through experience, noting an effect in response to an action, and acting accordingly. Once inputs are identified, they must be located. This problem is what the nervous system exists to solve. While different animals have different senses and in different proportions, the easiest to talk about and most effective, from my perspective, is sight. For the sake of simplicity, I will focus solely on vision to describe this animal.

To find inputs, the animal must successfully navigate its environment, which in this case means expending as little effort as possible moving from its starting location to its goal. In order to navigate the environment, it must populate it with physical objects, and react to those objects through either recognition, when they exist wholly in memory, prediction, where exists partial, related information, or investigation when no relevant experience exists. In this way, it establishes an understanding of cause and effect interactions with all notable objects in its environment, and can discern the most efficient way to engage with, or move through them.

Natural Rights

05/12/25

As usual, my essays come with qualifications. Though I feel I have something substantive to say on the subject of government, it could amount to a few sentences or a few paragraphs, and I am not presently sure which is more likely. Hopefully, my comments will be lengthy and worthwhile, but the possibility of being short and uninspired also exists, as it always does.

Human behavior in the absence of government seems like a good place to start. Without laws, conflicts can reach a more permanent resolution, that being death, which becomes the risk inherent in further machinations. As in any environment, our strongest instinct will be to build networks through reciprocal offerings, which offer both safety and the collective power to prevail against other such groups. With the stakes so high, and pathways to success unmetered, the resulting chaos may in fact be more amenable to evolution, with more severe, binary outcomes carving out the gene pool more effectively. Though lives are lost, a subject to which we will return, anarchy as an evolutionary expedient is unmatched by any form of government yet devised, and will likely always retain that benefit against more compassionate systems.

Yet humans often are more compassionate, though the emotion can be difficult to parse from self-interest. Whether realizing the profundity of our unique mental faculties, or just trying to save our own skins, it seems almost instinctual for us to introduce ethical complexities, to wonder whether endless cycles of murder and revenge represent the best quality of life we can hope for. Whatever the reason, we have, in variable environments and across many distinct cultures, attempted to create overarching governments, elucidating shared human rights and the intention to protect them.

It is difficult to reach the base of this subject. It seems, to me, that if some universal rights are to be discerned, we must look beyond what is allowed naturally. Upon birth, we are given only the opportunity to exist for some uncertain amount of time, surviving as long as we are able in a world where every other living thing is trying to do the same. Reproduction is another commonality, but its unequal access serves as the basis for evolution and therefore makes little sense as a right. Moving past these imperatives, to survive and procreate, no obvious candidate presents itself.

In the end, if we account for anything we must account for everything. Deprived of any underlying purpose to our lives, besides the biological ones already discussed, we must allow for the invention of purpose, the generative act of prescribing meaning where none before existed. Therefore, it may be said that all humans have the right to pursue their own purpose, as long as it does not infringe on the right of another to do the same.

This phrasing leaves much to be interpreted, but covers almost all eventualities. In protecting purpose, we protect its many manifestations, most of which are addressed in existing democratic constitutions. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, we protect life, which is a prerequisite for purpose and the currency most often undervalued in the aforementioned anarchic bodies. From this meagre kernel, we can push outwards, with both life and any action we may take within it thoroughly attested for, if not always condoned, and any aspiration to govern given a concise and solid foundation.

Collective Power

04/14/2025

I would like to try this essay again. Medicine is making it hard to think, but I feel it should be possible if taken slowly.

It seems now, more than ever, that I am a literary sprinter, concentrating herculean effort into small spaces, wringing as much meaning as possible from relatively brief passages. This essay will unfortunately be more of the same. Though perhaps easier to consume, I fear this keeps me from more fully exploring my subjects. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to continue, one unsatisfactory portion at a time, unable to pace myself for the required marathon.

To confront our conundrum directly, it seems to be the only purpose of life to continue. There is no final destination, no prescribed time when our journey ends. It simply persists until it can no longer do so, reaching the finality of extinction.

In sexual organisms, continuing means reproduction. We each carry a unique configuration of traits, which we are driven to value, against all reason, and propagate, against all adversity. This singular purpose, to pass on our genes, drives us onward, with success achieved only by those most precisely adapted to the challenge. To more fully understand this process, we must assess the comparative calculations underlying it.

Reproduction means competition, and competition reduces to winners and losers. In their most severe form, winning corresponds to life, and defeat to death. While contests do not always reach such extremes, the threat of permanent removal is implicit and ever present. Though humans have grown much from the time when such contests commonly occurred, all our higher functioning and sociality maintain the potential to resolve to violence when a more cultured resolution is not possible or desirable.

Until relatively recent developments, individual power, most adequately defined as combative ability, was the sole determinant of reproductive success. Members of the same sex competed until a victor was confirmed, by either submission or death, and a hierarchy formed. However, with the emergence of cooperation and increased sociality, potential arose for those with less individual power to outmaneuver stronger specimens through the forging of supportive ties that offered reciprocal benefits. Thus, their collective power overcame individual power to confer a reproductive advantage.

The physical force controlled by any given individual can be determined by the collective power, or combative output, inherent in their social network. Such a network would most accurately be characterized by the cumulative power of individuals within it, and the strength of the bonds between them. In a state of anarchy, these networks freely coalesce and break apart, in constant conflict without formal regulation. Even with primitive government, they remain in flux, only significantly affected in the severity of their confrontations. All human social activity is grounded in the building and maintenance of these networks, with physical force underwriting, if not always deciding, the nature of their contacts.

Something more must be said about types of social networks, as there are two varieties: personal and cultural. The former is sustained by the attraction of an individual, and the latter by shared custom. Both will develop concentrations around influential nodes, but the cultural ones transcend personal fortune and associate with ideas, which are usually more durable through time and circumstance.

Common Phenotypes

03/03/2025

This is intended to be my last entry into this blog, on a topic that has drawn my attention more than any other: genetic fitness. Preceding our modern concept of wealth, the status emergent from our increased sociality and even our foundational use of knowledge, genes and our reaction to them are more deeply embedded in our biological systems than any other physical or mental construct. Our response to genetic quality is immediate and unavoidable and remains stronger than that caused by any form of fitness we may acquire. In this passage, I will try to structure my thinking usefully, as always, and characterize dominant areas of selection in a way that is helpful. Much of my thinking on this subject is brand new, so success is hardly assured.

To me, a phenotype is the outward projection of a genotype, which holds the allelic value of a given genetic locus. Both are physical, but one carries information in the cell nucleus, while the other represents the effect of that information on the body of the organism. The term further subdivides into active and dormant varieties, with the former being currently under selective pressure and the latter not currently under pressure. Realistically, all phenotypes have been active at some point, which is how they reached their present state. The idea of dormancy is therefore akin to that of stabilizing selection, where existing structure and function are maintained until some disequilibrium arises.

There also needs to be some qualification regarding complexity. Simple phenotypes refer to the direct effect of a single locus on the body, while complex phenotypes emerge from the expression of multiple loci. Most structures in the body, if not all of them, will be highly complex, drawing form and function from vast collections of genes, and in turn manipulating them in intricate and meaningful ways. It is important to understand simple phenotypes, which can theoretically be parsed from their conglomerations, but it is most often the complex traits that are being chosen and which therefore drive the evolutionary process.

The rest of this essay will explore some of the active and complex phenotypes being selected for most strongly. These have been chosen based solely on my own observations and should not be mistaken as definitive, or even an attempt to be so. The traits to be examined are as follows: facial attractiveness, body structure, athleticism, external genitalia and mental capacity. Each will be given a brief explanation.

Facial attractiveness is perhaps the most singularly advantageous trait a human may possess, being both highly visible and instantly impactful. It is not entirely understood what makes a face attractive, but all humans know it intuitively when they see it. While some believe it is caused by symmetry, it is more likely emergent from the location of our various features in relation to one another, obviously being more complex in definition than it is in appraisal. Despite this difficulty, the face remains our most potent attractor, greatly affecting how others evaluate and react to us. Indeed, the phenomenon we know as “love at first sight” is almost always caused by our first look at a pretty face.

The structural aspects of our body are also of great importance. In males, greater height is almost universally selected for, being nearly as influential as good looks, and perhaps more so to some selectors. Understanding why can be difficult. Dimorphism in the male sex likely arose as it did in simpler mammalian species, which is through intrasexual competition. Put simply, an animal cannot reproduce if it is not alive, and even though most contests end before death, it is the implicit threat of serious bodily harm that typically gives larger males an advantage. Though our species has largely outgrown overt intrasexual contests over potential mates, or at least those of a physical nature, this relic of our deep history still holds weight in the minds of female selectors, and height remains tremendously beneficial to those who possess it.

To be sure, females also compete vigorously for mates, perhaps even physically sometimes. However, we do not observe the same size advantage in them. The most notable structural aspect of the female body, differing noticeably from males, would likely be the size of their waist and hips, together described by a "hips-to-waist" ratio. This shape, grouped together with a prominent bust, is the basis for the classic “hourglass” figure that males have traditionally found desirable. Perhaps arising in response to the excruciating human birthing process, wider hips, along with the smaller waists that accentuate them, likely confer some advantage in braving that event and therefore have come under selection.

Athleticism deals with the coordination of the body in space. Though dependent on the size and strength of bodily structures, the seat of such processing is the brain, where the body is directed in concert. This trait likely also arose through intrasexual contests, where it was arguably as useful as size in determining winners. It may have held some other utility as well, perhaps in hunting or avoiding predators, when such activities were relevant. While athleticism has been rendered mostly useless in modern society, it can still leave a visceral impression, and seriously sway a reproductive decision.

The external sex organs definitely qualify as our most awkward topic. Whether we are talking about female mammary glands or the male penis, both exist on a spectrum of visual prominence, with bigger usually meaning better. Without delving too deeply into a sensitive subject, both structures seem to have a unique tactile component which, in certain abundance, will significantly affect the sensory experience of intercourse. Our species, more than any other, places elaborate value and meaning in the act of sex, and the ability to perform it well can be of critical importance, at times superseding all other considerations. Needless to say, an excess of either of these traits can be immensely useful.

At last we arrive at our most interesting trait, the human brain. The neural system remains the defining quality of our species and cannot be easily summarized. While zealous effort has been made to objectively systematize and quantify mental abilities, it seems little progress has been made outside the development of the flawed “intelligence quotient.” Abstract qualities like disposition, sense of humor, personality and creativity have largely evaded statistical measure, yet remain fundamental in our search for mates. Despite being invisible and broadly inscrutable, our brains are the center of everything we do and complement our physicality in subtle, yet complex ways, enhancing or diminishing our appeal to potential suitors. Though it may one day be better understood, for now the mind serves as a deep well of potential, unbounded by the structures of physical appeal and allowing any individual to achieve success, if only the right action could be discerned. It is this unpredictability that our species so covets, and which hopefully will never be extinguished.

Abstract Knowledge

02/24/2025

I have low expectations for this entry, but feel obligated to address every type of fitness I have proposed, or at least attempt to. Knowledge, thus confined, is the collective sensory information stored in our bodies, or specifically our brains, which we would ideally apply to our decisions. Its application subdivides it further. While experiential knowledge results from direct exposure to our environment and applies to situations we have encountered, abstract knowledge can be applied to situations we have never come upon, but anticipate as part of a future strategy. Where the experiential variety is inevitable and pervasive, abstract knowledge is targeted, prescriptive of a problem or opportunity which may affect our fitness and therefore our procreative prospects.

It is our ability to internalize and process knowledge that underlies our adaptability and which defines us as a species. Whereas simpler systems must wait for evolution to provide them a solution, we exploit our knowledge to make intragenerational adjustments, conforming to a wide variety of environmental niches within a single lifetime. Our ability and inclination to pursue abstract knowledge, and thereby create a more complex and effective reproductive strategy, is also unique, and at times necessary within the increasingly diverse and competitive human ecosystem.

While the accumulation of knowledge alone rarely leads to reproductive success, it can be invaluable in procuring other forms of fitness, such as wealth and status. Being relatively simple to acquire, knowledge often serves as the foundation on which to build more complex strategies. Its constant supply and processing mean it is amassed without purchase, and used to whatever end, constrained only by ingenuity. From a basic understanding of causation to advanced mathematics, the collection of relevant knowledge is essential to every strategy, and fundamental to the human experience, regardless of what path it takes.

Social Networks

02/18/2025

I would like to return to status. Status, as it exists in social species, refers to standing within a group, and is therefore elucidated by a network.

Some language might be helpful. At the center of every network lies the locus, or the individual whose structure is being evaluated. The locus is connected to other individuals, or nodes, by direct or indirect ties, which characterize the nature of the resulting relationships. All ties can be understood by their investment, or the extent to which one is willing to allow their status to be dependent on another. When a tie contains balanced, reciprocal investment from both individuals, it is bilateral, while ties with unequal investment are unilateral. Further, unilateral ties can be incoming or outgoing depending on the direction of investment in relation to the locus.

Desirable networks will contain a higher density of direct ties, and positive net investment, meaning incoming commitment will outweigh outgoing obligations. This assures the strength and mobility of the network, while limiting exposure to damaged reciprocating nodes. In general, you want to take in more than you pay out, and the basic principle applies here. Put another way, you want others to be dependent on you, and not to be dependent on others.

The quality of nodes in a network is nearly as important as the bonds between them, as strong, bilateral ties with high status individuals will be more valuable than those with lesser individuals. If such quality could be quantified, and it probably cannot, then a social network in general could be described by the cumulative status of its nodes and the strength of the ties between them. Ideal structures would consist of strong, bilateral ties with high status individuals, and an excess of incoming, unilateral ties that provide support without reciprocal attachment. In practice, such networks are usually only attainable by public figures with high visibility, but high status individuals exist in all communities and could conceivably acquire a similar ratio of investment.

Also worth examining are the ties themselves. While bilateral ties are more easily understood, as each party is receiving something, the unilateral variety may require more scrutiny. In these cases, investment is being offered without anything in return, or at least anything obvious. It is possible that when an individual network, and the status of that individual, reach a certain capacity, their personal network functions like a culture, with investors receiving the same benefits they would if they were ascribing to a cultural paradigm, namely the implicit support of other members in matters relating to their shared interest. This alone could be compensating for their imbalanced investment.

Cultures in general are better understood not by what they do, but by who is doing it, at least from a sociological perspective. Humans carefully curate the cultures they associate with, and while an understanding of their reasoning is important, it is not as consequential as the groups that they form, as it is the social support of these groups, rather than their shared cultural traits, that more often motivate us to join them.

As we move away from the locus, our ties become indirect, separated from the center of the network by proxy nodes. Any given node removed from the locus by a proxy is said to have a proxy investment in the locus, which cannot exceed the investment of the proxy and will more often be somewhat diminished, as friends of friends are rarely as committed as closer allies. This diminishing is referred to as dissipation, and the process will continue until investment is insignificant, marking the outer extremities of the network.

Human Environment

02/16/2025

In calling these documents “exercises,” I intend to mark them as workspaces, where I can test new ideas without the pressure of being coherent. Though the first couple came out better than I had hoped, I do not expect them all to be so productive, or accessible. I am quickly approaching the edge of where I feel comfortable, and do not take immediate ownership of what follows, at least in its raw form.

In order to understand the human environment, we must first discern its pressures. Looking at other, less complex species, the primary forces acting on individuals are the need to find sustenance, reproduce and avoid predators while doing those two things. Fortunately, most humans no longer worry about predation, leaving just sustenance and reproduction as our main motivations. In other words, survive and procreate; a familiar theme at this point.

Next we must identify what environmental niches we are being pressured into. Though the collection of money has unified our struggles, the manner in which it is collected is still subject to boundless variation, which makes economic niches the most common and popular opportunities to exploit, as they hold only a marginal correlation with talent and can provide both basic necessities and unprecedented upward mobility. While social circulation has been little discussed in this context, it has serious implications for reproductive fitness and the quality of mates one can expect to attract.

Where we exploit economic niches to build wealth, we can exploit cultural niches to build status. Stipulating culture as “shared patterns of belief, behavior or material across a defined population of individuals,” we inhabit cultural niches and share in their commonalities to enhance our social network, both in the quantity and strength of its ties. It is this network, in breadth and resilience, that defines status, which can be more potent than even material wealth when choosing a mate.

While most opportunities in the human environment will fall into one of these two categories, others should theoretically exist, and we can easily imagine a niche for each type of reproductive fitness, both acquired and genetic. For example, the dedicated accrual of knowledge can improve both status and wealth, while pure genetic ability, in its wild extremes, can be enough to reproduce effectively as well.

Taken altogether, the human evolutionary landscape is unmatched in its diversity and can, at least in a capitalist, democratic form, offer a path forward for almost everyone. Whether you have brains or beauty, are big or small, loud or quiet, or possess only a single redeemable quality in your bloodline, reproductive success is almost always achievable, and the betterment of your gene pool within reach. It may not be the most efficient form of evolution taking place on our planet, but pairs exceedingly well with our modern, enterprising sensibilities.

Survival Strategy

02/15/2025

I am likely going to delete this when I am done, but writing seems to help me think more clearly about things I care about. Most of what I have to say has already been outlined elsewhere, but I am feeling open to reevaluation this morning and want to see if I can produce something useful.

As I have stated previously, all selected phenotypes should hold adaptive or procreative value, though the latter term may be pointless if traits require further utility to exist, which I cannot affirm or refute. For now, I will focus on the category I know is useful, that which contains traits with adaptive value.

As I have detailed, sexual selection overrules environmental selection when the two do not agree, giving primacy of choice to the opposite sex over the environment. However, a specimen must still survive to adulthood and subsist there for a reasonably long time in order to maximize their reproductive potential, requiring interaction with and navigation of an environment, and giving adaptive value to any trait that helps to accomplish this. In more succinct terms, we must survive to reproduce; while only reproduction can vindicate existence, it relies on survival to deliver a specimen, healthy and verile, to a place where it can procreate. Survival and environmental selection are, therefore, still of utmost importance.

There are a few basic forces affecting survival that fall within the scope of this exercise, or within reach of my patience. In no particular order: water, food, shelter and medical attention come to mind. I do not need an exhaustive list, as no further items will change their easiest method of acquisition, which is of course: money.

While I have already lent considerable time to this subject, its place in human society and evolution needs to be restructured. As already mentioned, money has become the default, and in most cases only option when looking to procure what we need to survive. Though much has been made of what it does in great abundance, I have largely ignored its importance to basic survival. Just as survival provides the foundation for other organisms to reach their reproductive potential, money provides our species the same. As wildly divergent survival strategies shape other species, the same complexity has been consolidated in us, with a nearly endless variety of schemes competing over the same resource.

Though I have much decried its importance, money nonetheless serves as the common media of human subsistence, and it is therefore unavoidable to mark its accumulation as the most potent evolutionary force currently acting on humans. Virtually every income-generating niche, from lawyers and accountants, to prostitutes and panhandlers, is filled by someone trying to survive and eventually thrive in their own unique way. This diversity, this radiation, of selfish animals into environmental niches should be exactly the activity that alerts biologists to evolutionary forces at work. While the resulting environment is chaotic, and perhaps removed from the more singular, focused evolutionary programs that simpler species undergo, I believe pressures can be derived from it, and used to track our direction through time and space.

Environmental Selection

02/10/2025

There are a few terms I would like to elaborate on that have been helping me think about the evolutionary process; as always, I apologize if they have already been specified elsewhere.

The first is something I am calling choice matching, in which the selection of a trait in one sex is matched by the selection of a preference for that trait in the opposite sex. I imagine this is intuitive for most biologists, but the term seems helpful, as the two sexes must evolve in tandem for the overall process to work. Additionally, I have been dividing phenotypes into two categories: those with adaptive value and those with procreative value. The latter derives its value necessarily, conferring a reproductive advantage with little or no actual utility, while the former improves fitness in an easily observable or definable way. It is important to note that while all traits with adaptive value should hold procreative value, the opposite will not always be true, a situation that helps explain the baffling proliferation of visual displays seen throughout the animal kingdom, especially in birds, many of which defy obvious justification beyond sexual appeal. In this vein, it seems possible that a trait with little or no adaptive value could, extended initial selection by chance or idiosyncratic preference, be chosen enough times and gain enough selective inertia to become fixed in a species despite offering no real advantage. Whether such a situation is feasible, or if all traits must provide some further utility, I cannot presently say.

On a tangentially related note, I have been struggling to organize my thoughts. It seems, more and more, that selection by the opposite sex will override selection by nature when the two differ. It is not enough to survive the natural gauntlet; if you are not selected by the opposite sex, your genes and any fitness you bear will be lost. As such, it makes sense to mark reproduction as the sole goal of biological life, and the quality and quantity of offspring produced the sole measure of any individual phenotype or collection of phenotypes.

While we are assaulting natural selection, I would also like to challenge the term itself. Though it has worked well to this point, the word "natural" conjures images of pristine forests, full of plants, fungi and wild animals, and implies, whether it intends to or not, that such an environment is where natural selection occurs, divorced entirely from our modern, human reality. However, a cityscape is just as valid an environment for selection to occur in as any forest, desert or ocean, with its own unique pressures pushing its inhabitants in novel and unpredictable directions. Therefore, I think a more useful and accommodating term may be environmental selection, which is not so constrained in connotation and lends credibility to those wishing to study humans in their present circumstances.

Static Tension

01/28/2025

In younger years, I became fixated on an idea I called static tension theory, which sought to explain and predict societal collapse based on the rate at which the upper class was separating itself from the main body of society. Indulging inescapable human ambition, they would continue fortifying their advantage until it became unassailable, effectively removing social mobility and creating an informal aristocracy, violating a founding principle on which democracy and our innate understanding of fairness are built. Social mobility, among other things, recognizes human improvement and rewards quality wherever it is found, whether it is poor or affluent and ideally independent of any biased sociocultural characteristics. My main observation, be it unique or insightful at all, was that societies dispossessed of social mobility were unhappy and, given the opportunity, would remove the offending government and install something new. Of course some governments, which usually have control of a military, can resist their citizens, and indeed many still do, even against deep unpopularity.

However I felt, rather naively, that great social upheaval was predictable and even calculable, though the means for attaining such a statistic escaped me. The answer, if one exists, likely lies in mountains of financial data that I have neither the patience nor ability to analyze. While my own society remains subject to numerous eroding forces that are too complex for me to concion, it is my hope that this division of social classes, which is perhaps underway but not yet mature, will alert citizens to a problem and hopefully elicit some changes that protect social mobility at all costs, for all people.

Interpretive Error

11/24/2024

After much consideration and a revision of earlier ideas, I have decided that human courtship, and most sexual reproduction in general, results from the interplay of many variables, but two especially that I want to focus on: genetic priority and interpretive error. The first of these, genetic priority, refers to the unavoidable instinct of all sexual organisms to prioritize their own reproductive ambitions above the genetic health of their species. While this may seem entirely detrimental to wider populations, it allows new templates to arise in rapidly changing environments, where established measures of dominance may fail; competitive indifference, though perhaps admirable, would be unhelpful in filling such voids. Though this aspect of existence seems straightforward, particularly in simpler species, it is less obvious in humans, who conceivably possess the mental capacity to override such behavior. Yet so strong is the reproductive urge that even the most woefully unfit specimens are compelled to compete until formally eliminated by selection.

The second term, interpretive error, refers to the inevitable deviation in selective standards from a theoretical, perfect evaluation of the environment. Though most ecosystems prove too complex to analyze with much accuracy, there should be, hypothetically, a flawless interpretation of such systems and the traits needed to succeed in them. It is our divergence from this mark that causes human breeding to behave the way it does, with almost all selecting individuals arriving at novel conclusions, providing opportunity to all possible templates and justifying genetic priority as an innate quality. While widespread misunderstanding may seem difficult to describe as an asset, humanity concedes a perfect, static reproductive process for one that is dynamic and highly adaptable. Though many selecting individuals may miss a theoretical target, the broad diversity in selecting criteria makes up for in adaptability what it lacks in accuracy, useful in a fluid and highly variable environment.

Minimal Correlation

11/10/2024

One thing that interests me about the human species, more than any other aspect, is our unprecedented variety of successful reproductive strategies. Most animals select for physical traits, detectable to their various senses, and indicative of the underlying genes that encode for them. In social species, status becomes relevant, often correlated with, but ultimately independent of genetic quality. Yet with the development of material goods and money to standardize their exchange, humans created competitive opportunities that would diversify, and potentially dilute, traditional measures of fitness and alter their evolutionary path irreversibly.

The greatest value of money in modern society is its flexibility. It can provide necessities, needed to start and sustain a family, or luxury goods to serve as status symbols. In a world where almost everything has a price, nearly every set of personal needs or reproductive criteria can be met by, or foregone for money. Therefore, anyone capable of making it in large amounts virtually guarantees some form of procreative success.

However, it is exactly this versatility that undermines more established standards of quality, familiar characteristics like facial attractiveness, height, athleticism and intelligence, among many others. While such traits prove invaluable in the pursuit of money, and maintain strong associations with it, they do not assure wealth beyond doubt. As money has no discerning control center, it may be collected by anyone, in whatever amount possible, and by any conceivable means. While most financially successful individuals can boast at least some measure of genetic quality, it is not required, with traits like knowledge, experience and luck being just as likely to produce wealth as those embedded in our cells.

There is not necessarily a problem with any of this. However, in a world with success occurring in every possible direction, one can be forgiven for feeling that human evolution may have lost its way. Probably the closest thing to a unifying predictor of financial success is intelligence, or more broadly mental capacity, and even that is littered with exceptions built on luck and circumstance. Where survival and propagation once depended on the information residing in our genes, it is now also determined by money, whose acquisition is nearly unbounded, limited only negligibly by human creativity and resourcefulness.

To be clear, I have no problem with variation in competitive strategies. The human ecosystem is notoriously difficult to assess and traverse, and should allow innumerable combinations of traits to succeed. However, I believe such traits should be genetic. Though a connection clearly exists between financial and genetic value, as mentioned above, it is a tenuous one, with fortune nearly as likely as fitness to yield wealth. While the predominance of money as a facilitating media has done much good for our economy and society, neither it, nor any other form of acquired fitness, should supplant or replace genes as the primary determiner of reproductive value.

Inherited Wealth

12/21/2023

While a mild contradiction to my last document, I feel I must address the problem of money. Though likely originating with a more humble goal, money seems to have become the most universal and popular measure of human success. Obviously everyone has their own way of evaluating attractiveness, but there is little doubt the facility that money can have when making a reproductive decision.

The main problem this raises is something I have addressed previously but want to say explicitly now: people who attain great physical wealth will often not translate their success into procreation, relatively at least. Again, everyone is different and it would be foolish to draw an unqualified connection from wealth to overall reproductive value; but there is likely some correlation, enough to elicit some concern at the aforementioned trend. In order for Darwinian evolution to work properly, those of the highest reproductive fitness need to propagate at a higher rate, in order for their genes to gradually spread across a population. Even with the environmental pressures I outlined in the previous document, its hard to argue that human evolution is moving as efficiently as it could be, to say the least.

Assuming, for the sake of this explanation, that the wealthiest among us also represent the greatest reproductive value. What keeps them from having large families, if indeed they do not?

I have said it before, but each individual human does not consider in their calculations the overall evolutionary health of their species. We are, deep inside us, driven towards selfishness and competition, a mindset that is required when determining the best of us and therefore adapting us to our environment.

In wealthy individuals though, the math has changed. To any person who accrues great wealth, it must seem obvious that not only their offspring, but relations for many generations to come, can greatly increase their reproductive fitness with the assets their forebears accumulated. In order to insure the greatest amount of aid to as many generations as possible, it seems logical to divide a fortune among as few inheritors as they can, therefore assuring the survival of the bloodline for a much longer time.

So while such a consolidation of wealth can protect and nourish a bloodline for many generations, it comes at the expense of the species as a whole, who are less likely to see those genes proliferate as if the family had been larger.

All of this is assuming, once again, a connection between money and reproductive fitness, which may be tangential, at best.

(I should mention that I have no data or statistics to support my claim that wealthy families reproduce less; its an idea I must have picked up at some point, but I cannot remember where. I apologize if it is inaccurate.)

Cultural Niches

12/21/2023

I prefer typing to writing, and need to get some things out of my head. If my screen is visible to anyone other than me, please ignore this and accept my apologies, as my computer would be private if it were up to me.

The last time I typed anything out on here, it was due to a tedious misunderstanding over “sexual selection” in humans. One of the things I talked about was an implied similarity between social niches and actual ecological niches that drive evolution. It seems an easy connection to make, and must not be new or exciting, but I feel the need to demonstrate, in writing, that the two are different.

The way humans create and inhabit different cultures and countercultures bears an uncanny similarity to the way animal species inhabit evolutionary niches, and can seemingly play a role in determining reproductive fitness if the resulting ecosystem is navigated advantageously. The obvious difference between the two situations, and my only real reason for creating this document, is that classic evolution can modify genes in drastic and surprising ways, whereas the human experience seems to be a collection of nebulous, intragenerational adaptations that only really affect the intelligence of the species in any long-term, evolutionary direction. With few exceptions, the groups and networks we affix ourselves to require both intelligence and a keen understanding of risk to evaluate, and it is indeed these two qualities that I feel are being selected for most in modern humans.

In short, I feel we are growing more intelligent, and are employing a wide variety of reciprocal strategies to achieve the most benefit from our relationships and cultural associations.

(After thinking about it a bit, I feel it is also the monetary environment, in addition to the purely cultural one, that resembles a natural ecosystem, with nearly every potential income-generating niche filled by someone. It should be, most accurately, a blend of multiple measures that completes a reproductive profile, but I am struck by how much more variation there seems to be in wealth acquisition over other forms of fitness.)

Competitive Interactions

03/15/2022

As I stated previously in an attempt to detail this behavior, I believe nearly all human interactions are competitive ones, no matter how innocent they may seem. While some of the calculations posited above can become fixed in our minds with experience, therefore removing the need for their renewed computation with every interaction, I firmly believe that the structure shown here represents an accurate, if meticulous, unfolding of a novel, competitive interaction in a social species.

What follows is an explanation of the above chart. When the "source" meets the "target," a calculation is made by the former of the latter's reproductive fitness, and noted in relation to the fitness of the source. Once this calculation is complete, a population of possible actions is made, spanning a continuum of both "positive" and "negative" reciprocal responses. Every feasible action is then assessed of both its "risk" and possible "reward," measured here by either a rise or fall in reproductive fitness. Once an action is chosen, an outcome is experienced as a change to overall fitness, and committed to memory where it may inform future interactions.

I believe it is vital to understand the role intelligence plays in these calculations. A smarter individual will more accurately judge the fitness of those they encounter, envision a greater number and variety of possible actions, and assess such actions of their consequences more quickly and constructively than the average person. This inevitably leads to more graceful and effective social navigation.

Risk tolerance is of great importance as well. While not all interactions allow such tolerance to be tested, those inclined to make riskier choices can reap great rewards if and when they are able to discern a suitable opportunity. Indeed, if a gamble is made with intense reflection and precision, the yield can be extraordinary, and even unattainable to those committed to a more risk-averse life. If taken indiscriminately though, risky actions are rarely rewarded.

Its also crucial to note that these calculations are being made by all parties to a social interaction and not just the individual here designated as the “source.” Additionally, given the constant shifting of relevant variables, this progression of computations will likely be repeated many times within a single interaction.

I would also like to say a few words about the calculation of “fitness.” After several failed attempts to examine the concept on a more detailed level, I have decided that such a granular appraisal probably only complicates what most people understand intuitively, and will instead leave this far simpler diagram to sum up my perspective. The initial digression separates “genetic” and “acquired” assets, the first type being inherited upon conception and the second collected over the course of a lifetime, and further subdivides into their currencies. While some may be partial to one or two of these currencies, an abundance of any of them can significantly boost reproductive desirability, greatly impacting the way others evaluate and respond to us in competitive interactions.

Genetic Priority

11/19/2019

At this point, I am trying to think of a way to set up the next essay, which I want to be on the subject of power. However, it seems to me that power dynamics only exist due to two concepts that I would like to explore briefly. First off, genes are not visible and therefore the interpretation of genetic quality is imperfect and subjective. It is this subjectivity, which I am going to call “interpretive error” (yes, its terrible; I will probably change it later), that allows organisms to compete with one another. If our interpretation of our environment was perfect, and knowledge of our genes perfect, and assuming that the specimen making the selection is choosing a mate rationally, then there should be no room for competition. There would be a clear victor, with subordinate specimens lining up behind him or her, who would then mate with the victor of the opposite sex, and mating would occur in a relatively orderly manner. As dystopian as this sounds, it is nonetheless interesting, if not desirable.

The other concept I would like to address is the inherent selfishness of the individual organism. Based purely on my own observations, humans are not designed to do what is in the best interest of our species; even if ceding a potential mate to a superior competitor would potentially benefit the species, we do not seem to be programmed to recognize this benefit. I am going to call this concept, “genetic priority.” As always, I am sure someone has already come up with a far better way to explain these ideas; at this point, these essays are simply a personal exercise.