Intelleckual Wank, ah Reckon

Just in case anybody was wondering, I did attempt to write a post this week. I spent all this time trying to formulate a post explaining my PhD work, which I hoped would be accessible to most people, who, wisely, wouldn't normally spend too much time thinking about about such things. The result was a bit of a wank. I decided at the last moment (actually a little after I'd published it) that I had an ethical responsibility to spare you all and retract it. Still, it seemed a shame to waste - so here it is again, slightly altered after the suggestions made by the rednecks at a site I discover on my internet travels. I'm sure it'll make about as much sense...

Ah said in an earlier post thet th' focus of mah PhD was evolushunary ethics, in particular biological altruism, namely th' evolushun of agin'. When ah say agin' ah mean - death by internal cuzs. Thar is argoomnts which pursue th' line thet agin' is a by-produck, i.e., an inevitable part of livin'. E.g, acco'din' t' th' code o' th' heells! like a car, o' enny other mechanical device, which is created an' inevitably deterio'ates wif age. But o'ganisms, unlike cars, is subjeck t'continuous flux of material, cells is continuously dyin' an' bein' replaced, like a starfish which will grow back a sevahed arm, we is livin'! Fry mah hide! Thar is menny examples of o'ganisms fo' which agin' death is like programmed se'f destruckshun (i.e. an adappashun, by which ah mean, a chareeckeristic which sarves an evolushunary benefit). It is mah projeck t'attempp t'explain whut postible benefit thar c'd be t'agin' an' how it'd manifess itse'f.

Consider this: it is obvious thet thar kin be no benefit t'th' indivijool who dies of old age, as they will no longer be aroun' t'see, an' receive, th' consequences. Thus, an adappive agin''d seem t'be th' ultimate negashun of thet fine known adage "survival of th' fittest", thet is, until we reviset whut is meant by th' fittess - in particular cornsider th' quesshun "th' fittess whut?". Th' obvious interpretashun of "survival of th' fittest" is t'reckon in terms of th' indivijool - th' strongest, most ruthless, se'fish indivijool - "nature, red in tooth an' claw". Although, this hyar is an undeniably strong facko' in evolushun, sech a simplistic view leads t'th' abho'rent politics an' ethics of th' Social Darwinites. ah hark on th' title of a popular book by Richard Dawkins called "Th' Se'fish June", which I'd highly recommend eff'n yo' haf even th' slightess interess in th' topic. Th' concepp of th' se'fish june points out thet th' units of seleckshun is not th' indivijool o'ganisms, which is merely tempo'ary vessels, but th' junes themselves, which is eternal, ah reckon. Dawkins insists on th' inclushun of th' wo'd "se'fish" in his title, holdin' thet evolushun still, essentially, favours th' se'fish, jest at a diffrunt level. Th' concepp of th' june transcends th' indivijool an' spills into, obviously, close relatives who share a common ancesto' (an' hence th' same junes) an', less obviously, by extenshun, th' group/species. Thus, our agin' june, which c'd haf no benefit t'th' indivijool, kin still benefit th' replicashuns of itse'f in neighbours.

Th' challenge now is t'dexcribe a benefit which c'd outweigh th' costs - sumpin I've got a few answers to. In all cases, agin' benefits th' populashun by makin' room fo' th' yo'ng, which c'd be useful fo' various reasons which ah won't hoof it into at th' moment.

Eff'n one wanted t'a take a particularly pervahse view on this, one c'd argue fo' th' ethical killin' of old varmints (Soylent Green is PEOPLE! Fry mah hide!), in th' name of progress. ah varmintally'd rather use it t'find peace in mah mo'tality. Regardless, ah reckon it is interestin' t'note th' amount of attenshun our society gives t'agin'. Consider th' market fo' anti-agin' producks - cornsider th' promise of eternal life, common t'th' majo'ity of religions.