Monday, November 24, 2008

When the World Ends.


He had always liked gloomy weather. The slow, soft feel it gave him. The nature of an overcast day, and the sweet melancholy it caused to move through him. The subtly self reflecting thoughts that would surround and cocoon him, while he strove to create something new and beautiful with his mind. As he worked on his creation, he whistled a slow tune. He recalled the times spent with her, when he'd banter - the slow exposure of intelligence, a kind of mating dance that moved through little words and silent smiles the other could not see, across a distance.

He loved working with his hands. The exertion generally gave him cause to know that something had been made, some part of him had been put into that which he had created. The way a person felt about something that was created from a scratch would never be completely understood or appreciated by anyone but a creator such as he was. The beauty he saw in the patterns, in the colour, in the swirls of his paint across his canvas showed him the grace and beauty of nature's creation that could only be truly appreciated by art - turned inside out, so the very essence of the world and its contents could be appreciated within.

A true artist can often be told by something as small as his ability to get his hands dirty. Newcomers will always hesitate to have paint on their fingers. They would be scared of the feeling, the sticky feeling of their medium on their hands. The amount you have on you can tell an observer how comfortable you are doing what you're doing. Artists will have gifted fingers, and more often than not they shall be covered in the mark of their art - clay, paint, stone dust ...

He smiled as he noted his own hands covered to his wrist in colour. While this might bother others, he was happy to feel his sticky hands. He was certain that this was the purpose, the understanding, the bonding of an artist with his medium. The complete rapture of not shaping, but knowing the shape the object wants to take. Of being a facilitator in bringing the vision that is communicated to your mind. It was nearly spiritual, as he was certain that there was an idea out there, just looking for a place to emerge into the world of the real. He loved being the vehicle for the idea.

He was certain that he was appreciated and understood, and that his works were the way things should be. He didn't think of this as hubris or excessive pride; while there was little he knew about political science, he found it amusing that he agreed with both Karl Marx and Ayn Rand when they spoke of pride in the creation of something. Of course, as in all things, creative minds can make new conclusions from the same starting point. He started as all artists did - with an empty space in which to put his creation. He looked at the roof of his small home, and saw how it was filled with his art, and it always pleased him. In this secluded part of the city, he could spend his time here blissfully imbibing the feel of the weather, and not be worried about sounds or any human presence.

He felt unique in what he did. He cherished the happiness he was certain he brought to everyone, since he was certain that since everyone lived miserable lives, art was the vehicle of relief for them. He sought to make a triumphant vision of the perfection of the human form, of freedom from all that in life that binds, that limits. He tapped into the ultimate freedom that has been given - the potential that is hardwired into each of us at birth. He tried to show how perfection was found in the way nature formed and nurtured the human body.

The processes that deluded millions into belief in God, when it was merely natural selection. God was in the little details - in the microbes, in the harsh world that shaped the way we would be born, and how we would die, and how we would live. He paid obeisance to the forces that moved our life. He liked to think of himself as a force, as was everyone with the control of anything. He just wished, sometimes, that he could completely control his reactions. But then, wasn't there humanity in the absence of control? In the lack of perfection? How could perfection be defined, unless it was in the absence of something?

Evolution, like everything, sows the seed for its own survival. Time carries on, as a concept we like to measure by ephemeral temporal phenomenon. And the human body is like a singular bright spark, before it vanishes into nothing. He hoped to bring that to life, by trying to put into pictures his thoughts on the frailty of the human body. For if nothing was done to deal with that which the human body could not cope with, another creature would soon superscede human will and thought. The dependence upon implements created through human ingenuity not attuned to making humankind more comforted as opposed to disposed towards survival, as well as the propensity to create destruction in unimaginable scales.

As he thought this, he saw the smoke trails in the sky, and he knew the end had come.
-----------------------------------------

Food.
Hunger.
Movement - trace sensations. Vibrations in the air - movement. Hide. HIDE.
Food. Move swiftly.
Reached food. Consume. Who knows when it would come next?
Run away. Extreme heat. Discomfort. Hot air moving away at swift speeds. Scuttle away.
Safety.
Darkness.

And so the meek, shall inherit the Earth. The small creatures we dismiss as irrelevant. The ones we do everything to get rid of, but make it their sole purpose to live. Civilized, or otherwise.

For evolution doesn't care much about intelligence. It cares about survival.

6 comments:

Recher_she said...

Wonderfully put. But intelligence aids survival, and ergo evolution supports the intelligent.

But of course, the end you contemplate has nothing to do with evolution. Just a demented self-destruction that makes for, well, UNnatural selection.

Vipul Nanda said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Vipul Nanda said...

Intelligence, and the role it plays in survival notwithstanding, is not the primary attribute that promotes the evolution of a species. Survival, is. In humankind, intelligence is the means to both our survival and perhaps, our destruction.

If our intelligence leads to our destruction, does that not add, as opposed to take away from, how natural such an end is? I think that if mankind manages to end itself, that's a strong case for evolution to move into insects - the most common animal forms of life, with the greatest ability to survive and adapt.

Recher_she said...

Intelligence is an adjunct to survival, yes. "Aids". Like I said, previously.

As for the human race changing the census of species on the planet, possibly even its own, that is not relevant to evolution in the true sense of the term. Your ideas portray a change in the biota of the planet, and not evolution of the species. How can a species evolve if it has been wiped out? Evolution is of a species.

Evolution in the true sense of the term is based on heritable traits. If it isn't in your genes, it can't contribute to evolution. The drastic self-destruction of humans and subsequent domination of insects or some such, are examples population drifts. Predominantly human biota changes to predominantly insect biota. That isn't evolution. If we changed from what we are, genetically, to a different species, that would be evolution.

Where your idea of humans playing an active role in evolution via destruction of their own kind has some merit is genetic drift. That is simply the change in the number of individuals possessing a certain kind of traits. For example, if a 50:50 brown:green eyed population becomes a 20:80 because of any of the random reasons (including self-destruction) you can think of, it's called genetic drift.

Evolution doesn't only arise from natural selection, it also does due to genetic drift. Frequencies of a particular trait in the population can change randomly to sometimes, but rarely cause evolution of a species.

Now, if the human race were to self-destruct entirely, there would be no drift because there is no population and there is no natural selection involved as I've pointed out earlier.

No natural selection and no genetic drift would mean no evolution.

Coming back to where your idea of us playing a role in evolution has merit: We would be one of the forces causing genetic drift. We could randomly wipe out sections of our population also wiping out variations from our gene pool (set of all variations of all genes/traits in a population). The forces of natural selection will have a different effect on the population if the genetic drift is significant enough.

Vipul Nanda said...

Evolution is of a species, yes. But it is a force/factor that causes change in the biota of a planet. Certain species destroy other species, thus ensuring their survival (or sometimes just for the heck of it) affecting evolution. Not causing evolution, as such, but affecting it.

I just conceived of this scenario out of the idea that the complete destruction of ours, or nearly all other species would be an event that would affect our evolution. Perhaps I was looking for the word 'biota'; but you cannot deny that the term evolution has a lot more, well, zing to it. And it isn't entirely inapplicable.

For instance, would it not be some extreme form of genetic drift such that only one set of human DNA survived, with thus there being only a single set of traits, or perhaps two (accounting for recessive genes) because of some massive eugenics program?

Would it not be too much of a stretch if, then, if there was a virus that was lethal especially for this set of characteristics, and thus the human race ended?

Or ... well, imagine that ... no, I just have an awesome idea to write another story on the same theme. :-)

Recher_she said...

It would be too much of a stretch, requiring Heart if Gold type Improbability Fields. You must understand that genetic drift is very, very randomly affected and only changes over thousands of years can cause speciation, and thus your "zing"y evolution (If words were thrown in where they didn't belong just because they sounded nice, the world would be a scary place to live in). In fact, genetic drift is so inconsquential in terms of evolution that people like Dawkins consider it to have a very minor role to play in evolution.

And I really wish you hadn't slipped out that "awesome idea". I'd still like to see it though, Mr. Not-so-scientific-artistic-license-holder.