Ambitious Temptation

We are ambitious creatures always influenced by victory. The simple fact of winning is probably our biggest accompishment in this society. Although, some people are more ambitious than others and they have no limits when victory is set as their main target.

Prinoner's Dilemma is an excelent potrayal of two types of  people: the ambitious and the altruistic ones. The game consists of two players. There are five rounds where each player decides either to cooperate or to defect. When both players cooperate each other, both win 300 points. When one defects and the other one cooperates, the one that defects ends up winning 500 points and the one that cooperated wins none. Finally, when both defect each other, no one wins points.

At the  end of each round, the ambitious and the altruistic players are evident. In my case, I felt really disappointed because my partner betrayed me. We both agreed to cooperate each other every single time, and I trusted him. After three rounds of cooperating each other, he defected me in the fourth one. This is very interesting because I thought of defecting him that same round, but I changed my mind because I thought he was going to keep his word. Unfortunately, he broke our agreement to benefit himself. At the last round, we both defected each other. He knew I was going to defect him because he noticed I was very mad. It is important to analyze Connor's ambitious temptation. We both felt tempted to defect each other, but Connor's temptation was more intense and he just went for it. I think we were both altruistic at first, but at the last two rounds, neither of us trusted each other. After the game, Connor told me defected me because he thought I was going to defect him. If this is true, this means that Connor didn't defect me in order to gain more points, but because he trusted in his instincts.

"If we translate the colloquial meaning of "nice guy" into Darwinism equivalent, a nice guy is an individual that assists other members of its species, at its own expense, to pass its genes on to the next generation. Nice guys, then, seem bound to decrease in numbers: niceness dies a Darwinism death." (202) In this case, I was the nice guy who lost (died). For me, this model is very coherent because it portrays the different interactions between certain kinds of people, which are actually true. My defeat actually portrays my personality. I obviously didn't want to lose, neither did I want Connor to lose. When I promise something I keep my word. This is exactly what happened in the game until Connor broke the agreement.

Sadly, I am the nice guy, caring of my own species. The bad part is that most people aren't nice people and they only care about themselves. In this world, I am the one who loses.

Understanding Selfish Herds

Throughout chapter ten, Dawkins talks about the selfish-herd model. He states that in this model, there is no place for cooperative interactions. "There is no altruism here, only selfish exploitation by each individual on every other individual. But in real live there are cases where individuals seem to take active steps to preserve fellow members of the groups from the predators." (168) This is very true, every survival machine considers their live before others'. Although, when important members are at risk, this is when the survival machine takes active action in protecting this member. You might be asking yourself what I mean by important. By this I mean that the member might be significant to the herd either by their impressive abilities or because it might be attached to the actual survival machine.

A horse herd portrays the relations between people very easily. I've had the opportunity to be part of a project that involves equine assisted learning with horses. Horses for men have being of great benefit in understanding various psychological aspects. Horses and humans are both really social creatures. They have certain roles in the herd, they are gregarious, which means that they prefer to be in groups than alone. In the other hand, they all have different attitudes and personalities. All of these aspects offer us the opportunity to observe and evaluate the similarities of their behavior with the one of people. There are certain activities performed with large groups of people.

Equine Assisted Learning

Every member in a group has it's role: there is a contributor of ideas, a leader, an opinion-giver, and an energizer. Once, we assisted an activity with the workers of Sony in order to understand the group interaction and situation. The activity consisted of making three horses jump a 30 cm. obstacle without a bridal nor a lead rope. It was quite difficult because the horses were very stubborn. At this moment of difficulty, the different roles of these people were evident. A lady who really feared horses was very nervous and disrupted the whole activity. At this point, the group leader scolded her and the other ones didn't say a word. Here we can interpret the herd model on this group very easily. This woman lacked the qualities to perform the activity actively efficient, which leaded to her exclusion of the group. This happens in animals as well, if one of the members of the herd is not efficient, then it won't matter if a predator eats him because he is not relevant to the herd.

Claus's Loss

There is another really important situation among horse herds. When they are young, they tend to get attached to other horses. This is similar to the attachment children feel for their mothers when they are young. This was the situation between my horse and another one in the herd. When my horse died, he felt very afflicted and we wouldn't interact with other horses nor would he eat. This proved to me that animals actually have a feeling sadness, that when one of their most loved friends or relatives dies, they feel and understand the loss. Up to now, Dawkins hasn't touched the topic about animal feeling, but I guess he would contradict my theory because he thinks survival machines only act with response of their selfish genes. In this case, my horse actually felt the loss of his friend. What I think is that the selfish gene exists, but it is not always present. It is only present in drastic situations, where it is either ones life or the others.'

Another very good example of the selfish-herd model are the insects. "A social insect colony is a huge family, usually all descended from the same mother. The workers, who seldom or never reproduce themselves, are often divided into a number of distinct castes, including small workers, large workers, soldiers, and highly specialized castles like the honey pots." (172) I wish this was our case, but unfortunately we have a different idea of progress. These insects are very altruistic and they cooperate together for the progress of all. In ant societies, there are no leaders. These creatures actually share their learning, which they acquire threw their antenna. As a result, thousands of ants act together with the same idea of surviving together.

Sexual Evolution

Dawkins suggests that all survival machines strive to maximize the number of genes by having sexual intercourse. Isn't it quite odd to mix ones genes with another person's? Every time a couple has a child, their genes are being thrown away, and replaced on their new creation: the child. Isn't it our main purpose in life to reproduce and to form a family? What about homosexuals? Are they some kind of mutation or what?

"What is the good of sex? Sex appears paradoxical because it is an 'inefficient' way for an individual to propagate her genes: each child has only 50 per cent of the individual's genes, the other 50 per cent being provided by the sexual partner. If only, like a greenfly, she would bud-off children who were exact replicas of herself, she would pass 100 per cent of her genes on to the next generation in the body of every child." (43) Our existence is just so perfect, so exact and beautiful. It is amazing to me that our "survival machines" are so perfectly designed to have exactly half of the genes of each parent.

Even though our existence really amuses me, some things seem confusing, such as the existence of homosexuality. It is a very controversial topic with so many theories and assumptions. I personally see it as good thing because it depreciates the amount of over population all over the world. What is worrying to me, are the many homeless mothers with five or six children on the street. This is quite ironic because nowadays the typical middle class family has around two or three children per household. Instead, these poor mothers have over five children living on the street. Why do they decide to have so many children, knowing that they won't have a home and that their dreams and aspirations will just vanish because of their situation.

Our species is probably the most promiscuous on earth, we breed and have sex more than others. Religion is also a very important part of this concept of breeding and eventually forming a family. This idea encourages couples to have more children. Fortunately, this idea is not as present today because we have evolved as a society. My mother has three brothers and two sisters, which was actually not much at the time. Nowadays, that would be a really extensive family. There is a very famous quote that states that "if a man can't look after his family, he is repugnant to the eyes of the lord." This shows that long ago, at the beginning of the 20th century, there was no tolerance with birth control.

If we analyze various historical events that happened during this time, we can see that the ones who suffered the most were the children. The irish famine, the great american depression are just some events that children had to face, due to the fact that no condoms, nor birth control pills existed. This is also seen today. It is actually very present in Bogota with the displaced people who are kicked out from their homeland by Las FARC. They come to the Bogota with their five or six children and start begging on the streets hoping that some day things will be better, but unfortunately they won't. These people also intend to have children even while they live this misery. They probably have them in order to collect more money or to have company as well. This is where altruism takes place. Are these mothers really having their children to offer them a healthy environment or are they having them just to improve their own survival by making them beg for money?

"If sexual, as opposed to non-sexual, reproduction benefits a gene for sexual reproduction, that is a sufficient explanation for the existence of sexual reproduction. Whether or not it benefits all the rest of an individual's genes is comparatively irrelevant. Seen from the selfish gene's point of view, sex is not so bizarre after all." (44) I do not think sex is bizarre, what is strange to me is the concept that has been created about sex. This goes back to my argument about homosexuals. Religion also opposes homosexuality because this means that they are not forming the "traditional family."

I believe sex is simply a feeling of human nature, no matter if it is attraction between men or women or opposite sex. It is simply a feeling of pleasure and satisfaction for every survival machine. The decision of having a baby depends on the couple, no one else should ever make part of this decision.

"To be or not to be"

Polo and Khan start doubting wether their reality is actually true. They start thinking that they are fictitious characters and that the actual reality is what they build up inside of their minds. At this point, I felt like Polo and Khan were referring to my reality. In the other hand, their hypothesis is basically saying that they are Gods who create a world where everything revolves around their imagination and their creations.

Polo starts the dialogue by saying "Perhaps the terraces of this garden overlook only the lake of our mind." (117) Then Khan responds "And however far our troubled enterprises as warriors and merchants may take us, we both harbor within ourselves this silent shade, this conversation of pauses, this everything that is always the same." (117) If they can't even assimilate their reality, this means that they are simply lost in their own existence. Their reality is so plain, but at the same time so ingenious. This ingenuity only happens inside their heads, while their actual life is not more than a misery.

Then Polo talks about another theory. "Unless the opposite hypothesis is correct: that those who strive in camps and ports exist only because we two think of them, here, enclosed among these bamboo hedges, motionless since time began." (117) Here comes the idea of a powerful mind, where they build these idea that they can create a world only by imagining it. How egocentric can they be to consider such a thing? They are basically saying that they are the chiefs of the world and that they decide what to do with the lives of everyone.

Finally, they both reject this hypothesis and conclude that they are the ones who exist. Khan says: "We have proved that if we were here, we would not be." (118) Then Polo concludes: "And here, in fact, we are." (118) This reminds me to Shakespeare's poem "To be or not to be."

The poem says:

" To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep
No more; and by sleep, to say we end
the heart-ache, and the thousand Natural shocks
that flesh is heir to?"

When we think further, we start questioning our own existence. What is really the essence of our existence, do we really understand our presence? Are we conscious of it?
In this case, Polo and Khan don't know if they really are or if they are not. Both o these characters seem to have a subconscious mind, making them even more realistic to the reader. In Hamlet, the character questions whether it is better "to be, or not to be, which implicates his own suicide. He is doubting wether to kill himself or not. In this case, Polo and Khan are doubting wether their reality is true or false.

Idealized Venice

Marco Polo has mentioned all the good qualities of the cities he has visited, but Khan insists that there just can't be such perfect cities. Polo insists that it is not worth talking about the negative aspects of these cities, since no city is perfect. At this point, we can see that Polo opposes pessimism. With Polo as a friend, Khan will probably begin to change his mentality and he will start to be more optimistic about his empire. Remember, I'm just foreshadowing about the text, this doesn't mean that this will eventually happen.

Polo says to Khan: "Every time I describe a city I am saying something about Venice." (87) Khan doesn't seem to understand his intentions and responds furiously: "When I ask you about other cities, I want to hear about them. And about Venice, when I ask you about Venice." (87) By Khan's reaction, we can see that he is too literal and he doesn't understand the real meaning of what Polo is trying to say. Marco Polo is doing a compilation of all the good qualities of these imaginary cities. In the other hand, it is very important to take into account what Polo avoids mentioning the negative aspects of each city because it doesn't help at all, it simply makes people more selfish and pessimistic. This situation portrays Khan's empire because he only looks towards the dark side and the negative aspects of an empire. Khan doesn't strive to make his empire a better place for everyone, instead he dreams of finding the ideal city, which is Venice.

There is a point in the book where Polo states that he is being sarcastic when talks about the good qualities of these cities. Khan does not understand his sarcasm, which makes his interpretation of these cities totally opposite to Polo's.

"The empire is being crushed by its own weight," Kublai thinks, and his dream now cities light as kites appear, pierced cities like laces, cities transparent as mosquito netting, cities like leaves veins, cities linked like a hand's palm, filigree cities to be seen through their opaque and fictitious thickness" (78)
At this point, I finally understood the meaning of the title "Invisible Cities." All the cities mentioned by Polo do not exist, they are just dreams and aspirations. They are "transparent as mosquito netting" because they are impossible to reach and to live in.

Polo's sarcasm and the way he portrays this cities proves that our society is a total failure. Khan is a perfect representation of naivety. He thinks that the ideal city is one with and ideal economy and wealth for the whole community, but is this really what life is about? Isn't life about humor, about making fun of our reality like Polo does?  It is difficult to change our reality, but it helps if we make fun of it instead of lamenting it all the time.

Objection: Penates & Lares

This topic goes back to my first blog about Invisible Cities, where I mention the tension between the poor and the rich. There are two interpretations: Either the rich or the poor can be "Penates" or the "Lares." Calvino portrays the tension between these two social classes in the city of Leandra.

"The true essence of Leandra is the subject of endless debate. The Penates believe that they are the city's soul, even if they arrived last year; and they believe they take Leandra with them when they emigrate. The Lares consider the Penates temporary guests, importunate, intrusive; the real Leandra is theirs, which gives form to all it contains, the Leandra that was there before all the upstars arrived and that will remain after all have gone away. (79)  Both the elite and the working class se each other as intruders, which doesen't make sense at all because they both work together for the wealth of the "whole community." But is that wealth distributed fairly? This is where power takes place, giving the elite class the most privileges in society. The elite class sees the lower class as intruders because they have different hair cuts, fashion style and language. This are all material things that separate these two classes. From the point of view of the lower class, they also see the elites as intruders because they are the ones responsible for their misery.

FAIR?

"The two species have this in common: whatever happens in the family and in the city, they will always criticize." (79) This is very true, we are very demanding with certain things that we want in life. As I mentioned in my last blog, we have too high expectations. The rich will always criticize the manners of the poor and the poor of the rich.
"The Penates bring our the old people, the great-grandparents, the great-aunts, the family of the past; the Lares talk about the environment before it was ruined. But this does not mean they live only on memories; they daydream of the careers the children will follow when they grow up (the Penates), or what this house in the neighborhood might become (the Lares) if it were in good hands." (79) The Penates have the status they have because of their past relatives, not because of their accomplishments in life. In the other hand, the Lares critique the system of society they have created in order to benefit themselves. The Penates parents dreams of the future of their sons, of their status and most importantly; their fortune. Instead, the Lares day dreams of what their lives was if these leaders (Penates) would take their future into account when managing the money of the country.

I strongly believe in social equality. I don't think that the ones who have had rich relatives from the past deserve all the power and fortune unless they have done something for the progress of everyone. The Lares deserve so much more, sadly most of them are the ones that really struggle for accomplishing their dreams, not having a penny. If you think about it, it is ironic in a sense because the rich should be the leaders, almost like Gods for the whole community. Unfortunately, this is not true and fortune makes them ambitious and self- conscious. This attitude has made the poor self-conscious as well. As a result, both attitudes make of our society a very competitive one.

Polo's Elemental Cities

It is important to know about the historical background of the characters in the story because it helps us understand Calvino's ideas in a more complex way. In Invisible Cities, Calvino explains Marco Polo's and Kublai Khan's relationship during the Middle Ages.

Marco Polo

Marco Polo was a very important Venetian merchant who worked for the Mongol Prince, Kublai Khan. He received him with all his family. The prince felt really impressed by their knowledge and intelligence of the world, reason by which he kept them for various years. This is just basic information that is important to know when reading the book.                 I remember the first time we read it and no one really understood the first chapter that mentioned these two people. Now that I know what was their relationship was, now everything makes sense.

Polo travels to these "Invisible Cities" and comes back to the Empire to tell the prince about his discoveries and interpretations about each city. Since Polo describes him so many cities, his interpretations vary. "Kublai Khan had noticed that Marco Polo's cities resembled one another, as if the passage from one to another involved not a journey, but a change of elements." (43) There's two really important things about this quote: First, the way Polo describes the cities, and second the similarities all of these cities have in common. With Polo's factual descriptions, Khan feels that he is not hearing a journey of experiences, but of information. With so many descriptions about elements and objects, Khan mixes up all of these descriptions among these cities. 

Kublai Khan

"But what enhanced  for Kublai every event or piece of news reported by his inarticulate informer was the space that remained around it, a void not filled with words. The descriptions of the cities Marco Polo visited had this virtue: you could wonder through them in thought, become lost, stop and enjoy the cool air, or run off." (38) Off course this is not a virtue, the narrator is just making fun of Polo's inarticulate descriptions. Something really important as well is understanding the humor used behind the text. If we as readers, understand this humor, the purpose of the book is even more clear and evident.

"As time went by, words began to replace objects and gestures in Marco's tales: first examinations, isolated nouns, dry verbs, then phrases, ramified and leafy discourses, metaphors and tropes. The foreigner had learned to speak the emperor's language or the emperor to understand the language of the foreigner." (38) Although Polo's descriptions are not as deep, Khan gets used to them. This is a very good example of our culture. We adapt to things that are impossible not to get used to. This is the case of many foreigners that come to Colombia, leaving back their old ideas replacing them by new ones. In most cases, foreigners adapt to the country, but in others they don't. I've seen a lot of foreign students from the school that still haven't adapted to our culture. Instead, in the case of many American teachers from school, I can see that it is easier for them to adapt to the country because they chose to start a new life here.

Polo's and Khan's relationship is still evolving, they are understanding each other better and they are getting used to each other. We know that they both interpret the cities in different ways, but we still have to see what they will finally conclude of all these cities. Do they all share a similar concept? Are they divided among desires and aversion? All of these questions will have their answer as soon as we finish reading this book.