Monday, February 15, 2010

survival of the fittest as it applies to technogenetics

Nat King Cole trio is fit. It's may as well be live because these cats don't miss a note. They survive.
I'm finishing The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth by E.O. Wilson. It's filling in the gaps in my universal theory of existence.

I've called Steve Jobs a diabolical, evil, cunning, murderous, and reckless programmer of humanity. But maybe I'm being unfair. Maybe he is really a technogenetic stud. That's not a word yet but I want to be the first to define it. Steve Jobs basically is impregnating humanity with his technological genes. He's creating new Apple users...people dependent on Apple. Genes are biological, refined salts to be exact, DNA with inherited traits from parents. Now, the latest development has been a hybrid human with traits from mom and dad and Steve Jobs. The iPad is like a sickle-cell immunity. How has this happened? Technogenetic transpiration, of course. Yup, you heard it here first. Can I fault a man for finding a way to spread his genetic seed over copper wires? Yes, I can, because it is atrocious, abominable, inhuman.

But in the world of biology there is nothing wrong. There is only what is and what is not. Again, we always return to philosophy...and the theory of self determination. Are we subject to the whims of a techno sire like Steve Jobs? Or can we determine our fate, should we determine our fate? This is a topic for another day...maybe a topic for my master's thesis in metaphysics.

Dinner timeline.

By request, here's an illustrated timeline for y'all.

Man, there are some funny and creative blogs out there. One is about spoof emails
that I really found amusing even if the guy probably wrote both parts of the emails.

another one has a photographer setting the timer and running into the frame. It gets creepy after the first ten or twenty pics. I decided it is a psychological test, you interpret the meaning of the pictures as you interpret life. A friend of mine said the pictures felt like he was running from her because he was afraid the pathetic-ness of her life would infect him. I interpreted it as a statement of futility because he would always get captured approximately the same distance from the camera. He could never get away. How do you interpret it?
It's information overload but some things are amusing. I try to keep my head out of the toilet long enough to write an amusing thing once in a while. Blogs really are for photography, but I still feel a complicated novel is the only format for me.
Creative Commons License
Man in the Van by Oggy Bleacher is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.