Time To Evolve!

It's cold here today, and very windy too, gale-force even. Not that you're interested, or would even stop to wonder "Where is here?" I don't mind that you don't care, it's the way of the World. Even if I posted something about terrible atrocities happening, it's still highly likely that you wouldn't care, in fact you'd probably navigate away as quickly as possible. You see terrible things on the televison all the time, and you have become numbed by it. You just can't visualise yourself in the position of the victims of crime and violence.

I say that it's because you're a materialist. Don't deny it? You have loads of stuff you couldn't bear to do without. Yet, for every possession you become insecurely attached too, you lose another piece of your soul. That's my realisation, and if you consider it you too will realise that I'm right! I've thought about the ways in which society has changed, from the times when people trusted each other, left their house doors open, helped their neighbours and friends in a crisis, took an interest in the problems or successes of others. That's all gone. People only care about themselves now. Their nearest and dearest, that's all. The trust is gone, replaced by fear. The caring is gone, replaced by greed, and concern for the affairs of others, has been replaced by a selfish drive to keep up withe the Joneses.

I have seen these things, and I think that mankind has regressed because of it. I really think that it's knocked evolution back a thousand years. How can I say such a thing when we have all these new technologies and science is making tremendous break-throughs. I say so, because humanity can't possibly evolve unless everyone shares common goals. Because we only have individual goals, most of which are misplaced ideals anyway, we're far more likely to destroy ourselves before we ever get a chance to take the next big evolutionary leap, the kind that will allow us to find eternal peace for the human race!

The Path to Greatness!

I'm still reading "The War Of Wars" by Robert Harvey, an excellent overview of the war between Britain and France (1789 - 1815). I've been struck by the author's comparison and contrast of Napoleon and Nelson. With hindsight it's easy to assume that Napoleon was the bad guy and Lord Nelson, the brave hero of the British navy. However, both men were ruthless, reckless, opportunistic and ambitious megalomaniacs. The similarities run much deeper though, both men experienced a sequence of triumphs punctuated by disasters, and both on occasion comtemplated suicide.

Also, both men had a fatalistic outlook, determined that they would not live very long. A result of this may well have been their callous disregard for human life. They both had very troubled love lives; Napoleon was cuckolded by his Josephine, while Nelson openly courted his mistress Emma Hamilton, much to the distress of his wife Fanny, and his family. In terms of ambition and promotion Nelson used the old boy network to smooth his passage to the top. Napoleon on the other hand, had to earn his promotions, coupled with some cunning deceitfulness.

Neslon often fell ill, particularly with bouts of Malaria, and suffered many injuries (blind in one eye, loss of an arm) leading his men valiantly. Napoleon was also injured leading his men into battle, but unlike Nelson, seemed to be impervious to ill-health, striding among plague-ridden soldiers with the firm belief that he was divinely protected. On, the other hand, both men also blighted their careers by committing atrocities, Napoleon at Jaffa, and Nelson at Naples. I could go on, but you probably get the picture by now!

History Is All About Blood!

Terry Pratchett has a point in Hogfather when he says that history is all about blood, don't you think? What's more, that definition can be deduced in several ways;

• History is all about blood-shed
• History is all about bloodlines
• History is all about genetic traits

Which ever way you take it, there is a definite ring of truth. The expression "History goes to the victors!" is one with which I would definitely agree, because it is clear to me that many of our accepted views of historical events are false, precisely because it is the accounts of the victors which we rely on, when events were entirely different to what was actually recorded. For instance, Hitler didn't ensure that accurate records were kept for posterity regarding the genocidal atrocities, which he had ordered. Had he been victorious we might never have known other than in rumour.

Many other historical events follow the pattern whereby there is no external verification of events, such as Tacitus' account of Gnaeus Julius Agricola's defeat of the Picts at the battle of Mons Graupius. Julius Agricola was the father-in-law of Tacitus, so clearly had a vested interest in promoting the achievements of Agricola. It is actually debatable whether the battle even took place, and little evidence to suggest that the Romans managed to cross the River Spey, which presented a formidable barrier, especially if the Picts held the opposite bank. However, Tacitus knew that the Picts could not relate their version of events and so history tells us only what he, Tacitus, had to say.

As far as blood-letting effects history, you might suppose that War can have a positive effect on society because the superior force would win. However, using the First World War as an example, it could be suggested that the War set Britian back hundreds of years, because the majority of its brilliant young minds were needlessly killed. Meanwhile, back on the farm, the half-witted labourers spawned the next generation. A serious setback for the gene pool.

Blood-lines have played a significant part in the history of the UK, for over 1000 years this nation was controlled by an elite, who largely inter-married with each other and held on to titles, vast tracts of land, wealth, and small armies of servants. In this respect, they held what they did by virtue of blood.

How can genetic traits influence the course of history. As an example of how inter-breeding can impact heavily on society, I would highlight the Roman Emperors and the Pharaonic Dynasties. Doubtless, the irrational and often insane behaviour displayed by many of them was a direct consequence of incest. Obviously, I'm focusing on the negative viepoint here, but conversely, a broader gene pool does result in more intelligent offspring. Anyone with a broad spectrum of ancestral origins, I'm sure will quite clearly demonstrate proof of what I'm suggesting!