I can foresee that even the title of this offering will
cause some readers to get their hackles up.
Stop thinking! Take a deep
breath. If you take a moment to consider
the authorship you will most probably realize that the content herein is
unlikely to offend any reader, much less offer a cogent debate of what some
consider the definitive question of our very existence. However, to consider the hypothesis offered
here, we must first explore the current state of scientific thought on the
matter.
We all know of Charles Darwin (1809-1882), his voyage on HMS
Beagle (1831-1836) and his
dissertation that turned the world of biological theory on its head, On the Origin of Species (published
November 24, 1859). The meat of the
matter is the role natural selection plays in the diversity of life witnessed
on this planet. In a nutshell: Every
species reproduces as a rate faster than the food supply can support. Therefore, in any reproductive generation,
those individuals best equipped with natural attributes suited to their
environment will live to reproductive age passing on their genetic tendencies
while those less adapted will perish before reaching sexual maturity, causing
their inferior characteristics to be lost.
Other than technical advances in understanding the actual biochemical
mechanics (i.e., DNA mapping, et al) facilitating said reproductive operations,
the theory stands as the hallmark and can be expressed in the aphorism, only the strong survive. While concise, convenient and comfortable,
this statement is belied by even your most casual observation of those humanoid
creatures encountered during your last trip to the mall!
Human failings aside, Darwin’s work is a rather complete
thesis on how we got to where we are now, unless you happen to be standing on a
platform awaiting the arrival of a public transportation vehicle. Then it is my
sad duty to inform you, dear reader, that you belong in the lower half of the
evolutionary population and should just return home, crawl into bed and wait
for starvation to consume you before you procreate. I bought my first car at the age of seventeen
and I was a late bloomer. But I digress.
Darwin’s postulate rests heavily on the presumption that any
species must compete for survival. Yet
as one can deduce from a trip to the mall or a glance at the bus stop as we
cruise by in our privately owned motor vehicle, for humans this is not the
case. We have achieved the ability and
formulated the philosophy to bring every one along, regardless of their
attributes or relative contribution to the advancement of society as a whole.
As with most of my ideas, this one was born while engaged in
an activity not remotely related to the subject at hand. I was eating.
And it occurred to me the assumption of scarce food supplies was the
petard that Darwin would be hoist upon.
We do not compete for food. Our
superior development of agricultural technology has resulted in an ability to
feed the world’s human population many times over. The reason people starve to death in the
modern world is that we cannot efficiently transport the sustenance needed from
where it is produced to where the starving people are. At this point you probably expect me to
deliver a treatise on how to solve this logistics dilemma. If so, you will be disappointed. Those knowing me well realize that my
intellectual capacity falls far short of that challenge. And then there is the more important reason
that frankly, I don’t care. I am more
interested in demonstrating where Darwin got it wrong.
In the dawn of humanity, Homo
sapiens sapiens were foragers. They
lived off the land by means of nomadic wanderings shoving into their mouths
essentially anything that didn’t eat them first; raw meat, insects, low hanging
fruit. Then, on one glorious day some
obscure band leaving no written record of the event stumbled upon a piece of
animal flesh that was being charred by fire, most probably the result of a
lightning strike. It was the
serendipitous discovery of this unlucky eland (I’m guessing, it might have been
a kangaroo rat for all I know) that launched modern man onto his trajectory into
gastro-epicurean sophistication. If man
truly had followed the Darwinian path, his development would have been staid in
that moment. For he had discovered the
perfect cuisine, Bar-b-que!
Imagine the idyllic existence we would enjoy if our day was
devoted to nothing but hunting meat then smoking it to perfection over the
coals of our communal fire: No salad, no lumpy oatmeal, no Brussels sprouts.
But as we know from the anthropological and archeological
record, the ancient bipeds did not stop here.
Cooking, allowing them to eat more and preserve surplus meat, lead to
substantial intellectual advancement.
And from there they progressed to fixed site agriculture and the milling
of grains; bread. While I like a good Bar-b-que brisket sandwich as much as
anyone, we are learning that the gluten in wheat products is likely the cause
for our current obesity epidemic. Have
you ever seen a fat caveman displayed in a natural science museum exhibit?
So, if Darwin’s conclusions had been based on sound science,
man would have stopped evolving when fire charred animal flesh made its way
onto our menu. And there would be no
Souplantations, just Dave’s Famous B-B-Q… unless you felt compelled to stand in
line. Then you would go to Phil’s.
***
This week’s punch line: “Sorry partner, the doctor said
you’re gonna die!”
No comments:
Post a Comment