RoR: Forum

this is a very clever poem, and it shows the dangers of collectivism quite well. I will, however, note at this point that lemmings do not actually follow eachother off cliffs-- this is a factually incorrect cultural myth.

Post 1

Sunday, May 9, 2004 - 12:55pm

I like the concept. Your rhyming is impeccable, but I think the meter could be cleaned up a bit. Great work, Gennady!

Raven

Post 2

Sunday, May 9, 2004 - 8:26am

Very well done. In addition to a quite aesthetically pleasing poem, it also captures the spirit of conformity in today's society and it's obvious result. In the words of Emerson, an individual who, like his more admirable colleague Thoreau, had brilliant logic though with deeply faulty conclusions (similar to Marx in some areas of that comparison), "Who so would be a man must be a nonconformist." The idiocy required to become one with the multitude will lead oneself to be thrown off the metaphorical cliff of living life by the stampede of general society.

Post 3

Monday, May 10, 2004 - 2:02pm

I really liked that poem; great message... But I do agree that the rhythm could be cleaned up a bit.

And also, if you add in a memorizable chorus, you could make this into one helluva song for radio.

Did I mention that I'm a singer?

Post 4

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 1:52pm

Greetings.

Thank you, everyone, for your comments.

Orion Reasoner,

Since you are a singer, can you suggest as to what lines/passages in the poem most interfere with the rhythm, in your judgment?

Your suggestion for a song is indeed interesting; I will consider what a proper chorus for such a song would be. By the way, what genre of song do you prefer to sing, and what types of instruments do you favor in the melody?

Mr. Bisno,

The suicidal behavior of the lemmings is a myth? What, in your knowledge, are the "facts," then? I would be interested in your elaboration.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 5

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 6:53pm

Mr Stolyarov:

"What, in your�knowledge, are the "facts," then?"

to my knowledge, they will mass migrate, and they will follow eachother around, but there is no actual mass suicide of any sort under usual circumstances. from what I understand, the origins of this myth can be traced back to a nature documentary film team which provoked the line of lemmings into jumping off of cliffs.

http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm

Post 6

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 7:20pm

To add to Robert's explanation, I've read in the past that lemmings are quite able to swim, and can cross fairly sizeable bodies of water. Normally when they migrate they just go straight across bodies of water they run into, usually successfully. I've read that they are especially good swimmers. Occasionally they run into a body of water so big that they don't make it, and thus the legend.

http://www.fascinatingearth.com/The%20Unsuicidal%20Lemming.htm

The Disney stunt isn't cited as the origin of the myth, but of a contributor to it. The suicidal tendencies was a myth before that, and they just tried to show it on film.

Post 7

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 10:33pm

Nice poem. I like the imagery. Here's one I wrote.

The American

Deed for deed shall I return,

Justice here does rule the day.

Seek from me but what you earn -

Shop here sir? Then you must pay.

For I, like you, do dream and strive.

I, too, rejoice when I sail the sea.

�Tis not for your sake that I�m alive -

Though it benefits you, I work for me.

For I�ve a life as good as yours,

And equal rights before the law!

I am the pilgrim to these shores

Who fled the slaver fascist�s jaw -

The Nazi camp, the five-year plan,

The �will of all�, the king�s decree.

But here the chains �round the workingman

Were removed for the first time in history.

Then naught must you demand of me,

For I live in the land of liberty,

With property safe and rights secure -

These United States shall forever endure.

� 2003 Marty Lewinter, www.campuspatriot.com

Post 8

Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 5:05pm

The lemming story was believed for many years because of a false understanding of evolution. It was thought that when food was short, the adults would throw themselves into the ocean in order to leave more for the young. This was believed to be for the good of the species vs. other species.

In real Darwinian theory, individuals inherit traits from ancestors who were successful in passing on those traits. Thus, they tend to act to preserve themselves and their bloodlines vs. individuals with other bloodlines of whatever species. So what they gain from leaving behind more food for their own offspring is more than lost by foregoing the creation of future offspring, plus whatever assistance they could give to their existing offspring should they themselves remain alive.

So a proper understanding of the theory makes one skeptical of the claim, which has in fact been debunked. (The claim that exclusive homosexuality could have a genetic cause is another one that the theory similarly makes implausible. If someone inherited that trait, whom did he inherit it from?)

The idea that evolution works for the benefit of the entire species is probably an artifact derived from residual Christianity, buttressed in later years by Marxism or other crudely collectivist doctrines.

Good poem, though.

-Bill

Post 9

Friday, May 14, 2004 - 12:23am

Homosexuality could - and all available evidence suggests that it does - have a genetic cause, and not violate natural selection. Many medical problems and diseases have genetic causes, and they have not yet been selected out. If William's understanding of evolution was correct, none of these diseases, like cystic fibrosis, would exist. Genes are not perfect and many mistakes occur, with varying seriousness of the consequences. It is perfectly possible that homosexuality is one of the less serious, and more common, genetic malfunctions.
Another point is that instances of homosexuality are known in almost all mammals - it can hardly be considered unnatural.

Post 10

Friday, May 14, 2004 - 6:54am

Philip, William,

Can you tell me what is the basis of this assertion: Homosexuality could - and all available evidence suggests that it does - have a genetic cause, and not violate natural selection.

If there were such evidence, it would make headlines worldwide, I suspect. If you have citations for such evidence, which are actually evidence and not just the opinions of some self-styled "expert" psychologists, I would be interested in them.

Many medical problems and diseases have genetic causes, and they have not yet been selected out. If William's understanding of evolution was correct, none of these diseases, like cystic fibrosis, would exist. Genes are not perfect and many mistakes occur, with varying seriousness of the consequences. It is perfectly possible that homosexuality is one of the less serious, and more common, genetic malfunctions.

William's understanding of natural selection is correct. The genetic source of some diseases does not contradict his argument. Some genetic diseases, such as sickle-cell anemia, are actually survival based. Other genetic related diseases do not affect survival or reproduction. Homosexuality would not be just another example of genetic anomaly, since it is specifically related to reproduction. A genetic trait can only be "passed on" if there are offspring to whom it is passed on. Consistent homosexuality precludes this. (Inconsistent homosexuality precludes it being genetic. It is then just a behavioral anomaly like may others in the animal world.)

Another point is that instances of homosexuality are known in almost all mammals - it can hardly be considered unnatural.

I do not see how this relates to the natural selection question. It appears to suggest that what is natural is also normal. Nature and genetics are both responsible for most abnormalities in the both the physical and behavioral aspects of non-human organisms. Genetics also is responsible for many human physical abnormalities, but the suggestion that human behavior is determined by genetics flies in the face of the Objectivist view that human behavior is not determined by anything, genetic or otherwise, because human beings are volitional creatures whose behavior is chosen, not determined.

Regi

Post 11

Friday, May 14, 2004 - 8:11am

G. Stolyarov,

Thanks for asking...

Now, after reading your poem, the groups that leap right out to me, in terms of their clear lyrics and beautiful illustrations of the sorts of concepts that you're trying to convey, are...

Is anybody on the same page with me here?

Because I'd be surprised to see how many people are thinking old school groups like The Police and Pink Floyd, and newer groups like say Offspring.

I try to be very, very attentive to the quality of lyrics, and the groups that I tend to love the most have always had those excellent lyrics.

To give you some idea, go pick up a copy of the song "Synchronicity II" by The Police, and Listen to the Album "The Wall" by Pink Floyd.

I think your lyrics express those same sorts of sentiments.

After you've listened to them, tell me what you think.

O.

Post 12

Friday, May 14, 2004 - 10:45am

Regi: If there were such evidence, it would make headlines worldwide, I suspect. If you have citations for such evidence, which are actually evidence and not just the opinions of some self-styled "expert" psychologists, I would be interested in them.

Certainly. Why not start with twin studies - if twins are significantly more likely to share sexual orientation compared to their non-twin siblings, or an adopted sibling, then that narrows down the influences to either in utero, or genetics. And if identical twins are more likely than fraternal twins, then that confirms that genetics is a major factor.

Lets look at the studies. Bailey and Pillard (1991), to begin with. A sample size of 161 male homosexuals, all with either a twin or an adoptive brother. 52% of identical twins were also homosexual, compared to 22% of fraternal twins. And to confirm a genetic basis, just 11% of adoptive brothers shared sexual orientation.

Bailey and Benishay (1993) reproduced the study with female homosexuals, with very similar results (48% of identical twins sharing sexual orientation). Bailey also checked the Australian Twin Registry, with over 5000 participants, which confirmed his findings.

These studies are not new - Kallman over 50 years ago, in 1952, found that 100% of male homosexuals with identical twins, had twins who were also homosexual. The sample size was 37.

Another interesting study is "A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men", by Simon LeVay (1991). The main finding, relating to a part of the brain involved in the regulation of male-typical sexual behaviour: "INAH 3 was more than twice as large in the heterosexual men as in the women. It was also, however, more than twice as large in the heterosexual men as in the homosexual men. This finding indicates that INAH is dimorphic with sexual orientation, at least in men, and suggests that sexual orientation has a biological substrate."

Simon LeVay also has a web page which examines various theories (biological and non-psychological), and other studies, into homosexuality.
http://members.aol.com/slevay/page22.html

Of course, the twin-studies above show that homosexuality is at most 50% determined by genes. But still, it shows that it is a biological phenomenon. Genes are complex, and interact with the environment and organism in varying and unpredictable ways.

Post 13

Friday, May 14, 2004 - 10:50am

Philip,

Of course I didn't mean to criticize anyone or anyone's orientation by writing that example.

Regi's example of sickle cell anemia is a good one. In modern societies where malaria is rare, the sickling allele (version) of the gene that governs that aspect of red blood cell structure is an unmitigated tragedy, because homozygous individuals (those that received the gene from both mother and father) have a lifelong susceptibility to the anemia. But in West Africa, where the allele originated, it is a mixed blessing. This is because heterozygous individuals (those born with one copy of the sickling allele from one parent and one copy of the normal allele from the other parent) gain the advantage of valuable protection from malarial symptoms without themselves suffering acute anemia. The only drawback for them is that some fraction of their children could be born homozygous, and therefore eventually anemic.

Computer models designed to predict the "optimum" rate of the sickling allele in a human population subject both to widespread malarial infection and to the debilitating effects of the anemia yield numbers that are consistent with the observed rate of the allele in West African populations.

Another example would be those suffering from insulin-dependent adult-onset diabetes. This is an inherited disease that can kill, and can also cause profound long-term effects on health short of death. Why hasn't it been bred out of the population? For one thing, in primitive societies people married in their teen years and began having children right away, before the age at which the disease typically manifests itself in our society. It is true that coming down with the disease later in life could certainly reduce a parent's ability to care for children that had already been born. This effect could be great enough to interfere with Darwinian fitness. (Even very small effects on reproductive rates yield large genetic changes over many generations, due to compounding.)

But in primitive societies the disease is probably manifested seldom if ever, even in adults with a genetic propensity for it. This is because the actual symptoms are caused by the insulin generating abilities of the pancreas being overwhelmed by the intake of carbohydrates. The need for insulin is a function of the weight of the individual in question and of the amount of carbohydrates consumed at one sitting or in one day, whereas the maximum capacity of the Islets of Lagerhans to produce insulin is apparently a constant determined by genetics.

I had an uncle who took insulin regularly for decades. Then he developed terminal cancer. The combination of the cancer itself and the chemotherapy to fight it so affected his appetite that he lost large amounts of weight, ceasing to be obese. In the final months of his life, he stopped taking insulin and his doctors pronounced him symptom-free of the diabetes.

So in the impoverished preindustrial societies of yesteryear (or of remote areas today) there were few individuals with a sufficiently bountiful diet to worry about _this_ disease, however much they suffered from others that we have forgotten. Every society that reached the industrial age then later developed the ability to provide its diabetics with insulin before enough generations had passed for the compounding effect of Darwinian selection to eliminate the genetic predisposition.

Of course, there are traits that are inborn but not genetic. For example, the fingerprint patterns of identical twins do not match. So a lifelong fingerprint pattern, fixed in the womb, is determined by some aspect of prenatal development that is not genetic in origin. With regards to sexual orientation, it is known that twinning in cattle can result in a "freemartin." This is a female that is the twin sister of a male. Such cows exhibit lifelong aggressiveness and a propensity to mount other cattle that are normally seen only in bulls. The freemartin effect is believed to result from the exposure in the womb of the cow fetus to elevated levels of testosterone created by the testicles of her brother. Apparently this affects neural development, giving her later masculine traits.

-Bill

Post 14

Friday, May 14, 2004 - 11:51am

I have to respond to the rest of Regi's post.

William's understanding of natural selection is correct. The genetic source of some diseases does not contradict his argument. Some genetic diseases, such as sickle-cell anemia, are actually survival based. Other genetic related diseases do not affect survival or reproduction. Homosexuality would not be just another example of genetic anomaly, since it is specifically related to reproduction. A genetic trait can only be "passed on" if there are offspring to whom it is passed on. Consistent homosexuality precludes this. (Inconsistent homosexuality precludes it being genetic. It is then just a behavioral anomaly like may others in the animal world.)

Wrong. Various genetic causes exist that are not passed on directly. For example, mutations and abnormalities such as diploidies and haploidies. These exist despite often being fatal, because they spontaneously appear. There are also, more commonly, recessive genes. In most generations the trait 'recedes', but in some individuals it reappears. In some animals, certain recessive traits can be fatal. Yet the genes are still inherited.

Homosexuality is about sexuality, not reproduction! And why would that make any difference? In any case, you could hardly be more wrong about genetic diseases. There are chromosomal disorders (Trisomy 13 and 18) for which very few babies survive to their first birthdays, and Trisomy 21 (Down syndrome) almost always causes male infertility. Other genetic disorders are directly related to reproduction, especially gender abnormalities causing, for example, ambiguous genitalia.

I don't believe either you or William have any idea of the true complexity of the genetic system. No-one does. From the National Human Genome Research Institute: "...most disorders involving genetic factors - such as heart disease and most cancers - arise from a complex interplay of multiple genetic changes and environmental influences." Very little in genetics is cut and dried. You can't just divide everything into directly-heritable traits.

I do not see how this relates to the natural selection question. It appears to suggest that what is natural is also normal. Nature and genetics are both responsible for most abnormalities in the both the physical and behavioral aspects of non-human organisms. Genetics also is responsible for many human physical abnormalities, but the suggestion that human behavior is determined by genetics flies in the face of the Objectivist view that human behavior is not determined by anything, genetic or otherwise, because human beings are volitional creatures whose behavior is chosen, not determined.

Humans are animals. If other animals have behaviour influenced by their genes, why not humans? At the very least, there must be a genetic basis for humans being volitional. But really, to claim that genetics has no influence on human behaviour would be incredibly stupid. (I could also point out that sexual prefernce is not behaviour. Actual sex is behaviour, and, of course, it is not completely determined by sexual preference)

Surely you can admit that human gender is determined by genetics - by the presence or absence of a Y chromosome. To say otherwise would be to deny reality. And presumably you would agree that gender is a big factor (you would say, the only factor) in sexual preference. Thus, normal sexual preferences are genetic. The fact that a hetero male is attracted to women - this is genetic, right? Not volitional? (besides, physical attraction is chemical, it could not possibly be the result of choice).

So if sexual preference is genetic, why couldn't a genetic anomaly alter this preference?

But anyway, about human behaviour. Behaviour is determined by the brain - the structure and composition of the brain is entirely due to genetics. There is nothing inconsistent with Objectivism or free will in saying that genes influence, or even sometimes completely determine, behaviour. In fact, to say otherwise would be to deny reality in favour of blind dogma - hardly rational or Objectivist.

An easy example is instinct. One instinct is to pull away from something that is very hot. This instinct is very strong, but it can be overcome. However, when you *unexpectedly* touch something hot, it is impossible to *not* instantly take your hand away. Instinct is seen everywhere, notable in the 'fight-or-flight- response, and in sex. This isn't determinism - for example, Catholic denial of sexual instincts.

Saying behaviour is completely volitional, and not determined by anything physical, makes as little sense as wondering why stupid or retarded people don't choose to behave more intelligently.

Post 15

Friday, May 14, 2004 - 1:51pm

Philip wrote:

Homosexuality is about sexuality, not reproduction! And why would that make any difference?

From a Darwinian perspective, it makes all the difference in the world. The sex drive evolved because those who had it more strongly were more likely to reproduce. Whatever other purpose it serves, its primary biological role is to promote mating.

If to man as as a rational being its primary purpose today is psychological and spiritual, to the thousands of generations of pre-rational ancestors from whom we inherited it that was completely irrelevant.

Heart disease and cancer (tragic as they are) primarily affect older adults. Thus they do not affect Darwinian fitness as directly as the absence of desire for (reproductive) sex.

The cases of trisomy you mention are among the well-known ones because they result in a live baby being born. Trisomy on most other genes is more serious in that it universally results in spontaneous abortion or stillbirths. Should trisomy even be considered a trait, like eye color or the sickle cell thing? I thought it represented more like a breakdown in the normal reproductive process. At any rate, these cases primarily rest on the left-hand side of the bathtub curve (as does cancer on the right-hand side.) I'm not sure they are very germane to the case of adult exclusive homosexuality, where you have someone who appears healthy and normal in every other respect but who has a trait that would tend to substantially reduce his personal reproductive rate.

On the subject of instinct, I recommend Nathaniel Branden's _The Psychology of Self Esteem_ in which he presents the standard Objectivist treatment. Traditionally, Objectivism has rejected instinct as an invalid concept. Jerking your hand back from a candle is a reflex, not an instinct. Most other alleged cases of instinct are either nonexistent, or can be explained in terms of ideas or learned behaviours that might lie at a level so deep in an individual's psychology that he is not explicitly aware of them.

I agree with Philip that some drives, such as the sex drive, are caused by biological factors. Also, that behaviour is volitional while a basic drive might be caused by biological factors that underlie volition. In fact, their origin might predate the development of volition, in either a phylogenetic sense or an ontogenetic sense. But I suspect that the particulars of how someone goes about satisfying a particular urge, or suppressing it, is volitional.

-Bill

Post 16

Friday, May 14, 2004 - 4:35pm

Hi Philip,
and William,

I see you are bit agitated by my remarks. I apologize. The fault is entirely mine. In fact, you became so excited, (for which I blame myself, of course) you even changed what I said, (not determined) to something else (not influenced) and called it stupid. I don't blame you at all. If I were like you, I would do the same thing.

I'm not making an excuse, it is still my fault, but my comments were based on the assumption you are an Objectivist. Of course now that I see you believe people have instinct and their choices are genetically determined, I see my mistake.

Please accept my apology for mistaking you for an Objectivist.

I see William also mistook you for an Objectivist and is taking the time to explain some Objectivist principles to you. Well, thanks to William, I won't have to engage in any more embarrassing discussions with you I have to later apologize for.

Thanks for being so understanding.

(If I have said anything that offends you, it is not really my fault. My genes made me do it.)

Regi

Post 17

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 10:48am

Grennady,

I love the poem for both its content and style!

As to the issue of scanning, here is an
example of a version that would lend itself
to a melody. This scanning attempt omitted certain
important words. It reminds me how incredibly
difficult it is to write classical poetry. Perhaps
this is the reason why some authors prefer free verse?

Again, i enjoyed your poem very much.

-Marty
----------------------------

Upon the Northern coast of Norway,
Where grass meets polar ice,
Live chubby, furry creatures,
Two times the size of mice.

In equally sized little burrows,
The lemmings play and mate.
Loving all lemmings just the same,
They wish each other�s fate.

All selfishness each lemming shuns.
When his brothers pour onto the grass,
For sake of lemmingkind he runs
To blend into the mass.

Where lemmings go, he gives no care.
His tribe�s �collective mind� decides.
�The shore! The cliff!� shouts the stampede
And plummets off its sides.

Within the icy seas off Norway,
Where seals and fish do tread,
Lie thousands of furry lemmings,
In unity, in brotherhood - dead.

Post 18

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 2:23pm

Marty: I love it � all those furry, loveable creatures united in a common, albeit not well thought out, action.

Sam

Post 19

Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 3:35am