... dum de dum de dum de dum ... something something ... Alma Mater true.. crap, I can't remember the words.... Anyway:
Overheard in the schoolyard. The Milne School, 1970something.
Miles: "So, Greg, did you ever wonder why you are only a fraction as smart at I am?"
Greg: "Well, no, not really, Miles ...."
Miles: "Breeding. For two thousand years, your ancestors took the best and the brightest males out of the population and made them into priests who were not allowed to have children. For five thousand years, my ancestors took the best and the brightest out of the population and made them in to Rabbis. They made sure the Rabbi's family had plenty of food and other resources, the best eduction, the whole nine yards, and yes, the Rabbi could have children. In fact, they had more children then anyone else in the population"
Greg: "So? I don't get it."
Miles: "Never mind."
Maybe this is why I eventually went into evolutionary biology.
Happy Birthday Miles!
Comments
Obviously not smart enough to get his head out of his arse.
Posted by: eddie | November 17, 2008 9:27 AM
Happy Birthday Miles. Good luck with the Blue Shifting... so far so good!
Posted by: TimJ | November 17, 2008 9:35 AM
Of course, with many things that one believes in high school, that was a simplistic analysis. For example, one simplifying assumption was that priestly celibacy was absolute.
Since then I've heard there's sometimes a difference between socially accepted norms and actual social behavior.
If we posit (just for the sake of argument) that due to their higher social status, illicit procreative sex with priests might occur, what you've got is a survival strategy where alpha males successfully foist parenting responsibilities onto other males and have greater access to a larger variety of desirable females than monogamy would permit. And that could allow those "best and brightest" priests to be extraordinarily successful at ensuring that their genetic legacy gets passed on.
Which might explain why I was too stupid to realize you were actually much smarter than I, despite my sophistry.
But thanks for the birthday laugh and the memories...
Posted by: Malacandra | November 17, 2008 10:34 AM
Except that some would do their best to keep their vows. So, this is a breeding program leading to offspring of intelligent but immoral men, while preventing offspring from intelligent but moral men? Not sure that's really good for society.
Posted by: TheOtherOne | November 17, 2008 11:50 AM
Of course it is. Moral men are no good in bed.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 17, 2008 12:10 PM
It's hard to observe society, in general, without noting that it tends to favor and reward immoral men.
Posted by: Malacandra | November 17, 2008 3:36 PM
Except that some would do their best to keep their vows. So, this is a breeding program leading to offspring of intelligent but immoral men, while preventing offspring from intelligent but moral men? Not sure that's really good for society.
That assumed that the original "morality" was real. Which, from what we know of church history, it clearly was not. And what is good for the individual is rarely good for society.
In my view (oh, we can talk about this tomorrow, because it is a special day) organizations designed to appear to "be moral" or certify morality in individuals are almost always covers for something else.
Posted by: Greg Laden | November 17, 2008 4:14 PM
Hell, I don't trust individuals who feel a need to talk about their own (degree of) morality. Why would I trust a group that wants to talk about everyone's?
Posted by: Stephanie Z | November 17, 2008 4:24 PM
Well, I meant "moral" in the very limited sense of "doing his best to keep his vow of chastity, rather than simply considering the whole celibacy thing a great way of weaseling out of taking responsibility for the kids he fathers".
And I tend to be very skeptical of any organization that claims it stands for, represents, or judges morality. *People* make decisions that are, or are not, moral.
Organizations? If they're little, they're just a group of people. If they're big, well, they're still a bunch of people, but those people tend to start acting in the best interest of the corporation (seeing it as in their own best interests) rather than in the interests of any outside group, much less in the interests of "good" or "morality". (Ironically, it was watching my church in action - back when it was still "my" church - that brought me to that conclusion.)
Posted by: TheOtherOne | November 17, 2008 4:26 PM