Suckers, Cheaters and Grudgers

            Throughout chapter 12 Dawkins carefully explains and analyzes a game called Prisoner’s dilemma. The game consists on having to options: either choosing to cooperate or to defect with your opponent/partner, none of the players may see the action chosen beforehand and therefore they must wait until the turn ends. If both cooperate then each receives an equal reward, if both defect each receives a lesser reward or even a punishment. However if one defects and the other chooses to cooperate, the one who defected earns a greater reward than if both cooperated and the one who foolishly cooperated gets the worst reward or punishment. Through this game Dawkins analyzed human behavior and selfishness using various scenarios. For instance, let’s take the prisoner’s one: if two men have been accused of murder but not enough evidence has been collected all the authorities may rely on is that both suspects tell on each other. Before they can make any agreement each is brought to the interrogation room separately,  as the interrogation develops both men betray each other and present substantial evidence that gets them both heavily convicted. This would be an example of a double defection in the game. Had the two men chosen to cooperated with each other the sentence would have been a much more lenient one. Yet, as explained by the selfish gene theory we instinctively think of our wellbeing alone and how we might get betrayed. Not only is this the natural reaction because we might be saving ourselves by blaming everything on the other guy, but because if we cooperate and he defects, he will be saved and I the one who cooperated will get the worst conviction.

            We played this game in class after reading the chapter. Although not as intense as manipulating a conviction, we took to another level by putting our own grade at risk. We would be given five rounds to play, if one cooperated and the other defected the “traitor” got a .5 bump, if both cooperated each earned a .3 bump and if both defected a .1 deduction would take place. When the preliminaries begun, since our grade was not at risk we did not betray each other and played more freely and my partner and I were loyal to each other. Nonetheless, when the finals took place things changed completely. Logically, the best option would have been to cooperate on all the five rounds so each would get a significant increase, but our selfishness came into play. None of the finals round proceeded without one defect. In fact, the first round were five straight double defections, the following two had one player who betrayed the other on the fourth or fifth round. Just like in the scenario we had no way of making an agreement to ensure we wouldn’t naively be cheated through defection, so most of us fell to temptation.

            This game impeccably portrays society and the way many partnerships end up breaking up due to mistrust. Ideally, both parties could equally benefit from the agreement and end up as winners. But we always want more, or in some cases to do less. If we somehow may manage to do less work and earn equal recognition we will do it, or less work and more rewards we will do it as well. Simple selfish gene theory. This where being a sucker, grudger and a cheaters comes into play. A person who would constantly choose to cooperate regardless of being cheated continuously, will unequivocally be exploited and never benefit. Cheaters would lose their partners’ trust as soon as they cheat them once, the grudger effect will finish them off and neither will receive the benefits. Either option will result in detrimentally for at least one party involved. Rationally, the best option would be to cooperate as much as possible, but society simple does not work that way and cheaters end up winning all the time. Even grudgers who know they might get cheated again, may trust a cheater repeatedly to save an enterprise or an important investment. This game accurately simulates conflictive decision making and how temptation may overpower goodwill, even at a “friend’s” expense.

Altruism, Magnanimity, Selflessness, They Are All Not Happening

In this Chapter Dawkins proposes several theories on the evolution of species and how animals such as ants and birds have developed as societies. In every example of the animal kingdom Dawkins cleverly proved his point and defended his selfish gene theory. For instance, when certain organism give alarm calls to the rest of the group, the theory states “genes have to come up with a convincing advantage of giving alarm calls which is big enough to counteract this danger (of being spotted and eaten by the predator)” (169). In every case presented the theory was proven right and apparently nature has no space for self-sacrificing beings, at least not if they intend to transmit their genetic information. After all what would a survival machine be for if it willingly sacrifices itself for the benefit of another.

            As the chapter develops Dawkins presents a complex situation that may serve as a starting point for our capacities to deceive. In Dawkins scenario, a population is composed a species that behaves in three distinct patters: indiscriminant helpers, those who get help but don’t help back and those who help everyone except those who denied them help. The first are called Suckers, the latter Cheaters and the last Grudgers. It is very easy to compare these behaviors with our daily life where we meet many people who get our help, but do not help us when we need it or not as much as we expected they would. In fact, it relates very closely to our society where very commonly partnerships do not work, since one partner may be doing everything while the other does nothing. In the real world that can be a problem if it gets known you “cheat” on those who help you, or you simply never work. It is the hard workers who know who to work and avoid being “cheated”, who ideally should succeed the most. At least, that is how it works in nature or how it did with the Suckers, the Cheaters and the Grudges. The first died exploited by the Cheaters who never paid their favors, yet when the Cheaters no longer had their naïve relatives around Grudgers refused to help and eventually Cheaters got extinct as well. Ultimately, in nature it is no use being indiscriminately altruistic, or indiscriminately selfish. Because the Grudges are selfish nonetheless, as they feel the necessity to remove a poisonous parasite in the future, in Dawkins specific scenario, is more important than the energy they waste helping a “partner” who has it at the present time. It is all a cost versus gain relationship. The genes will always thrive for the most gain at the least expense to propagate themselves. That’s what all “the selfish gene theory” is about.

     Moreover, Dawkins defines the relationship employed by Grudgers, and other organisms such as cleaner fish with other big fish as symbiosis. A relationship where two species or two organisms from the same species benefit mutually, or reciprocal altruism as explained in the above paragraph. Dawkins explains that possibly our brains’ complexity revolves around the idea of symbiotic relationships. That feelings like “envy, gratitude, guilt, sympathy” came from natural selection to avoid being cheated, cheat more effectively or not to be confused with a cheat (188). This hypothesis implies many things, one of the most impacting ones is that ultimately our brain’s great processing is: without being cheated, to cheat as much as possible and without being caught cheating. So as cheaters got more effective, so did Grudgers at recognizing them; hence slowly each organism got more sophisticated at getting the most out of reciprocal altruism. This hypothesis contradicts the “ideal society” proposal or that of a good community, where everyone knows that may help everyone without getting cheated. However, someone always takes advantage of what will be called today “Suckers”, yet if no altruism exists inevitably our societies will collapse. If trust cannot be developed in things as sensitive as representation then a country may not function well, if reciprocal altruism does not exist then the whole structure on which we live cannot function properly. For instance, a President has the responsibility to meet his country’s needs if he takes advantage of his power to enrich himself then the country won’t progress. Resulting in the overall detriment of the community; altruism or at least reciprocal altruism are essential to the survival of our species. 

Selfishness, Immortality, Genes and Senility

Dawkins defines a good gene as a “replicator” with the characteristics of longevity, fecundity and copying fidelity. If the genes possess these traits then it is likely to attain immortality through its copies or the replicas it has made during its existence in its survival machine. By having favorable or effective cooperation with its environment then the gene may live for hundreds of millions of years, the nearest as it gets to immortality. Dawkins also adds to these set of necessary traits the idea of being selfish; you do not worry for the other genes’ survival but your own. The alleles which also inhabit the survival machines are the “mortal rivals” and a gene cannot afford to be altruistic and sacrifice itself for the benefit of others; hence a good gene that will live long enough is a selfish one. These immortal coils can only become so if the set of factors for their survival machine is correctly developed, if not enough food is present or if one is unlucky enough to be “strike by a lighting” then the process of replication will not be completed. The trait of selfishness, implies a “gene is the basic unit of selfishness”; an indispensable trait if survival is intended. I was amazed by this explanation, since we have always been taught to help others whenever we can expecting nothing in return, yet as explained by Dawkins it goes against our most basic form of self.

            I founded fascinating how Dawkins explained that our mortality at a certain age occurs because off spring were conceived before lethal genes came into action. So by the time we are eighty or so they activate themselves and ultimately we die of old age. Senility occurs because we inherited the lethal genes that triggered it from our ancestors who had children before the gene actually killed him. Dawkins uses Sir Peter Medawar’s definition to explain and catalog genes that kill us at out “old age” as semi-lethal and lethal genes that act not at our youth, but in most cases after we have reproduced and thus passed them onto our children.  

            These hypothesis leaves space for a much vast and longer human existence if it were correct. Dawkins gives us two ways that we may achieve it. First, one must understand we die at a certain age because late action genes take effect at that moment, had we not inherit them from our parents then we would live longer. If we could eliminate those genes from a population’s gene pool then slowly the average life expectancy would increase. But in order to do so a minimal age for sexual reproduction must be established, so that the people who are going to die before forty do so and do not pass their late genes into the next generation. Dawkins explains that if we follow this “minimum age limit” the life span of humanity may last centuries.

            The other way follows a more complex chemical process and not a social system. In this case doctors would have to identify the properties that young bodies have and institute them in older bodies, so that the late semi lethal and lethal genes are not activated. Overall avoiding death. But as explained in the book, this process would be incredibly complicated as substance “S” might simply come from lettuce, yet if it accumulates over time and triggers a “late-acting deleterious gene” doctors might classify it as a mortal substance. So it is not as easy as it may seem creating a more lasting human species. Plus it will take a couple centuries changing the life span so that the late lethal action genes disappear from the gene pool our species use. However, perhaps one day we may use the second form and reinvigorate the old bodies into more youthful ones.

             

Reflections and Reflections

The Great Khan stops sending Marco Polo on missions, and now the two listen to each other as the merchant develops new cities through chess pieces. Marco Polo adeptly teaches the conqueror details are essential and that only by looking at wood many things may be learned. In one occasion, Marco Polo quickly identifies traces in the wood used for the chessboard as indications of severe winters or droughts. He also finds the techniques used to cut the trees down, with these observations Kublai Khan slowly learns the importance of details. A value many of us do not appreciate correctly.

            One day, after many games were played Kublai states he lost the purpose of the game and could no longer understand why they still played them. Through this games he arrived to what he calls “the definitive conquest”, this conclusion argued his “empire’s multiform treasures were only illusory envelopes…nothingness” (123). Kublai has come to accept the fact that knowledge is above any material possession. That the richness he holds as the Khan of the largest empire at the time, is not within the treasures he receives from ambassadors, but at the details of each new place. Additionally, he seems to understand Kings and Empires would come and go, and just like in chess when a King falls nothing remains. That is what his Empire is: nothingness.

            As the end approaches Marco Polo declares a very important truth: “It is not the voice that commands the story: it is the ear” (135). Meaning that, it is not the person who tells the story who controls it, but the individual hearing it, since he is the one who interprets it and learns it through his own perspective. Humans tend to neglect the truth they hear for their personal convenience; as a result a story that may originate from the same source may have dozens of different sides to it. Ideally, details should be kept intact, so that way the truth does so as well. Which leads Marco Polo to declare it is does differences that enable someone to entirely comprehend a city and hence life itself. It is “that assortment of qualities which are like the letters in a name” that ensure one has gotten the true meaning of a place (137). Moreover, this quality allows the atlas to predict the form of future cities and its successors, like New Amsterdam that will later become New York and shapeless cities like Kyoto-Osaka, also find their place in the atlas.

            In the final pages the merchant and the conqueror discuss their final question, what to do next? Marco Polo wants to create the perfect city through recompilations of other ones until equilibrium is attained. However, Kublai Khan wanders if they are all going to hell, since that seems to be the way they are getting to: “the infernal city” (165). But Marco Polo tells him that there can only be one inferno for the living, “the inferno where we live in”, an inferno that seems inescapable to most (165). For most live a life of complacency and embrace the hell they dwell. Others, very few and who work very hard not to be part of hell, are the ones who must “endure and be given space”, these are not part of the inferno and face very difficult tasks not to be so (165).  

Wait, What?

As the story develops the talks become more intriguing and ambiguous. It seems as if the two men never existed and they not only talk of cities that resemble only one: Venice, but also how their whole discussions cannot be true. Calvino slowly provides the reader with constant conversations where the conqueror and the merchant doubt everything they’ve discussed and how their whole existence is but a mere illusion. Marco Polo evaluates the impossibility of his feats as Kublai Khan tells him its not possible for one man to have traveled so much. Marco Polo replies “everything I see and do assumes meaning in a mental space…when I concentrate and reflect I find myself in this garden” basically not only has he dreamed every single visit, but he made them up based on one city (103). At this point nothing that has occurred actually makes sense, and I feel irritated by how poor did Marco Polo back up his stories. These even state that their “garden of thought” only exists in their minds and that each never stopped “from raising dust on the fields of battle; and I, from bargaining for sacks of pepper in distant bazaars” (103). The conversations have deteriorated to such a state both talkers hallucinate about their state of none reality. Further on Kublai Khan states: “we have proved that if we were here, we would not be”, Calvino has narrated many dubious events, but how does this conflictive conclusion helps the reader understand the book’s theme I do not know (118). I can only hope to read on and find more facts.

Dreams on Cities on Dreams

Once one understands the origins of all the cities, little by little I could decipher the magic behind each. The invisible cities Marco Polo describes depict a dream or some sort of fantastical location that could only be found in someone’s imagination.  For instance, the city of Zobeide was founded upon a dream. All the men who come do so because they all dreamed the same thing. Who has not dreamed of a place which reunites people that have suffered similar occurrences, and then shape the city according to what they share in common. Since a lady escaped their grasp in the dream they built “an ugly city, a trap”, so that whenever the girl will appear she will have nowhere to go (46). Zobeide shows how significant dreams are to our reality and how influential they may become if everyone shares them. Zobeide develops, grows, and lives because of a dream some men had in common.

            Hypatia is a city where the meaning of words was mixed and hence its purposes as well. Marco Polo narrates how he was trapped by the common meaning of words and could not find the proper signs to meet his desires. Although desires are what he searches for, the city falls into the category of signs and cities, since the signs are what leads him to what he wants. He seems to be lost until a philosopher states “sings form a language, but not the one you think you know”, that Marco Polo realizes he must “free himself from the images…in the past” only that way he would understand the images in Hypatia (48). This city reflects the mixture of language and its meanings. Perhaps, either Kublai Khan or Marco Polo dreamed of a place where everything was not what it appeared to be. This city plays with reality and how signs may completely deviate one from its objective if not interpreted correctly. Something I like to do, picturing what would happen if bathroom meant auditorium instead of bathroom.

            The city of Armilla follows a more mythical environment where nothing ordinary exits but “water pipes that rise vertically where the houses should be and spread out horizontally where the floors should be” (49). This city was not designed for humans but for nymphs who “in the morning you hear them singing”, happy because of the watery gifts the architects of Armilla gave them. Just like the previous cities either the Venetian or the conqueror imagined themselves visiting a city not inhabited by humanity, but by a different species and therefore Armilla was created. Yet, out of all the other cities mentioned above, this one was the one that helped me the most understand how Calvino forms each one. For very few people would deny Armilla’s magnificence and the incredibly relationship its citizens share with it. It all seems as if were part of a dream.

            At first, I was very confused with the way Calvino presents his cities, however it was a matter of using a more symbolical perspective to understand the city’s themes. Using my own dreams helped me connect the dots when figuring out how cities like Armillam Hypatia and Zobeide came to be. 

A Talk with No Words

            Marco Polo’s descriptions and private talks with Kublai Khan are but creations of his mind. Each of them develop their ideas throughout dreams and pondering what will the other or himself think if he were asked a certain question. Calvino’s complex creation is exposed in chapter two while “Marco Polo could explain or imagine explaining or be imagined explaining or succeed finally in explaining to himself”, it seems every response or description somehow originates from the mind and stays within it (28). This sentence explains how very different the memoirs written in this book are, since both men form them through their imagination. They even “imagine themselves being interrupted” for the sake of the conversation.  At first, I found this relationship quite absurd, since it implied all descriptions originated in some kind of made up discussion. However, as I read on I understood the purpose of each of the cities. In one of the imaginary talks Marco Polo declares “cities like dreams, are made of desires and fears” and “everything imaginable can be dreamed” (44). So apparently what these two men have been doing is sharing their long forgotten dreams or they most covered up fears through the creation of sometimes imaginary conversations and most importantly the cities they envision in them. These truths explain the existence of cities such as Fedora where all its alternative existences are replicated in small crystal balls. Who would not like to see the future version of the city he lives in recorded in a crystal ball forever to be admired, these types of cities represent the dreams these two great men have created in theirs travels. Additionally, Marco Polo argues that the beauty of a city is not its wonders but the “answers it gives” or the “questions it asks” (44). Marco Polo slowly teaches the Great Khan to appreciate a city not by its physical aspects, but by the emotional reactions it creates, that is a city’s inner purpose.

            

             Moreover, if it were not enough with having imaginary conversations based on somewhat fictitious cities Calvino makes these talks wordless. Even when the venetian merchant learns the Tartars languages, he only gives the Khan “the fundamental information” in words, while transmitting everything else through “objects…gestures, leaps, cries… or animal sounds” (39). It would not make sense to have this envoy as the only source of intelligence regarding a certain area, but the inaccuracy of the messages was what the Khan loved about them. The Khan later explains one “could wander through them in though, become lost, stop and enjoy the cool air, or run off”: the ambiguousness of Marco Polo’s cities allows them to travel the past, and their lost futures (38).