Homo sapiens sapiens

By Pablo MPA

“All that we can do, is to keep steadily in mind that each organic being is striving to increase at a geometrical ratio; that each at some period of its life, during some season of the year, during each generation or at intervals, has to struggle for life, and to suffer great destruction. When we reflect on this struggle, we may console ourselves with the full belief, that the war of nature is not incessant, that no fear is felt, that death is generally prompt, and that the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply.”

Charles Darwin

‘The origin of the species’

In this article I would like to clarify that the Homo sapiens, although it has changed the selection mechanism, it hasn’t stopped evolving and, in fact, it does it in a more and more impressive way. The reason for the difference between the present mammal and the past generations of the tree (Homo rodhesiensis -> Homo antecesor -> Homo ergaster -> Homo habilis -> Australopitecus garhi -> Australopitecus anamensis -Australopitecus ramidus -> Toumai) is that now is not the “survival of the fittest” what takes part in the selection of favourable mutations, but the “triumph of the fittest”. And the triumph of the fittest obeys the laws of money, the power of the individual and, as a consequence the making of satisfactory descendants. Not having to consider isolated cases in particular (otherwise the shadow of the uncertainty of the sample variability would cover up the result of a general law), but rather doing the sum of the whole population of Homo sapiens and its habits nowadays, one must reach necessarily a force stronger than the death of the weak indeed namely, the economic thinking. It’s a common known fact that generally speaking, the population of this species in rural areas is less good-looking than it in urban areas*. I leave this case and many other related ones to the readers own personal reflexion, as it is not my concern to get into the details of how this effect takes place. I make clear at all times that the analysis is general and average with no intent to offend and verifiable.

We live in a society where the intelligent thrives. That’s the way we built it. If you attempt to find a model of cohabitation in which the evolution of our species remains static, you will not succeed. But there is no cause for alarm, it is designed so that nobody dies because of a shortage of food, and that there is no need to compete with the rest of the species anymore. You will not realize how satisfactory your contribution to physiological evolution of the human species will have been; and therefore forget everything I have told you, because it is of no importance.

NOTES:

* Although this phenomenon may not take place in other parts of the world, it does apply to the Iberian peninsula, and therefore may not be of any significance in other countries.

Antiamericanism

By Javier MPA

For some time, Europe has seen the development of a strong antiamericanism, a disporportionate hatred of everything american. We hear the word America and the only image that comes to our minds is Bushe’s. Well, and how would it be an antieuropean american? Can you imagine?…

We invented democracy, which is that word that you claim proudly everytime you say it. You say that american movies are rubbish, but they’re the only ones you go to the theater to see. You subsidize yours. You think we are bastards for having invented the Nuclear Bomb, when in fact we made it because it was necessary to avoid Hitler making it first (a european, by the way).

We helped you in the World War II and we won it together. We showed you what a telephone compny was and so an airline and we gave you our own money to let you make it, our own money, the only one you trusted. We put a man on the Moon at the same time you were making goats cheese. We pay for the military and you benefit for the fact that there are no wars in your coutries, nevertheless you demonize our army. You think that your education system is better, but we have the best universities. Some of you study there and then you come back to your country showing off. Your health care system is also better, but you use all the medicines we invent. You laugh of our election campaigns and the oly thing you do after is copying them.

I could go on, but it is not my way of thinking; it is the antiamericans way of thinking but the other way round. Don’t you think is not much impartial? Perhaps we are being a little unfair with americans and only able to say some clichés about them. We shouldn’t keep thinking that we are the centre of the world.

Política Agraria Común

Por Javier MPA

La PAC (Política Agraria Común) representa un 40% del presupuesto europeo. Consiste en proteger a los agricultores comunitarios de la competencia internacional e imponer unas cuotas de producción a cada miembro según qué producto para mantener una serie de proporciones artificiales en el mercado que responden a intereses políticos. A los productos que vienen de fuera la UE se les impone un fuerte arancel de tal modo que su precio esté siempre por encima del europeo. Con el dinero recaudado de estos aranceles se compra nuestra producción sobrante para luego destruirla. Las consecuencias de esta política son nefastas para el tercer mundo, perjudiciales para el consumidor y muy malas para el sector a largo plazo. Son malas para el sector ya que este no tiene que esforzarse en adaptarse cuando ya tiene garantizada la compra por parte del Estado y el sector se queda obsoleto. Pero además las consecuencias son negativas para el I+D ya que en lugar de gastarnos el dinero del presupuesto en la PAC podíamos hacerlo en programas espaciales o en aceleradores de partículas. La UE se ha fijado la meta de ser el principal bloque inversor en I+D en 2010 pero arrastrando la PAC solo podría hacerlo si aumenta impuestos lo que sería negativo para nuestras empresas.

Hay que eliminar la PAC, formar a los agricultores para que se dediquen a otro sector, comprar los productos más baratos que vienen del tercer mundo y gastarnos el dinero en enseñar inglés, en universidades, hospitales y centros de investigación. ¿De qué sirven 1200 ONG si no estamos dispuestos a dejar jugar en el mercado internacional a los países pobres con lo único que pueden jugar? Los países desarrollados no tenemos autoridad moral para aconsejar a los pobres que quiten sus aranceles en la medida en que nosotros les impongamos aranceles a ellos. El mercado internacional, salvo unos casos muy puntuales, debe ser libre para que todos nos beneficiemos. Quien no acepte esta última afirmación le sugiero que observe casos como el de China y Taiwan y los compare con casos como el de Cuba y Argentina.