The consequence of Evolution

I have always believed in the persuasive power of friendship and reason, and rejected the application of coercive force as a means of getting people to do my bidding. My aversion to the use of force has blinded me to just how pervasive it is as the mechanism in human affairs. Threats and intimidation in one form or another underlay the vast majority of human interactions.

Often the brute nature of our dealings are masked by a show of cordiality, but if that sham is tested it evaporates and the true nature of our relationships comes to the fore. The kindly boss, who treats his staff to an occasional tray of Tim Horton's coffee - and genuinely believes in his own congeniality - will just as quickly fire the staffer who contradicts him in a serious way or costs too much during a period of economic decline. The enlightened parent, who has smiled upon his sons and daughters in their younger years, becomes harsh and dictatorial if his children do not live up to his moral and social standards later in life.

We resort to an arsenal of punishments to get recalcitrants to do things the way we want them done. Emotional, physical and intellectual weapons are brought to bear on the target of our displeasure, and the anti is upped the longer our enemy - for that is what opponents become - refuses to do what we want the way we want it done. Unless the recalcitrant has no power or influence of his own, in which case he or she is simply ostracized - cut out of the social fabric.

I hate this brutal dynamic and have always sought interstices in the social structure that would give me genuine freedom. I resent it when people want me to participate in the hierarchy of tyranny that constitutes so much of human behaviour: the schemata of use and abuse, the quashing of daydreams. I would rather risk failure than succumb to what amounts to a betrayal of my very nature.