As IF Times

link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Soup

There’s a classic old European fable about stone soup. Different cultures have their own iterations on the idea, but the essential story is as follows:

Some travelers come to a village, carrying nothing more than an empty cooking pot. Upon their arrival, the villagers are unwilling to share any of their food stores with the very hungry travelers. Then the travelers go to a stream and fill the pot with water, drop a large stone in it, and place it over a fire. One of the villagers becomes curious and asks what they are doing. The travelers answer that they are making “stone soup”, which tastes wonderful and which they would be delighted to share with the villager, although it still needs a little bit of garnish, which they are missing, to improve the flavor.

The villager, who anticipates enjoying a share of the soup, does not mind parting with a few carrots, so these are added to the soup. Another villager walks by, inquiring about the pot, and the travelers again mention their stone soup which has not yet reached its full potential. More and more villagers walk by, each adding another ingredient, like potatoes, onions, cabbages, peas, celery, tomatoes, sweetcorn, meat (like chicken, pork and beef ), milk, butter, salt and pepper. Finally, the stone (being inedible) is removed from the pot, and a delicious and nourishing pot of soup is enjoyed by travelers and villagers alike. Although the travelers have thus tricked the villagers into sharing their food with them, they have successfully transformed it into a tasty meal which they share with the donors.

The way the story is spun according to Wikipedia, it seems as if the tale is all about sharing.  In fact, the story is more about the naivete of people once they are convinced of an idea, and the entrenchment of that idea once others confirm that view.  It struck me that this is an apt parable for what’s been happening over the past 2 plus years in (mainly) western societies.

Recall that a ‘deadly virus’ had emerged which was a grave threat to civilization.  A simple 2 week period of sequestering would resolve this; then four weeks, then masks; then vaccines for the elderly; then for kids, then travel restrictions; then job curtailment, then fines, etc etc etc. Lo and behold, the people are convinced that the figurative soup is wonderful.

We should all understand why history repeats, or at least rhymes, over periods of human history.  People don’t change and the same formulas work over and over again.  There will always be purveyors of stone soup, but sadly there are even more people willing to consume it. It’s too bad that the lessons of history can only be seen with clarity in hindsight.

link: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/08/british-royal-air-force-no-longer-offering-pilot-jobs-white-men-women-ethnic-minorities-may-apply-video/

Why do we still have contests?

This is not a rhetorical question at all, but one that should be addressed in this modern era of enlightenment, diversity and fairness. As far as we can tell, from the very beginning of man’s existence, the ability to survive in the wild has been the ultimate arbiter of a society’s success as a people. In any given society, there will always be those individuals who have skillsets superior to those of others, conferring upon them some superior position in that society or over other societies.

These superior skillsets were necessary in the competition for land, for food for resources and for social progress. That’s how societies improve and evolve.  Of course, with the maturation of societies, the basic skillsets of hunting, gathering, cultivation or of waging warfare became less important as societies developed rules of civilization. Not everyone needed to have all the requisite skillsets to survive as those tasks were delegated to those most able or willing to perform them.

But in earlier times, if the tribe needed some meat for the winter period, it would make sense to send out the best hunter, rather than send out the best basket weaver. If this were not the case, the tribe would surely die out according to the rules of Darwinism.

Man’s naturally competitive nature logically progressed to anointing certain individuals or groups the mantle of best at whatever their skillsets were: running, shooting, planning, etc etc.  In our modern times, the most coveted skillset seems to be arguing picayune points of law. Societies today are moving towards the exact opposite of celebrating excellence…in fact, the goal is to encourage mediocrity.  In reality, the modern objective is to restrain excellence and to handicap society to its weakest links.

This is not hyperbole. Think of the entire industry created around diversity and fairness. As we know, universities at the highest levels are restricting qualified applicants in favor of those less qualified but who are part of an identified ‘disadvantaged’ segment.  Employment policies are geared towards ensuring that some targets of diversity are met.  We have military enlistment standards bent towards allowing heretofore unsuitable candidates entrance to training.   What never seems to be identified is: what does success look like?  What is the measurable level at which we can conclude that everything is fair?  How do we know when we’ve achieved optimal ‘diversity and fairness’?

Of course we know the answer to that and the answer is, never. As long as the industry of diversity exists and gets paid, there will be inequities to be addressed…forever. By coincidence, this is tied to the question of, when are there enough lawyers?  The answer is the same.  There’s always someone being wronged who is desperately in need of paying legal fees.

Odd then, that we still hold contests of any kind.  Why do we have the Olympic games wherein nations parade out their best physical specimens for basic contests of running and jumping.  Surely, societies have evolved beyond that.  Why are there any professional sports activities?  Most of the participants are naturally endowed with certain levels of physical skills….why should the less endowed not be allowed participation?  Why do we never see a 5’-5” accountant in the NBA? Why have pie baking contests? Why have spelling bees or barbecue cook offs? All of these activities could be replaced by flipping coins to determine winners.  Why create environments of exclusion for those with less endowed skillsets?

Why do people yearn for the best homes, the best cars and even the best food? Why are there foam fingers displaying ‘number one’ while there are none displaying, ‘middle of the pack’?

Like so much of the idiocy which has consumed modern society, we are being fed the notion that the appearance of fairness and diversity supersedes the natural inclination of people to succeed on their own merits. We are told that we can only run as fast as the slowest in the group.  In no species in nature is this dynamic true.

It’s possible that the nutters who propagate world overpopulation are correct; that there are too many useless people in the world. This push to dull the intelligence and capabilities of a society will definitely result in a weakened people.  When the inept and incompetent are at the controls of a society, that society is in trouble. The problem is, there are societies that don’t subscribe to a self-inflicted weakened culture, that continue to elevate their best and brightest….and that’s where Darwin steps in.