If survival is only for the fittest then all men weren't created equal.- Xenocrates
|Survival is only for the fittest. No exceptions.|
Life is all about survival. Survival is all about competition. There would be no point to there being a competition if we all were made exactly identical to each other. We may all be of the same general design, but where the environment is concerned, some of us are much better implemented than others. That's why only the fittest will survive while even the fit, will perish.
We have two choices in life: Evolve or Die. Because of our genetics, some people will be better at that than others - and that is the frightening reality. For no matter how you look at it, life's not fair. It never was, still isn't and never will be. But there is actually a functional reason for this. Someone commented in a recent post that I've somehow reduced the perceived value of humans. I don't think I ever had to do that. Humanity isn't really that valuable to begin with. The mere fact that you spend your entire life in competition, it means that someone must lose.
Someone always loses.
Life is a competition by design. We compete for everything — even sexual partners. Therefore those of us who fail to compete effectively, will be eliminated from the gene pool and that's the source of our problem. We were not all created with an equal opportunity to compete in the first place. While some fail from the very outset, most of us ultimately fail along the way.
Very few will win the prize of hereditary immortality.
|In life, some people were born with a rotten Poker hand like this.|
I've come to the realization that life is like a game of Poker. You were either born with a really good hand, born with just enough to possibly bluff your way to the winnings, or born with a terrible hand thus having to fold early. While the game of Poker is intrinsically unfair, at least you get a second round once you've got money. The game of life, however, is not so forgiving.
When you consider all the people in the world, you have to consider not only genetics, but the environmental factors that condition these people as well. The mere presence of these two factors implies that there will be people in the world that are genetically predisposed to a hard life. What follows is an analysis of some of the most commonly unfavourable predispositions:
If you weren't born fair skinned
Human beings appear to have a natural instinct to be positively inclined towards individuals of a fairer complexion. Even among dark skinned people, the fairer members appear to receive preferential treatment. So prejudice not only exists between races, but within them as well.
Black People are still Slaves
|Bob Marley said it - Black people seem to have enslaved their own minds.|
If we consider the issues of the psychological phenomenon commonly known as an inferiority complex, we will realise that the problem appears to be quite pervasive. People who are fair skinned, irrespective of race, appear to be treated with a greater sense of capitulation, even when it isn't necessary. The impact this behaviour can have on our societies is quite profound.
In many third world territories run by blacks for example, there is a well known and common practice to readily fork out millions of dollars to pay white consultants to come in and tell them how to do something they already have the skills or foreknowledge to do themselves. It's as if they don't trust their own sense of judgment. But the dependency complex doesn't end there.
Long after the United Kingdom had relinquished control over some Caribbean territories for example, we still see some Caribbean governments using Commonwealth funding to pay for Commonwealth consultants. It is as if the British government is distributing money to its own people through them. It is certainly a win / win for both sides, but one can't deny the obvious.
The ridiculous puppet show doesn't end there. I was once contracted to design an elaborate e-Commerce website to market and advertise these services in the Caribbean. After I had demonstrated the functionality of the website to a group of senior managers, I was ready to take comments from the esteemed panel – and what was their first salient point? This remark:
"The website features too many images of Caucasians"
I kid you not. This is a team of senior managers comprised entirely of black people. No one commented on the credit card processing feature, or the data storage facilities or any of the other functionality of the website. They were concerned with the fact that too many white people were featured on the banner image of the home page. So I immediately countered:
"That's an odd request, especially since I don't see you hiring consultants of any other ethnicity. The site design only caters to your perceived target market."
The room fell dead silent. Needless to say, that was the last time I would ever work for that team. I took my British Government DFID funded 37,000 US dollar paycheck and went about my merry way. That's when I first realised for the first time that people are only concerned about their preconceived prejudices until they are forced to look at themselves in the mirror.
The realization of the truth is always more painful than the truth itself. It's sad that despite their MBa's and their assorted Masters Degrees, this group of people could not see beyond their own ignorance. It is such a pervasive tenet of the Caribbean culture, that I am starting to think it is probably genetic. Of course, one can't mention that without drawing some flak.
If that's the case, then nature seems to have unwittingly designed black people to be slaves. For example, these governments would prefer to pay twice for the "wisdom" of their colonial masters instead of a local who could do the job just as well as it's not enough to have been educated at a university in England. This mindset still exists, long after they have been freed.
By their logic, knowledge is somehow different when a Caucasian imparts it. Even when people are applying for a job, preference is given to locals who were educated overseas, even though the education curriculum is exactly identical to that of their local universities. But Even if they were educated at foreign universities, they'd still be snubbed for white consultants.
The inferiority complex is so ubiquitous and profound, that nearly 200 years after slavery ended in the Caribbean, they've yet to "shake off" the comforting feeling of being shackled at the limbs. It's probably the same way how the brain "remembers" a missing limb long after it was amputated. I'm being quite cynical of course, since slavery is not genetically propagated.
Black people have a lot of positive cultural aspects to celebrate. One wonders if their minds have long since been poisoned beyond recovery. However, it appears that they will never truly realise their own potential until they've learned to emancipate themselves from their own mental slavery. For as Bob Marley once sang: "None other than ourselves can free our minds".
Cultural Stigma and Racial Profiling
There is a massive cultural stigma that is attached to being dark skinned. This does not apply only to Negroes in America, but also to the dark skinned East Indians automatically born in a lower caste, the Aborigines of central Australia and any other permutation of dark skinned people that exist in the world. But it is probably not as bad as it is within the United Sates.
In the United States, there is an extremely tense history between African Americans and everyone else. Being born black in America is riskier than being born black in any other country it the world. It usually means that people will precondition one to misconceived stereotypes. While many blacks break these stereotypes, the large majority will fail to escape the stigma.
The infinitely destructive cycle starts with being born black and in poverty. If a black person fails to escape that condition, then they are statistically more likely to fall into the same vicious cycle that ensnare such folks. This is why many blacks' first priority is to get out from among their own as soon as they become successful, often moving into prominently white suburbs.
Even black folks that were born in upscale neighbourhoods (and by this, I mean among a conspicuously non-black suburb) still find themselves being prejudiced against because of stereotypical expectations. While these expectations are not necessarily far fetched, they overshadow the black folk who are not like that while propagating hatred among the others.
The harsh reality is that even well meaning dark skinned people have to either jump through hoops to prove their worth to the people who have already doomed them to failure, or be good at playing hoops (or some other sport) to win over the respect of the rest of the world.
|Rappers spout profanity, violence and misogyny with reckless|
abandon, fulfilling the infinitely vicious cycle of black stereotypes.
I won't even bother to mention the black folks whose music became a common channel for their escape. While rap music is largely funded by white America, the stigma of ignorance that plagues the black community is largely perpetuated by young black people who use the music form to escape their stereotypical doom. Life it seems, is not without a cruel sense of irony.
What does the Science Say?
Scientists like Morton and J.P. Rushton have both claimed that people of African descent have smaller brain size and are thus less intelligent than Caucasians and Asians. Even though such controversial declarations have long since been soundly debunked, some people still insist on quoting their work. It goes to show that despite the flawed evidence, the intent still remains.
|According to Professor J.P. Rushton's magnum opus "Race, Evolution and Behaviour",|
Black people were born genetically stupid — unless they were interracialy sired.
The problem with the works of Morton (1849) is that it was was largely based on the premise of attempting to validate slavery without contravening Creationist theories. J.P Rushton's Race, Evolution and Behaviour (1996) had sampling problems, which invalidate his findings. Rushton apparently used too many male Caucasian skulls and too many female Negro skulls. Additionally, as bone size is directly co-relational to nutrition irrespective of an individual's race, it would have been more accurate if Rushton factored environmental conditions as well.
So if we were to measure the skulls of African descendants, we'd have to measure those skulls of Africans living in first world countries, if we are to make a comparable analysis with first world Caucasians. This would make for a far more reliable study - provided someone is brave enough to do it. So far, no one has — I suspect because of what they wont find.
Finally, the variations that exist between the races overlap considerably. This ultimately renders Rushton's findings unreliable at best. Thus these results, while compelling, are intrinsically flawed. However, even if these findings really were considered accurate, most scientists would never openly admit it. It only exacerbates a tense, unfavourable discourse.
The point is this:
|Every black man's worst nightmare: Henry Louis Gates Jr. - arrested|
for disorderly conduct after breaking into his own home.
However, none of that is relevant. The bottom line is that once a person is born dark skinned — particularly if it is in an environment dominated by fairer skinned people, they are either genetically or culturally preconditioned to a series of challenges, some psychological, some social, that exponentially increases the complexity of a life they already find difficult to live.
They have to deal with racist hoteliers in France, pastry shop owners who won't sell to them in Germany, prejudicial Asians who call their women ugly and even when they do make it in life, white people who overtly scrutinize their every word to expose them as racist. So not only would they be compromised if they complained about racism, they also have to fight uphill.
Ethnocentrism aside, black folks seem to have more natural enemies just by virtue of being black. Even though much of that flak comes directly from their own kind, it doesn't help that the rest of the world gives them a hard time too — and I'm referring in particular to those who have broken the stereotypes. It's not fair that they also be judged by the mistakes of the few.
Life shouldn't have to be so hard for black people whose minds are obviously not bound by the self destructive nature of their encapsulating culture. Unfortunately, to be fair to everyone else, others do have a hard time telling the difference between a black man in his own home and a real criminal, even though Henry Gates Jr. would be better off had he just played it cool.
I'll tell you one thing: I would rather be black in the Caribbean, than be Black in America. Heck, I'd take being black in Europe over being black in America. Being Black in Africa only seems like a sweet deal in the south. Either way, even though recent social changes have improved their lives today compared to 170 years ago, Black People still find themselves in a tough position.
If you weren't born a genius
|Do you recognize these men? Not one of them has an MBA.|
Bill Gates is one of the richest men in the world. Microsoft is as synonymous with computers as Honda is with cars. Even if you're not using Windows, the marketing platform he pioneered influenced what you're using. While he doesn't have any degrees, he has people who have earned many advanced degrees working for him — but they will never be as rich as him. Ever.
Steve Jobs is one of the richest men in the world. While he does have a B.Sc., there are many brilliant engineers working on the development of the hardware and software platforms that have revolutionized computing who are far more skilled, and far more educated than he is. He is the iPod god and the real Mac daddy. Yet, they will never be as rich or famous as he is. Ever.
Michael Dell, like his software giant counterpart, is an egocentric Texan who dropped out of college to start his own company. However, if you don't have the visionary brain power of this guy, do not try this at home. Mike has more MBA's working for him than an entire Harvard post graduate year. They may be more educated, but they will never be quite as rich as he is. Ever.
What is the significance of this disparity in the world?
Being educated does not correlate with being smart. There are millions of people in the world who have the highest levels of education and are broke. Then again, there is a far smaller number of people who have a natural talent for making money who are comparatively less educated — because they don't need to be. They were born with a rare gift known as genius.
You however, shouldn't quit your day job.
There are two kinds of people in the world: Leaders and Followers. You are naturally born as either. Leaders are go-getting, ass-kicking, risk takers who always see the glass half full even when its clearly empty. They are the visionaries who become world leaders, philosophers and Fortune 500 CEO's. They are the ones whose whims can shift markets and break economies.
If however you have an advanced degree and you owe quite a bit in credit card debt, and you're pretty much a slave to the paycheck, then you are quite frankly, a follower. Having an advanced degree doesn't mean that you have an entrepreneurial bone in your body. But do not let that stark reality get to you. You were just naturally selected to work for someone else.
I have since come to realise that people can be born with a passion to do things that might not necessarily be the things that net them with fame or fortune — but still, it makes them happy. Those are the people who may follow their education all the way up to a Ph.D. who find themselves slaving away passionately in an Apple backroom designing the next iPhone.
Then there are those who are natural born leaders and geniuses who pull these collective pieces together to build themselves an empire using the same skills of the other people who are passionate about their fields of choice. These passionate folks are the building blocks of every CEO's empire. People believe in genius and will gladly invest their talent into their vision.
The long and short of it is that if you were born a genius, you probably don't need a college education. It would only precondition you to a fixed way of thinking that will make you an indelible member of the follower society, inextricably bound to the laws and principles of herd logic, doomed to a life of mediocrity. The world needs geniuses to change it every once in a while and genius cannot be contained in a herd. They need to blaze trails, not follow them.
If you weren't born a genius however, then you have to go to school. You have to get educated, possibly all the way up to the advanced tertiary level, because you need to find a way to creatively regurgitate what the aforementioned geniuses spent their entire lives developing and perfecting. So education is ultimately for those who weren't born that way.
Your following is needed.
|Natural Selection at work.|
By extension, this means that there exists a certain number of people in the world who are just not intelligent enough to figure things out for themselves. They have to be micromanaged and given very specific instructions. Otherwise, they are doomed to win a Darwin Award for their intellectual ineptitude that ultimately led to their accidental removal from the gene pool:
|Safe sex gone awry.|
This is how natural selection works. If you are too dumb to live, then you will probably die before procreation and by your own doing. This is proof positive that stupidity is a functional precedent of how nature instinctively purges itself of the genetic garbage that comes out of the abundance of its life giving throes. I know that wasn't pleasant to hear, but life's not fair.
(Rhyme not intended.)
If you weren't born beautiful
|Megan Fox is so hot that the fact that she's a terrible actress is completely irrelevant.|
Pretty people were born lucky. That is the hard cold truth. People like pretty people even when they're rotten. Unattractive folks by comparison seem to have more natural enemies, especially if they don't have a sweet personality or a brilliant mind, or some other asset to balance out the aesthetic deficit. Pretty people by comparison were born without a deficit.
Beautiful people are talented just by being beautiful. In some cases they can make it in life just for having a pretty face. People tend to forgive the fact that their other assets aren't so great when looking at an incidence of genetic poetry. It is only a pity that such things only last while they're young, for age is a bitch that forgives no one — unless they have very good DNA.
If you weren't born beautiful however, then it is hoped that there is some other talent hidden away in your DNA that will save your soul. Life is not very forgiving if there isn't an intrinsic biological asset that is a useful contribution to mankind. Nature tends to find another way.
The sad thing is that many people were born in this position and have ultimately lived a relatively meaningless life and have died having contributed nothing to humanity other than statistics. While that is also ultimately true for even people born with opportunities, I suppose we can't all be performers. In this case, there seems to be purpose to life's inequality after all.
If you were born untalented
Emily Bear is only 6 years old — and she is a piano prodigy.
There is a select, very small set of human beings that were born with remarkable talent. They make up a very tiny percentage of the human population and are obviously at the far end of the Bell Curve of human intellect and genius. Their very existence is proof that inequality is real. Statistically, about one of these people is born somewhere in the world every century.
Now I believe that it is highly improbable that one could be born completely untalented. Everybody's probably got something. The question however, is whether they were born at time in human civilization where that something could be a useful contribution to mankind.
Some people were born with talents for which there is no discernible use - at least not until some invention comes along that takes appropriate advantage of that rogue talent. Until that happens, they may spend their entire lives in obscurity, unless their talent is weird enough for a circus side show or media like the Guinness World Records, or Ripley's "Believe it or not!".
For example, really, really tall men with an unusual level of hand-to-eye co-ordination that were born in the 1900's would've been born 40 years too early to have become an NBA super star. Their height would certainly have been noticed. They might even become famous for it. But for the most part, people would largely regard them as little more than freaks of nature.
But who would notice the fact that they had good hand to eye co-ordination? At that time in world history, there were too few fields outside of the sporting arena that could take advantage of something like that. There may have been jobs that could take advantage of either ability, but not both. They would be considered special until Basketball was invented.
Similarly, a math genius born in abject squalor in India is useless in his immediate environment until he's hired by Microsoft or Apple. Brilliant people are oftentimes born in places where their genius is never harvested for good - or just never harvested at all. This is the true, sad reality of human inequality. Everyday, genius is born somewhere in the world that is going to waste.
Thus talent is directly proportional to social development. However, those who were born talentless and in squalor will be naturally selected for elimination from the gene pool. Do you see a trend here? Nature seems to be a perfectionist, only perfecting the useful DNA permutations while discarding the less useful ones. But nature doesn't always get it right.
If you were born Poor
|This little African baby was lucky. There are millions more dying|
of starvation in war ravaged, poverty stricken African states.
Poverty is a crime. It is even worse if you were born poor in a third world country. It is far worse if you were born poor in a war ravaged third world country. It is practically hopeless if you were born poor, in a war ravaged third world country, and you have no discernible talents or opportunities. At least with a talent or opportunity, there would be some means of escape.
Can you imagine being born poor in a third world country ravaged by an idealistic religious or political war, with no talents, no National Geographic photographer to take your picture and expose your plight to the world, and no obvious talent that would cause henchmen to spare your life? Do you realize how many nameless people die each day in this hopeless condition?
Being born poor is one thing. Being born poor with positively no means of escape is a horrifying realization that only turns the people afflicted to what is often the only available source of escape: Evil. Young boys in Somalia join militias to feed their families while the destitute in the US prey upon those who are financially better off, becoming a social problem.
There's no better example of survival of the human fittest as the situations evolving out of poverty. Everyone who has escaped either had talent or opportunity. Opportunity is more important than talent, since that will determine if one escapes poverty at all. Many with talent still die in poverty. Not even discipline is enough to escape poverty without some opportunity.
Now while one can survive with opportunity alone, talent will take them to a whole new level. Whether that talent was being blessed with natural genius or a natural artistry, talent rewards one greatly, irrespective of their original state. Couple that with opportunity, and escape from poverty is inevitable. But that may only benefits a very lucky, very opportune few.
But what if one was born poor and had no talent? Then they would have to rely exclusively on opportunity - which is not guaranteed. You see, opportunity is directly proportional to where you were born. Being poor in America is still better than being poor in Somalia. Thus escape is relative to nativity. That's why talent only realizes its potential with international exposure.
However, there are people in the world who are talented who were just born in the wrong place at the wrong time. Who knows how many Michael Jacksons were born, lived and died in destitute poverty, never living long enough to realise their genetically imprinted gifts? That is a number we will never know. That's the ultimate, and perhaps most dreadful cost of poverty.
While the death of any human being is tragic, the circumstances of their death often validate the life that was lost. If however that life was never realised, then the death is even more tragic, even if it's in the millions. We are loosing more good DNA from the gene pool than we know and from the looks of it, there may be very little that can be done in the short term.
It should not be surprising then that when we speak of "talent", we often automatically (and fallaciously) preclude all the other places in the world that simply do not have the facilities to make manifest such gifts. If you take opportunity out of the equation, then some places in the world are nothing more than DNA black holes where millions are destroyed by circumstance.
Things like this make one wonder if collective intelligence really is racially significant...
If you were born in the third world
|Long lines at an American Embassy in a third world nation|
If you were born white, irrespective of gender, then there's a very good chance that you'd have been born in a first world country. You would live in the same place where the world's greatest seats of business and education are either on the same contiguous block of land. Your societies would be the kind that everyone else (largely of other races) would flock to, either trying to escape poverty, oppression, inequality or some other social dysfunction.
Your countries would have be at the forefront of social and technological development, with the most educated citizens among whom number over 80% of the richest 1% in the world.
Why is it then, assuming that all men were created equal, that there is this vast inequality between the development of societies? Why is it that most of the developed nations of the world are run by Caucasians while they are being flocked to by people of every other ethnic group around the world? Do Caucasians have some genetic advantage other races do not?
But those aren't the hard questions. The real question is, why would anybody trade their first class citizenship living in a third world country for a second class citizenship living in a first world nation? I pass by the American and Canadian embassies in these countries, and the lines are always long, always winding and always filled with poor, desperate ethnic minorities.
In my travels to European and North American states, I don't see similarly excessive long lines of white folks at a Nigerian or a Bahamian embassy for example, trying to escape anything — except the fierce, uncompromising cold of winter. By contrast, these conditions persist year round in third world nations. Everybody is leaving for the greener grass on the other side.
But it doesn't matter how you choose to look at it. Life seems to have a preference and it is probably rooted in our genetics. Maybe the politically correct among us are are only soothing the delicate psyches of the disenfranchised. Perhaps inequality has a rational explanation.
On Inequality and Survival
|Cheetahs may pray on Gazelles. But while this cheetah's food is right in front of it, the gazelle's food is everywhere. There is balance in this and all other forms of inequality.|
There is a Jamaican expression that says: "Donkey seh di worl' nuh level" (translation: [The] donkey says that the world isn't level) and there seems to be some truth to this adage. While watching the cycle of life and death on the Discovery Channel, I had an epiphany: It appears that it is quite necessary that life isn't fair. Inequality is intrinsic to the survival of all lifeforms.
The competitive nature of life is a sign that ensures that life will go on in the face of a wide scale extinction event caused by systemic environmental change. While cheetahs may be faster than gazelles, gazelles have a considerably greater abundance of food than cheetahs. A subtle change in the environment could favour one of these species and decimate the other.
DNA sustains life by producing enough permutations of it such that if environmental conditions were to change and species are eradicated, something will continue to survive. Competition is a function of the environment constantly being in a state of flux. This presents a very limited amount of resources such that only the most well adapted lifeforms will continue to live on.
Thus, if we were all 100% genetically identical, then a flaw of one life form could be exploited to eliminate all such life forms. If environmental conditions change, then this one flaw in all identical forms of life would be consummated to produce a positive extinction of all derivative and dependent species. This became the fate of the dinosaurs when the fated meteor struck.
However, even after that extinction event, something survived. If the dinosaurs weren't eliminated, humans would never have evolved. Such is the viability of Nature and DNA. Thus competition among species ensures that life always continues, even when the game changes. However, Darwin's brilliant observation about evolution also makes something else very clear:
If survival is only for the fittest, then all men weren't created equal. Concordantly, the popular expression from the American Declaration of Independence is as fantastically flawed as it is poignantly inspiring. If all men were indeed created equal, then social injustice and war would probably never have existed. There would be no form of prejudice and we would live in bliss.
All forms of social injustice, including poverty, crime, racism, war, irrespective of the cause, are all manifestations of competition in its most conspicuous form among humans. Just as how cheetahs prey upon gazelles, one group of people with an obvious genetic advantage may exploit or oppress another. Thus every act of human conflict is a natural part of the system.
DNA as a Fail Safe
|This molecule has a fail safe built in|
to ensure the survivability of all life.
The continuation of life is far more important than social equality or world peace. We may not like the fact that some of us are genetically better off than others, but this genetic disparity was not produced by nature to separate us. It is merely to guarantee the survival of the species.
The mere fact that Negroes and Caucasians exist alludes to the fact that the Nature has insulated humanity against extinction from a global climate shift. Should the world freeze over, Caucasians would survive. Should any of the temperate or frigid zones disappear, black folks would survive. Either way, someone will survive and someone will die — just like how geckos outlived their dinosaur cousins.
Each permutation of life was randomly generated by DNA in preparation for an unforeseeable change. That's why people were born with DNA that makes them different from each other. This genetic diversity guarantees that when the environment changes, someone will quite likely survive.
The Matrix movie trilogy portrays a dystopian future where most of the remainder of world's population constituted of racial minorities in the US. According to the back story, this is because it was mostly white folks who could afford to own a mecha. Thus as the story goes, when the machines subverted humanity, mostly minorities survived.
Now while that story is science fiction, it is based on the same concept of genetic diversity functioning as a fail safe for survival. However, the inherent tribal instinct of human beings, especially in those with blind loyalty to race, will probably obscure the relevance and even the necessity of such things. That is understandable, considering our long sordid history of conflict.
Consider the many genetic differences between each human phenotype. Within each race, there are some observable strengths and weaknesses. However, together, as a human race, all of our collective strengths obscure our weaknesses. Could this genetic diversity among the races be nature's way of adding a third level of redundancy to the species? I would think so.
Like an uninterruptible power supply to a critical electronic system, I believe that the genetic diversity that is evident in the races on this earth is a fail safe that provides enough variations of humanity to ensure that we are not all wiped out at once, whenever that change comes.
|© Copyright Allan Davey|
If that's the way nature was designed, then we can safely say that macroscopically speaking, it is certainly a most elegant design. The microscopic problems that result from this design (such as war, civil inequality, oppression, etc.) seem to pale in comparison to the grand purpose of it all. Unfortunately, that automatically means that concepts such as equality and world peace are just unattainable dreams.
However, when you think about it, the world doesn't seem to be at war from space. That life continues is the only relevant fact - and this is probably why each individual human life isn't worth as much as life itself, whether it is human or not. The rest is just as a result of cause and effect - a necessary evil that is propagated in perpetuity.
In the grand scheme of things, the perception of inequality in life is irrelevant. Nature is fiercely utilitarian. It is only concerned about its own continuity. Thus, the survival of the individual is completely inconsequential. It's a risk that nature is more than willing to take. We only think life is unfair because as humans, we've grossly overvalued the significance of our individuality. With a little humility, we will come to simultaneously appreciate the sheer terror and beauty of nature, and where we ultimately fall in the cosmic hierarchy of relevance.
■ E-mail: accordingtoxen[at]gmail[dot]com