putting things in perspective...

i'm taking a physical anthropology class this semester...and in the textbook...nestled in the back...is a short little commentary that may or may not have escaped the editor's notice...it's the type ov thing i tend to think about ophten when i hear people talk about various issues...but i wonder just how many others do so also...so i'm typing it out phor you...i hope i'm not breaking any laws...so to be saphe i'll start with all the book inpho...anyway hope this makes at least one person rethink our place in the scheme ov things...

Essentials of Physical Anthropology, Fifth Edition (2004)
By Robert Jurmain, Lynn Kilgore, Wenda Trevathan, Harry Nelson
Published by Wadsworth/Thomson Learning
Excerpt taken from Chapter 14, pgs. 358-359

(i even typed it out ophicially...with ephs and everthing...happy now?)

How Successful Are We?

As we have emphasized, humans are animals and, more specifically, primates. Like all life forms on earth, our very existance is based in the molecule DNA. As all living forms share this same genetic foundation, it is highly probable that all life has evolved from a common ancestor and that human beings are part of a continuum made up of biologically related species.

Yet, we humans tend to view ourselves as separate from all other life forms, and we have come to regard our species as the masters of the planet. In Western cultures, this view has been reinforced by the conventionally held Old Testament assertion that humans shall have dominion over the nonhuman animals. The teachings of Islam and certain other religions and philosophies can also be interpreted in a similar manner. (The Old Testament, in Genesis, actually presents two seperate versions; the second conveys a quite different meaning: that humans are to have "stewardship" over other animals.) Moreover, there is the prevailing view that nature represents an array of resources that exists primarily to be exploited for the betterment of humankind. This view is as widely held today, unfortunately, as ever before. More than merely being anthropocentric, such a perspective reveals a misplaced, unjustified arrogance.

By most standards, Homo sapiens is a successful species. There are currently more than 6 billion human beings living on this planet. Each one of these 6,000,000,000 individuals comprises upwards of 20 trillion cells. Nevertheless, we and all other multicellular organisms contribute but a small fraction of all the cells on the planet--the vast majority of which are bacteria. Thus, if we see life ultimately as a competition among reproducing organisms, bacteria are the winners, hands down.

Bacteria, then, could be viewed as the dominant life form on earth. However, even when only considering mulitcellular animals, there are additional lessons in evolutionary humility. As mammals, we are members of a group that includes about 4,000 species--a group of animals that has been on the decline over the last several million years. Looking even more specifically, as primates, we see ourselves belonging to a grouping that today numbers not even 200 species (and is also probably declining since its peak several million years ago). Compare these species numbers with those estimated for insects. Over 750,000 insect species have been identified, and estimates are as high as 30 million! Number of species (as an indicator of biological diversity) is as good a barometer of evolutionary success as any other. By this standard, humans (and our close relatives) could hardly be seen as the most successful of species.

Evolutionary success can also be gauged by species longevity. As we have seen, fossil evidence indicates that Homo sapiens has been on the scen for at least 200,000 years and perhaps as long as 400,000 years. Such a time span, seen through the perspective of a human lifetime, may seem enormous. But consider this: Our immediate predecessor, Homo erectus, had a species longevity of about 1.5 million years. In other words, we as a species would need to exist another million years simply to match Homo erectus! If such considerations as these are not humbling enough, remember that some sharks and turtles have thrived basically unchanged structurally for 400 million years (although many of these species are now seriously threatened).

the beginning ov the end?

out ov sheer boredom i've started this blog thing...which in some ways is a bit hypocritical...since i tend to dislike many internet-isms strongly...but on the other hand...i have an irrational need to subject people to the rantings ov my twisted psyche...you've been warned...iv you've read this phar...you've probably got at least two questions phloating around in your head...phirstly...what's with this "ph" thing...and secondly...what's with all the "..."-ing...

i'll answer the second one phirst...since it's the simplest...i tend to write stream-ov-consciously...and it seemed to be the most phluid and natural punctuation to convey this and not slow me down...iv it annoys you...sorry...i've been told it can be hard to phollow at times...but then so i guess is my mind...i also tend to not use any caps...not because i dont think certain things deserve capitalization...again it just slows me down...now i dont strictly adhere to these things...sometimes i will use proper punctuation and capitalization iv i want to take the time...but it probably wont happen much...also when i type i tend to not seperate bits into paragraphs...though iv i think i've rambled too long about too many things i'll go back and seperate them aphter the phact...which is pretty much the only aphter-editing i do...(here comes one now...)

as phor the phirst question...there are two answers...both could be technically true...one is the reason i started it...second is the reason i make myselph believe i continue to do it...even though...strictly speaking...i know i cannot make myselph believe anything...since believing isnt a conscious act...so we'll call the phirst answer the causally accurate answer...and the second the reverse-causal selph-delusional answer...

causally accurate answer:

i started replacing "f" (hereto rephered to as "eph") with "ph" mostly phor the same reason i started this (we)blog...boredom...i guess it was my attempt at individualism...i decided i would challenge myselph to phind an unneccessary letter and omit it phrom all typing...there were a couple candidates..."c" could be replaced with k or s depending on sound...but it was doomed with its association with "h"...a word like "chair" would be impossible since i couldnt think ov any other way ov making a "ch" sound other than with "ch"...so that was the ultimate death ov that choice...z with x...which i phigured wouldnt come up much and therephore would probably never be noticed...in the end eph became the best choice...it had a phairly consistant sound which only one real trouble which i solved early on...one ov the rules i made was that when a double-eph (ff) occured it would be represented by only a single ph...therephore "fluffy" would be "phluphy"...i'm sure some ov you have already discovered my little problem..."of" and "off"...under this rule...would both be "oph"...well this was hardly acceptable to me...luckily the two words dont sound the same and by phonetiscizing (oh yeah...i phrequently tend to create new words like this when i cannot think ov a better real word...at least i think i'm creating them...though iv someone else has i by no means take the credit phor it...) the two i decided "v" was a suitable alternative phor "of"...which became "ov"....problem solved...or so it might seem...to me it seemed that the nature ov "v" shouldn't be exclusive to "ov"...and i tried to search phor another word that used eph with a "v" sound...i could phind only one...and among some ov my phriends (one in particular) it's a debated decision...i think that when the word "if" is said in general conversation it makes and "iv" sound...it only sounds like "iph"...when the word is emphesized...some (mostly this one person) are completely convinced i am wrong in this...and that the word is always said with an "iph" sound...so i type iv...and i take phull responsibility phor any consequences ov it...anyway...i typed this way phor so long now it's become natural...and i now phind it rather diphicult to type the correct way...and am indebted to the spellchecker when writing college research papers and various other ophicial-y things...

now...as you can see...that is a rather lengthy explaination...and naturally every single person i've ever talked to online has asked me why i type ph...and my real explaination got a bit old...so through various and continuous explainations the phalse mithos which has become the reverse-causal selph-delusional answer evolved...it is pretty well summed up in this bit i wrote a couple years ago...some ov it echoes what i've already said...and some ov the arguments are shallow at best and outright phalsities at worst...but i've decided to reprint it whole to preserve historical accuracy:


My New Mission
Throughout my years i've noticed many things which in all practical purposes should not exist. Most i have not the power to change, however, one i shall strive to accomplish. That is...the removal ov the letter "F"(hereto rephered to as "eph" phrom the english language. This letter is quite usless as the same sound can be accomplished through the combination ov the letters "P" and "H"...or "PH". This may at phirst seem a usless endevour. Aphter all, it appears that this will make things more diphicult, seeing how you are replacing one letter with two, making all eph-containing words longer. However, there are 26 letters in the alphabet, and that seems to be an odd number indeed. Now, iv we remove the letter eph, we now have 25 letters. The number 25 is a well rounded number which is quite superior to 26. Also, let's take a look at the word alphabet. The creators ov this language must not have ever intended the letter eph to be a part ov it, phor instead of alfabet, they chose the much more elequent spelling. Eph is a quite stupid-looking letter anyway, in my opinion, and it is better done away with. The basic rule phor ph is that no matter how many consecutive ephs there are in a word, only one ph is used, such as in cophee. Only two words in the entire english language conphlicts with the ph rule. "Of" and "Off" are identical except phor the number ov ephs it contains, and since the ph rule says that there can only be one ph per set ov ephs, both words technically would have to be spelled oph, and that would obviously get conphusing. So, i decided to give oph the ph...since it already had 3 letters and makes the same sound. "Of", on the other hand, doesnt quite sound right with the ph. So i thought ov a letter that would produce the same sound, and as you can see phrom the ov's scattered through this thing, i chose v. And, since i didnt want ov to be lonely being the only ph reject...i looked phor other words that would look better with v substituted phor ph. I phound only one, iv. In my opinion, iv looks and sounds much better than iph. That's pretty much it. Now go and spread my message to the masses. And dammirt, give me credit phor it...


this last bit is explained by an admittedly hypocritical way ov thinking phor me...on the one hand...i started doing this to increase my individualism...but in the back ov my mind i'd always kind've hoped it'd catch on...but with that thought came a phear ov sorts...iv it ever did catch on...most likely it would never be known that i'd started it...and would probably be laughed at iv i suggested that i in phact had...since how ophten do you meet the creator ov a phad...that sort ov thing is supposed to be shrouded in the mists ov legend...so i phigured iv i made a big deal out ov it at the start...they wouldnt be able to help but associate it with me...i'm not the sort to seek attention so this mostly remained in my head...and iv i ever did attempt to brand myselph to ph...i'm sure it was very annoying phor all who witnessed it...and probably didnt work anyway...so that's it phor now...who knows when i'll decide to post gain...but at least when i do...you'll know why i type the way i do...iv you made it this phar...then i thank you phor taking the time to read my ramblings...iv not...i dont care about you anyway...not that you'd know this cause you never got this phar...