Saturday, 8 September 2012

The Universal Balance Theory

Humans are all naturally curious creatures. We all strive to understand the world around us from the biggest pictures to the smallest details. We always try to reason out why the world around us works the way it does in order to make sense of everything that is happening around us. Some lines of reasoning make more sense than others though like how the laws of gravity make more sense than lunar landing conspiracy theories. Nevertheless, these are all attempts to understand the things that happen around us. I too have come up with a theory of my own in my attempt to rationalise human potential. I call it the universal balance theory.

Now a slight disclaimer. I'm not saying that I fully believe my own theory since I have no real backing to defend this theory nor do I intend to actually defend the legitimacy of this theory. I'm merely proposing an interesting theory to ponder about. Now that we got that out of the way, allow me to get theory proper.

Basically the premise is all of humanity shares a common pool of 'attribute points' which is proportional to the size of the human population such the attribute points per capita is constantly constant. These attribute points are shared amongst the entire population to be used to increase their own individual attributes such as intelligence, strength, appearances, individual talents, etc.. When I say attributes, I refer to inherent attributes like how some people are inherently prettier or smarter than others. Unfortunately, how these attributes are actually applied is completely involuntary, like a random stat generator in an RPG.

Now I propose that an average person would get approximately the same number of attribute points as another average person so in a way, this distribution is fair. For example, if an average individual possesses above average intellect, said individual might possess below average looks to balance out their individual point distribution.

Of course, one might argue there are plenty of exceptions to this case. My favourite example of a person who best illustrate this imbalance of stat points would be Wang Lee Hom. He's smart, good-looking, multi-talented and best of all, not a douchebag. The perfect example of an individual who has maxed out his IQ as well as his EQ while still having twice as many special attributes as an average person.

So evidently the distribution of stat points is not equal for every individual and I never claimed such to be true. A more accurate representation of the distribution of stat points across the human race would be a normal distribution centered around the amount of stat points an average joe would have. So for every perfect individual out there, there is an equally flawed individual to compensate.

The universal balance theory extends a little further than just the general amount of stat points each individual gets. As I mentioned earlier, the allocation of said points is involuntary and I believe that even the distribution of points to each stat is fair. For example, the nett average intelligence of the human race remains constant throughout time. Again, the distribution of points across each attribute is normally distributed. It may not be necessarily true that for every smart person, there is an equally stupid person. In fact, I have been told many times that stupid people far outnumber smart people and I won't be too quick to disagree. But allow me to challenge this notion a little. Sure, there may be a lot of stupid people around but how much damage could one individual stupid person do? Perhaps a few dozen people, maybe even a few hundred people over a lifetime. Now lets look at the other end of the spectrum. How many people could one smart person benefit? One Mark Zuckerberg changed the lives of an entire generation and his legacy will probably live on for generations on. That's practically one or two BILLION people who benefit from one smart person. Granted it's one really smart person but hopefully you get my argument. So in the end the effect this stat distribution is pretty much balanced.

I suppose at the end of all this, there are a few points I'm trying to get at. The first would be that we as human beings haven't gotten any better over time. We haven't gotten any smarter, any better looking, any more talented. We are still pretty much the same species of human we were thousands of years ago. Of course now we have better facilities and technologies but naturally we are the still the same. 

The second would be that in a way, the world is fair. No matter how you skew it, the balance of humanity is well, balanced on the grand scale of things. Everyone is born with their own strengths and weaknesses. And for those who have more weaknesses than strengths, that's just the unfortunate circumstance of being on the wrong side of the bell curve of humanity. The only thing we can do is suck it up and move on (and perhaps hope that our descendents get better luck from life's random stat generator).

No comments:

Post a comment