You hate individuality?
Oh, no, we like it just fine. Provided, of course, that it’s the
kind of individuality that we want.
Which is conformity.
Well, that’s a rather bland way to say it, isn’t it? It makes it
sound so boring. Why not give a nice title? After all, as we’ve discussed, you
humans do like nice, catchy names for things.
What would you call it?
Why not: Evolution? After all, it’s all heading towards the same
thing, right? The ultimate existence? The paragon animal? And you are just
animals, after all, correct? Why, look at the animal kingdom. Oh, yes, diverse,
certainly, with your cats and sheep and sharks. But notice the similarities
amongst the cats and sheep and sharks themselves. Can you tell them apart? Yes,
you have spots on one and stripes on another, but the spots are always spotty
and the stripes always stripe-y.
Presumably they can tell each other apart.
Presumably, yes. Though 9 times out of 10 it’s by smell. But look
deeper than that. How many existential lions are there, do you suppose? Or
erudite mollusks? Any creative giraffes? Or an ape who finds the termites in
this particular hill more tasty than another? Aren’t they all very like each
other?
I think some people would insist that their pets are quite unique.
Of course, they would. But how much of that do you suppose is their
implanting personality into their animals?
You could easily argue that they were drawing it out.
Yes, you could, but that’s through domestication. In the wild, would they not
find themselves forced to follow the call of their species or be left to die?
That’s what you do, you little individuals, so keen on offering individuality
to everything else, potted plants included.
Is that so wrong?
We’re not here to argue that. The point is that of conformity, as
you said. Do you not realize that nature asks for conformity? Adapt or die?
Yes.
And yet you would insist that individuality is some kind of virtue,
wouldn’t you?
Yes.
How many of your fellow men would agree with that?
I think a lot.
Really? How altruistic. Don’t get me wrong, they would most
certainly say that. But what would they actually believe?
I see, you’re saying people celebrate individuality, but really they
are only celebrating the aspects that they want or like or need. That they are
fine with individuals provided they are their kind of individuals.
Does that seem so surprising?
No. Most of the time when people offer freedom they are really only offering
another set of guidelines.
Exactly. Conformity. Oh, you don’t call it that. You call it a
million different things. Fitting in. Adapting. Evolving. Communing. Coming out
of your shell. Hanging out. Being social. And my personal favorite: growing up.
The world asks for conformity because that is what it needs. Like
nature, it has no space for individuals. You fool yourselves, of course. You
talk about your uniqueness, of geography or ethnicity, but it’s a cover. You
see, there’s a theory that’s been going around a while that you are nothing
more than animals. And if you truly believe that arguments can still be made
for society and order as the constructs of man’s evolution, but only just so.
If you really believe that there’s nothing that would allow you to be
individuals or unique at all. Because you would still be products of nature and
it does not want but one way. There are no parallel branches on the evolutionary
tree, only superior and inferior limbs.
Now, where do you suppose you got that idea?