http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Mq_8Fs5h7ak
[Best video on instructing people about collectors that I've ever seen.]
Some people in the collection industry have come on this site and accused me of dissing those in their industry. They invariably point to the necessary job they perform in enforcing the Darwinian logistics of the world of finance. They vehemently protest at what fine, upstanding, yeah, even outstanding people they are before launching into an a condescending self righteous, expletive deleted tirade on all the misfits and losers they have to deal with.
And so I asked myself: "Self, are you being fair?
Not to be unduly expansive, I thought about Darwin and the "survival of the fittest" in both the animal kingdom and the financial kingdom.
In the animal kingdom, we notice generally that predators are creatures of beauty. Think of the lion, the Bengal tiger, the polar bear and that most iconic of all predators, the soaring golden eagle. Contrast that with the hideousness of the hyena or the jackal. How detestable is it having to listen to the yipping and yelping of a pack of hyenas compared to the wondrous roar of a tiger or charging leopard? Even the squall of the most common scavenger of all, the seagull, is intolerable. The cawing of crows listened to for more than a minute will raise one's blood pressure, while the melodious call of a songbird will lower it.
In the sea, the killer whale and great white shark have a fascinating beauty. The bloodsucker has quite the opposite.
Even in the insect world, the wasp, the hornet and the bee, each have a beauty about them; the leach is repulsive to look at.
In the bird kingdom bird, why is it that the hawk, golden eagle, and falcon look as they do and the collection agency, buzzard and condors look as they do? Why did the United States put a soaring eagle on their coat of arms and currency instead of a buzzard? In Canada we have beavers, moose and polar bears, but no collection agencies? Why the heck not?
Clearly, whether or not one accepts the "Argument from Design Theory", it's inescapable that the form and makeup of the creature is dictated by and shaped by its purpose.
It almost seems inescapable that one of the fundamental characteristics of a scavenger is that it be hideous both in appearance and taste in order to protect it from natural predators and allow it to be unfettered in performing the revolting role it was designed for. After all, lions never eat hyenas, they kill them out of anger because they're a nuisance to them. However, after having killed the hyena, the lion will leave it and go off in search for more edible prey. Apparently, the hyena is so detestable, even a dumb beast like a lion won't touch it even when hungry.
Thus, when we scale up the qualities necessary for "survival of the fittest" to the human kingdom of mammon, it would appear that scavengers in the financial kingdom have their personalities shaped by the detestable (but deemed necessary) functions they serve to keep the financially fittest on top of the food chain and devour the detritus (more colloquially referred to in the industry as "deadbeats").
Ray