There is no point of getting a promotion on the day of your breakup. There is no fun in driving a car if your back hurts. Shopping is not enjoyable if your mind is full of tensions.
"Life is one of those races in nursery school where you have to run with a marble in a spoon kept in your mouth. If the marble falls, there is no point coming first. Same is with life where health and relationships are the marble. Your striving is only worth it if there is harmony in your life. Else, you may achieve the success, but this spark, this feeling of being excited and alive, will start to die.
Speech by Chetan Bhagat at Symbiosis
Recently my dear cousin, Poopsie, forwarded this article to me and I promptly forwarded this to some of my outlook contacts. But when I reread this it struck me that isn’t the thought amazing? We all seem to be running the race of our lives without realizing that our marbles have dropped off en route (no pun intended). Human beings are amazing in the sense that a single man can be a father, a son, a brother, a brother in law, a husband, a son in law, a teacher, a student, a friend, a mentor, a boss, an employee and so on all at the same time!! However with the gradual disappearance of the concept of joint families, with the lack of opportunities in one’s own area of expertise in one’s home town / state / country, peer pressure and the need to keep up with the Joneses, everyone is in this mad scramble for …….God knows what.
Take my own case. I worked in a Primary Health Center in a remote tribal district of the State on a salary of roughly Rs. 8000 per month from 2000 – 2003. Apart from catering to daily OPD load of around 150, we used to carry out deliveries, minor surgeries and so on. And the patients we catered to were real patients – sick people in need of medical help and not just rich people with imagined pains and aches mostly due to wrong lifestyle practices. I hardly got time to sleep and yet I was supremely happy. Money was never a problem and I seemed to always have a surplus. I could spend as much time I wanted with my parents and family. They too were very happy.
Then I got an opportunity to work with WHO on an assignment. Money was good and the brand name was the best in the industry. I jumped at the chance. It has been six years since. Money has got better over this period of time. But somehow, when I look back, the satisfaction levels have not even come close to my previous job at the village level primary health center. I had to stay away from my ageing parents. I missed my family, my patients and simple things like Mom’s cooking, long discussions with Dad on religion and politics, being able to talk in Oriya at office, adda / khatti with my friends.. small things.. banal things…Recently Dad passed away and I wished I had stayed some more with him when he needed me most (though he would have been the last one to admit it). Then I realized that life is a lot like my class 10th examination with 6 subjects. You score 90% in 4 subjects but 20% in the remaining two and you fail. However you score 40% in all six and you pass!!.
But the thing with this race is that in most cases it is a one way street. One requires lots of courage to give it all up and do what needs to be done (a la The Monk Who Gave Up His Ferrari). What we do instead is rationalize…. mostly to convince ourselves. Better education for children, better career, growth opportunities, better pay packages, better perks, better places to live in and so on.
Isn’t it funny: we love our children the most… in majority of cases even more than our parents. Then it has to be true that our parents have to be the ones who love us the most. I firmly believe that pure unselfish love cannot exist. However the love that comes closest to it has to be the love we feel for our own children…. which is the same as the love our parents must feel for us. Would we leave our sick child and go off to a better career opportunity? No way. Would we leave our ageing and sick parents to go off to a better career opportunity? You bet we would !!
Some unpleasant questions that we might consider answering:
1- Are there jobs where our expertise can be used closer home (if not in the same town at least in the same State)? If yes what are the major reasons for us not taking up the same so that we can stay closer to our parents?
2- Would it be wise to uproot our parents from the place where they have spent a lifetime and transplant them to a foreign place (where they would be like fish out of water) where we work just so that we can assuage our moribund conscience?
3- Try and remember the salaries our dads received and the pain and sacrifices they must have undertaken to give us the best of everything on that meager salary. Are we doing enough to repay that?
4- Is just sending money home to old and sick parents enough?
5- Do we call them up daily and discuss their fears and insecurities?
6- If our child treats us the same way that we treat our parents (when we are old, retired, sick and alone)… would we be happy?
7- Are we doing enough for our parents, our family, our friends, for our neighborhood, our town, our State, our country, our religion, our society or for anything other than ourselves?
Friday, December 11, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Decision Making:
How does one arrive at a decision on any contentious issue? This is the process I follow –
Suppose I have to decide on say whether homosexuality is an ok thing. What I do is call in my motley army of lipid laden little grey cells. Unused to deep thought, they agree grudgingly to help me out. They divide themselves in to two groups and initiate the debate on the pros and cons of the issue at hand. One group thinks that homosexuality is a personal choice between two consenting adults and should be no one else’s business while the other thinks that this affects the society at large and should be discouraged. This is how the arguments go while I just sit back and relax:
Pro homosexuality Group (PH): We think homosexuality is a matter of choice between two consenting adults and we fail to see how the judiciary figures into the scheme of things here.
Anti homosexuality Group (AH): But homo sexuality is essentially wrong. Nature created sex for the only purpose of procreation – as a means to propagate, preserve and prolong the species. Homosexuality defies this basic edict and hence cannot be correct.
PH: You must be joking. How many people go in for sex purely for the purpose of procreation? Its more recreation and people will use all kinds of contraceptives just to avoid sex resulting in child birth. Then do you guys feel that contraception too is wrong – for it too leads to sex without genesis of new life?
AH: We all know animals are basically lazy. If nature had not thrown in the pleasure principle in to activities that are essential for preservation and propagation of life, we would all have long been extinct. Hence all activities that are crucial for our survival are pleasurable. Whether it be eating, drinking, breathing or sex. Hence any of these activities done just for the pleasure without considering the basic purpose for which this activity was meant will lead to moral degradation and disease. Eating just for deriving pleasure leads to obesity and cardiac arrests, drinking just to get a high leads to liver damage and so on. Hence all activities should be carried out keeping its ultimate purpose in mind. Homosexuality does not have any ultimate purpose. It is carried out just for physical pleasure and hence is immoral.
PH: But any activity that gives pleasure to the doer without causing harm to others cannot be wrong. If a couple of consenting adults decide to carry out this activity and are prepared to bear the consequences, how does this affect others?
AH: Then are you guys all for incest. If a brother and a sister or a mother and a son decide to do it with mutual consent, then does it make all right?
PH: No. Because this activity would cause pain to the relatives and friends of this amorous siblings.
AH: And how do you feel the mother of a homosexual feels when she comes to know that her son has decided to marry his football mate? And what about the health risks that homo sexuals face?
PH: But if you are talking about AIDS or other venereal diseases, then practitioners of normal sex too face the risk of falling prey to the same. It’s like being left handed. It’s just how some people are. Being Left handed was considered wrong till the recent past and mothers would go to any extent to force their child to become right handed. But now all that is changing.
AH: Just because something exists does not mean that it should be accepted as being right. In a life expectancy study during the 1990s, psychologist Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute compared 6,516 obituaries from 16 U.S. homosexual journals to obituaries from regular newspapers. Over an 11-year period, the median age of death was only 39 for gay men and only 44 for lesbians. During the same 11-year time frame, heterosexual men lived to an average age of 75, while heterosexual women lived to age of 79. Heterosexuals lived, on average, 30 years longer than their gay counterparts. Isn’t the short lifespan of homosexuals shocking? If we knew that certain behaviors such as smoking and drug abuse significantly shortened the lifespan of men and women, would we not demand immediate action by the government to prohibit and help individuals overcome those destructive behaviors? Of course we would. Then why do we close our eyes to homosexual behaviour?
And this continues on and on till like many other discussions, reaches nowhere. As it is I am blessed with less than the usual quota of brain cells. Half of my allotted quota have already given up and gone in to permanent hibernation. The ones that are denser have survived but are loath to think. Hence on most issues they just keep going in circles till my eyes glaze over and I revert back to my usual confused and clueless state.
Suppose I have to decide on say whether homosexuality is an ok thing. What I do is call in my motley army of lipid laden little grey cells. Unused to deep thought, they agree grudgingly to help me out. They divide themselves in to two groups and initiate the debate on the pros and cons of the issue at hand. One group thinks that homosexuality is a personal choice between two consenting adults and should be no one else’s business while the other thinks that this affects the society at large and should be discouraged. This is how the arguments go while I just sit back and relax:
Pro homosexuality Group (PH): We think homosexuality is a matter of choice between two consenting adults and we fail to see how the judiciary figures into the scheme of things here.
Anti homosexuality Group (AH): But homo sexuality is essentially wrong. Nature created sex for the only purpose of procreation – as a means to propagate, preserve and prolong the species. Homosexuality defies this basic edict and hence cannot be correct.
PH: You must be joking. How many people go in for sex purely for the purpose of procreation? Its more recreation and people will use all kinds of contraceptives just to avoid sex resulting in child birth. Then do you guys feel that contraception too is wrong – for it too leads to sex without genesis of new life?
AH: We all know animals are basically lazy. If nature had not thrown in the pleasure principle in to activities that are essential for preservation and propagation of life, we would all have long been extinct. Hence all activities that are crucial for our survival are pleasurable. Whether it be eating, drinking, breathing or sex. Hence any of these activities done just for the pleasure without considering the basic purpose for which this activity was meant will lead to moral degradation and disease. Eating just for deriving pleasure leads to obesity and cardiac arrests, drinking just to get a high leads to liver damage and so on. Hence all activities should be carried out keeping its ultimate purpose in mind. Homosexuality does not have any ultimate purpose. It is carried out just for physical pleasure and hence is immoral.
PH: But any activity that gives pleasure to the doer without causing harm to others cannot be wrong. If a couple of consenting adults decide to carry out this activity and are prepared to bear the consequences, how does this affect others?
AH: Then are you guys all for incest. If a brother and a sister or a mother and a son decide to do it with mutual consent, then does it make all right?
PH: No. Because this activity would cause pain to the relatives and friends of this amorous siblings.
AH: And how do you feel the mother of a homosexual feels when she comes to know that her son has decided to marry his football mate? And what about the health risks that homo sexuals face?
PH: But if you are talking about AIDS or other venereal diseases, then practitioners of normal sex too face the risk of falling prey to the same. It’s like being left handed. It’s just how some people are. Being Left handed was considered wrong till the recent past and mothers would go to any extent to force their child to become right handed. But now all that is changing.
AH: Just because something exists does not mean that it should be accepted as being right. In a life expectancy study during the 1990s, psychologist Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute compared 6,516 obituaries from 16 U.S. homosexual journals to obituaries from regular newspapers. Over an 11-year period, the median age of death was only 39 for gay men and only 44 for lesbians. During the same 11-year time frame, heterosexual men lived to an average age of 75, while heterosexual women lived to age of 79. Heterosexuals lived, on average, 30 years longer than their gay counterparts. Isn’t the short lifespan of homosexuals shocking? If we knew that certain behaviors such as smoking and drug abuse significantly shortened the lifespan of men and women, would we not demand immediate action by the government to prohibit and help individuals overcome those destructive behaviors? Of course we would. Then why do we close our eyes to homosexual behaviour?
And this continues on and on till like many other discussions, reaches nowhere. As it is I am blessed with less than the usual quota of brain cells. Half of my allotted quota have already given up and gone in to permanent hibernation. The ones that are denser have survived but are loath to think. Hence on most issues they just keep going in circles till my eyes glaze over and I revert back to my usual confused and clueless state.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Taming the Thackerays
The likes of Balasaheb and Raj Thackeray are here to stay. There are no two ways about it. Recently Bal Thackeray took on a persona no less than Sachin Tendulkar – the most modest, uncontroversial, one of the best cricketers to have wielded the willow of all times (only next to Sir Bradman and Viv Richards maybe). Most people do not agree with the views stated by Balashaeb and his cronies. Then why do these guys keep coming up with these atrocious statements on a regular basis and how come these guys win assembly seats based on their track record of spreading hate. Not only do they get away with this, they seem to thrive on it.
Shiv Sena and MNS have done nothing for the State or its denizens. So what do they tell the people that gather to hear their speeches? Everyone talks of Garibi Hatao, Roti, Kapda, Makaan and s**t like that. No dice there. The haves are not bothered about triflings like these and the have nots are anyways busy dying of starvation. The percentages of have nots that vote on election day far out number the percentage of haves who prefer staying at home and completing their weekend chores like fixing defective plumbing and so on. Moreover the denominator in the former group is humongous compared to the later. And one thing in common among the poor is a simmering anger. They have been let down so many time by the established parties that any party which feeds their anger, their insecurity and gives them a target to vent their anger would be welcome. This involves smart thinking actually on the part of the politicians as long as one is not too much concerned about the collateral damage caused.
Now when one tries to analyze this the answer that comes to my mind is simple…. It’s the media which is responsible. A nation such as ours, with a vibrant press and a very tolerant and over burdened judiciary is actually an ideal breeding place for vermin like these. The media – perpetually hungry in the eyeball grabbing race – reports every tiny thing that that is said or done by these politicians. So the more muck they can rake, the more footage they are guaranteed. Now no one will report it if Balasaheb says that Dawood Ibrahim is a goon. But take the names of Sachin or a Bacchhan and they just lap it up knowing very well that it is nothing but garbage. This is not a new phenomena… the likes of Rakhi Sawant have perfected this into an art form.
Just imagine a scenario where all the media wallahs come together and agree that they would not report on anything Raj Thackeray says or does for a year - neither the good nor the bad and definitely not the ugly. One year of media silence would be enough to enduringly devastate the MNS. Raj Thackeray would be permanently wiped off the collective public memory, which is deceptively short lived anyways.
But would our media houses actually come together and do this? Not by a long shot. And hence be prepared to hear of increasing atrocities by these politicians and their cronies. In a country where the murderers of a Prime Minister took more than a decade to be hung, where terrorists caught on live video footage blowing up people and buildings are made to go through trials till they will probably die of old age or boredom, where the Liberhan Committee report on the Babri demolition took 17 years and nine crore rupees (and counting) just to be tabled… the Thackerays are small fry.
Shiv Sena and MNS have done nothing for the State or its denizens. So what do they tell the people that gather to hear their speeches? Everyone talks of Garibi Hatao, Roti, Kapda, Makaan and s**t like that. No dice there. The haves are not bothered about triflings like these and the have nots are anyways busy dying of starvation. The percentages of have nots that vote on election day far out number the percentage of haves who prefer staying at home and completing their weekend chores like fixing defective plumbing and so on. Moreover the denominator in the former group is humongous compared to the later. And one thing in common among the poor is a simmering anger. They have been let down so many time by the established parties that any party which feeds their anger, their insecurity and gives them a target to vent their anger would be welcome. This involves smart thinking actually on the part of the politicians as long as one is not too much concerned about the collateral damage caused.
Now when one tries to analyze this the answer that comes to my mind is simple…. It’s the media which is responsible. A nation such as ours, with a vibrant press and a very tolerant and over burdened judiciary is actually an ideal breeding place for vermin like these. The media – perpetually hungry in the eyeball grabbing race – reports every tiny thing that that is said or done by these politicians. So the more muck they can rake, the more footage they are guaranteed. Now no one will report it if Balasaheb says that Dawood Ibrahim is a goon. But take the names of Sachin or a Bacchhan and they just lap it up knowing very well that it is nothing but garbage. This is not a new phenomena… the likes of Rakhi Sawant have perfected this into an art form.
Just imagine a scenario where all the media wallahs come together and agree that they would not report on anything Raj Thackeray says or does for a year - neither the good nor the bad and definitely not the ugly. One year of media silence would be enough to enduringly devastate the MNS. Raj Thackeray would be permanently wiped off the collective public memory, which is deceptively short lived anyways.
But would our media houses actually come together and do this? Not by a long shot. And hence be prepared to hear of increasing atrocities by these politicians and their cronies. In a country where the murderers of a Prime Minister took more than a decade to be hung, where terrorists caught on live video footage blowing up people and buildings are made to go through trials till they will probably die of old age or boredom, where the Liberhan Committee report on the Babri demolition took 17 years and nine crore rupees (and counting) just to be tabled… the Thackerays are small fry.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
The Pursuit of Happiness
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities
English novelist (1812 - 1870)
How many of us have heard “those were the days…” followed by wistful sighs that would make any self respecting steam engine want to throw in the towel and bid adieu to the world in general…everyone has favorite times that they remember with much fondness. My personal favorite is my school days.. what fun and care free days…we all hear our parents and grandparents speak of their youth.. saying that those were the times… legends of Rs 2 per liter petrol… 15 golgappas in 25 paisa and so on….
Come to think of it isn’t happiness all in the mind? Remember the first time we could actually half pedal a bicycle for the first time… the excitement we felt back then was something that is missing now even when we drive a luxury sedan. Why is it so? Remember the day we received our first salary (in my case it was a princely Rs 1200 during my housemanship). Compare that to the feelings of joy when we get a new job with a eight figure salary… pale stuff this. The law of diminishing returns applies equally well to emotions and feelings as to economic matters. Damn Malthus.
Why can’t we sustain the intensity and levels of happiness that we experience when achieving something for the first time? If only that were possible, life would not have been a constant race for the next high. In that matter how different are we from hard core drug addicts? We are all in this race for the next raise, for that better job, for the bigger house, for the latest car / gadget, for that next higher educational degree and so on. Why? Would that make us happier in the true sense? I suspect not. What would actually make us happier would be enjoying what we have right now (unless of course one is in really bad shape like in the middle of a heart attack or something).
Contentment has long had moral, ethical and religious sanction but is not looked upon favorably by the upwardly mobile (they must be picturing their 8 year old saying that she is content to study up to class IV and no more). I feel happiness is a chemical reaction caused by release of happiness inducing compounds (dopamine?) along the brain neurons while contentment has to be a spiritual thing. Happiness / joy / euphoria etc have been induced in the Laboratory with electrodes planted strategically in the brain as well as with chemicals / drugs etc. However can one generate contentment artificially? If only mankind could learn to be content, even in moderation, wouldn’t the world change dramatically? It would be the end of all the malaise that plagues mankind… wars, obesity, food shortages, crime, etc would all disappear.
I say contentment in moderation because too much contentment might have its own vices. Imagine being content with a 40 year lifespan and making no efforts to develop new cures for diseases. Or imagine being content with fire as the only source of light and heat. But I have a sneaking suspicion that our ancestors using fire for cooking and lighting purposes were not unhappier than us. The real cause of unhappiness would have been having to use fire after electricity was discovered and when we had become aware that there are far better sources of heat and light than fire. To elucidate my point let me give an example most would comprehend. Nearly every one of us would remember the days before television had become an integral part of our lives. Were we unhappy? Remember the fun evenings socializing with family and friends… the evening studies and night game played on the streets. Are we really happier with television? But can we imagine life without television now? Nah.. no way (‘take a chill pill dude’ would be how the younger generation would put it).
Carles Caleb Colton the famous English sportsman and writer put it best when he said: “True contentment depends not upon what we have; a tub was large enough for Diogenes, but a world was too little for Alexander.”
Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities
English novelist (1812 - 1870)
How many of us have heard “those were the days…” followed by wistful sighs that would make any self respecting steam engine want to throw in the towel and bid adieu to the world in general…everyone has favorite times that they remember with much fondness. My personal favorite is my school days.. what fun and care free days…we all hear our parents and grandparents speak of their youth.. saying that those were the times… legends of Rs 2 per liter petrol… 15 golgappas in 25 paisa and so on….
Come to think of it isn’t happiness all in the mind? Remember the first time we could actually half pedal a bicycle for the first time… the excitement we felt back then was something that is missing now even when we drive a luxury sedan. Why is it so? Remember the day we received our first salary (in my case it was a princely Rs 1200 during my housemanship). Compare that to the feelings of joy when we get a new job with a eight figure salary… pale stuff this. The law of diminishing returns applies equally well to emotions and feelings as to economic matters. Damn Malthus.
Why can’t we sustain the intensity and levels of happiness that we experience when achieving something for the first time? If only that were possible, life would not have been a constant race for the next high. In that matter how different are we from hard core drug addicts? We are all in this race for the next raise, for that better job, for the bigger house, for the latest car / gadget, for that next higher educational degree and so on. Why? Would that make us happier in the true sense? I suspect not. What would actually make us happier would be enjoying what we have right now (unless of course one is in really bad shape like in the middle of a heart attack or something).
Contentment has long had moral, ethical and religious sanction but is not looked upon favorably by the upwardly mobile (they must be picturing their 8 year old saying that she is content to study up to class IV and no more). I feel happiness is a chemical reaction caused by release of happiness inducing compounds (dopamine?) along the brain neurons while contentment has to be a spiritual thing. Happiness / joy / euphoria etc have been induced in the Laboratory with electrodes planted strategically in the brain as well as with chemicals / drugs etc. However can one generate contentment artificially? If only mankind could learn to be content, even in moderation, wouldn’t the world change dramatically? It would be the end of all the malaise that plagues mankind… wars, obesity, food shortages, crime, etc would all disappear.
I say contentment in moderation because too much contentment might have its own vices. Imagine being content with a 40 year lifespan and making no efforts to develop new cures for diseases. Or imagine being content with fire as the only source of light and heat. But I have a sneaking suspicion that our ancestors using fire for cooking and lighting purposes were not unhappier than us. The real cause of unhappiness would have been having to use fire after electricity was discovered and when we had become aware that there are far better sources of heat and light than fire. To elucidate my point let me give an example most would comprehend. Nearly every one of us would remember the days before television had become an integral part of our lives. Were we unhappy? Remember the fun evenings socializing with family and friends… the evening studies and night game played on the streets. Are we really happier with television? But can we imagine life without television now? Nah.. no way (‘take a chill pill dude’ would be how the younger generation would put it).
Carles Caleb Colton the famous English sportsman and writer put it best when he said: “True contentment depends not upon what we have; a tub was large enough for Diogenes, but a world was too little for Alexander.”
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Time Travel
The concept of Time Travel always fascinated me. Just imagine – being able to go back in time – for a minute, for a day, for a year, for a century… wouldn’t that be amazing? I am yet to come across someone who would not want to change some thing from his / her past. Science fiction is rife with stories on time travel (HG Wells ring any bells?). Even serious scientists have started fiddling with time travel. But is time travel – going back or forward in time really possible? Let us try and think this through.
Let us say that the way science is pushing the boundaries of knowledge, especially over the last 50 odd years, we can start with an assumption that at some time in the future time travel would be possible. Now if that were so, almost definitely, people from yonder would travel back in time (other wise what is the point?). So logically speaking we should have in our midst, people who have come back from the future. Now, why would someone want to come back? One could be sheer curiosity (imagine the tourism industry boom!!). One reason could be to change bits of history which are not palatable to the powers that be in the future.
However this second one clashes with logic. The most famous example is the Grandfather Paradox. Picture this: a time traveler goes back in time and attempts to kill his grandfather at a time before his grandfather met his grandmother. If he did so, then his father never would have been born, and neither would the time traveler himself . Then how did he travel back in time in the first place? How does one explain this?
Traveling forward in time, however, at first thought at least, does not appear to present any such logical fallacies. But then it's well past midnight... and all I can think about now is travelling (in person and space)to my bed... so goodnight guys... will complete this later.
Let us say that the way science is pushing the boundaries of knowledge, especially over the last 50 odd years, we can start with an assumption that at some time in the future time travel would be possible. Now if that were so, almost definitely, people from yonder would travel back in time (other wise what is the point?). So logically speaking we should have in our midst, people who have come back from the future. Now, why would someone want to come back? One could be sheer curiosity (imagine the tourism industry boom!!). One reason could be to change bits of history which are not palatable to the powers that be in the future.
However this second one clashes with logic. The most famous example is the Grandfather Paradox. Picture this: a time traveler goes back in time and attempts to kill his grandfather at a time before his grandfather met his grandmother. If he did so, then his father never would have been born, and neither would the time traveler himself . Then how did he travel back in time in the first place? How does one explain this?
Traveling forward in time, however, at first thought at least, does not appear to present any such logical fallacies. But then it's well past midnight... and all I can think about now is travelling (in person and space)to my bed... so goodnight guys... will complete this later.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Jack and Jill
Recently came across a controversial study where it proved “conclusively” that men are more intelligent than women. We tend to come across various such studies where, depending on who is carrying out the study, it is proved “beyond doubt” that either men or women are more intelligent than their counterparts of the opposite sex.
Methinks it is not possible to prove who has more of those little grey cells with any degree of accuracy because of zillions of confounding factors. The first and most important of them is that it is like comparing apples to oranges. For any two items to be comparable it is a pre requisite that they have to be comparable. Women and men are wired differently. Over those thousands of years humans have been around, evolution has forced them to specialize in different activities and hence their mental faculties have developed accordingly to cater to the specific jobs they are meant to do. Over centuries, men have been the food gatherers and protectors while women have been the nurturers and in charge of child rearing and related activities. So evolutionary pressures have, over a period of time, equipped men with skills likely to help them performing their foraging for food and protecting activities. Men are more aggressive, likely to think faster on their feet, arrive at decisions quicker, less emotional, less expressive (simply bash the bugger and fornicate with the lady) and so on. While women are patient (try dealing with a stubborn two year old and you realize the virtues of patience), less aggressive, expressive, would arrive at a decision weighing all pros and cons and so on.
Now who is to say which set of skills are superior? While men are better at spatial and objective skills, women excel at emotional skills. Hence testing them on the same set of questions would be fallacious. Most IQ tests designed are sort of unisex ones. Hence though the results within the same sex would be somewhat comparable, using them to compare IQ levels across the sexes would be stupidity. So the standard arguments in favor of men like for e.g. there being less number of famous female scientists, fall flat on their face. No one would dream of asking why the best female athlete / cricket player, soccer player etc can’t beat their counterparts among men. Even if some one posed that silly question, females would not take much offense. However try talking along those lines regards scientist and most females would be on the offensive. Instead of trying to analyze the reasons behind this, most would jump up and say females had been oppressed for centuries and they had not been allowed the same educational and other opportunities by the oppressive males and so on. But that simply begs the question – if females are as intelligent / strong as men how come men dominated females for centuries and not vice versa (and this is across all cultures and not only India)? We have to understand that comparing intelligence levels among sexes is an exercise in futility. The mental circuit boards are simply too different to be comparable.
Now (to put it simplistically) women have started going out and contributing to the food gathering and protecting (read contributing economically to the family coffers) process. However this process has started like what - just half a century ago? And in evolutionary terms 50 years is a speck. To build up sufficient evolutionary pressure to make an actual difference in the IQ levels would take many hundreds of years. But that would skew the playing field instead of evening it out. For the simple reason that women would have to do this along with their nurturing and home making bit. Even though a rational and considerate man would take up some responsibilities in the house keeping duties he simply can’t give birth to or suckle a baby however hard he tries. So the super moms who effortlessly juggle career and the babies successfully without feeling the pressure would actually be superior to men - IQ and other wise. More power to them and may their ilk increase.
Methinks it is not possible to prove who has more of those little grey cells with any degree of accuracy because of zillions of confounding factors. The first and most important of them is that it is like comparing apples to oranges. For any two items to be comparable it is a pre requisite that they have to be comparable. Women and men are wired differently. Over those thousands of years humans have been around, evolution has forced them to specialize in different activities and hence their mental faculties have developed accordingly to cater to the specific jobs they are meant to do. Over centuries, men have been the food gatherers and protectors while women have been the nurturers and in charge of child rearing and related activities. So evolutionary pressures have, over a period of time, equipped men with skills likely to help them performing their foraging for food and protecting activities. Men are more aggressive, likely to think faster on their feet, arrive at decisions quicker, less emotional, less expressive (simply bash the bugger and fornicate with the lady) and so on. While women are patient (try dealing with a stubborn two year old and you realize the virtues of patience), less aggressive, expressive, would arrive at a decision weighing all pros and cons and so on.
Now who is to say which set of skills are superior? While men are better at spatial and objective skills, women excel at emotional skills. Hence testing them on the same set of questions would be fallacious. Most IQ tests designed are sort of unisex ones. Hence though the results within the same sex would be somewhat comparable, using them to compare IQ levels across the sexes would be stupidity. So the standard arguments in favor of men like for e.g. there being less number of famous female scientists, fall flat on their face. No one would dream of asking why the best female athlete / cricket player, soccer player etc can’t beat their counterparts among men. Even if some one posed that silly question, females would not take much offense. However try talking along those lines regards scientist and most females would be on the offensive. Instead of trying to analyze the reasons behind this, most would jump up and say females had been oppressed for centuries and they had not been allowed the same educational and other opportunities by the oppressive males and so on. But that simply begs the question – if females are as intelligent / strong as men how come men dominated females for centuries and not vice versa (and this is across all cultures and not only India)? We have to understand that comparing intelligence levels among sexes is an exercise in futility. The mental circuit boards are simply too different to be comparable.
Now (to put it simplistically) women have started going out and contributing to the food gathering and protecting (read contributing economically to the family coffers) process. However this process has started like what - just half a century ago? And in evolutionary terms 50 years is a speck. To build up sufficient evolutionary pressure to make an actual difference in the IQ levels would take many hundreds of years. But that would skew the playing field instead of evening it out. For the simple reason that women would have to do this along with their nurturing and home making bit. Even though a rational and considerate man would take up some responsibilities in the house keeping duties he simply can’t give birth to or suckle a baby however hard he tries. So the super moms who effortlessly juggle career and the babies successfully without feeling the pressure would actually be superior to men - IQ and other wise. More power to them and may their ilk increase.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
The Soul
What is the difference between a living and a dead person? Being a doctor I have witnessed scores of deaths first hand. What is the exact moment that a living, breathing, vital body is converted in to dead body is a question that has haunted me since long. One moment the person is alive and the very next he is just a body… a dead body… gone forever. What is the difference between these two states? When exactly does a person kick his bucket? When he stops breathing or when his heart stops pumping life giving oxygenated blood or is it when his brain tissues die out?
This question is the scourge of intensive care medicine professional because they can keep a person breathing, his heart pumping and brain tissues alive by artificial means on ventilators. When does one give up hope and pull the plug of the ventilator? How and on what basis does one arrive at that decision? No clear answers exist for that one (ask the grieving mother or wife of the patient on an artificial respirator and you will understand what I mean)? What is that something, which, when it leaves the body no amount of technology can bring the body back to life? What is that something which when it leaves the body, rotting and maggots creep in almost immediately. People who have loved the person all their lives are reluctant to even touch the body once the slightest decay has set in (we have all experienced the nauseating smell of dead dogs on the higway… the human body would smell worse because of the larger body mass). Is it what people call soul?
If there is such a soul, what happens to it after it leaves the body leaving it dead. Does only one soul inhabit a living body? Human body is composed of millions of cells each of which is a living entity in itself. These cells replicate, they consumes food and oxygen and display all the properties of a living organism. A human being is actually the combination of millions of living, vital organisms performing as a team. Then does the human body consist of one soul or millions of souls? Do bacteria and viruses have souls? Do trees and flowers have souls? Then with millions of organisms dying every day are there millions of souls floating around in the atmosphere (imagine a million souls in your hand when you clasp your fingers in to a fist)? Do souls exist on some hitherto unknown plane? Do souls get rebirth in to new bodies? If so, then at what exact time of conception does a soul enter a body? Who are we? From where have we come and where do we go after death?
Science has no answers to these and myriad other questions. Neither does religion. I mean religions have answers, but they are so varied that it is almost certain that most of them can’t be true. Isn’t it strange that we worry no end about hurt egos, quarrel over a tiny piece of land, over hypothetical boundary lines separating countries, over amassing of weapons of mass destructions, over global warming, over recessions, about our next raise or the next promotion, about the running nose of our child but almost no one ever gives serious thought to the above questions? Isn’t it frustrating not to know and not to have the means to know?
This question is the scourge of intensive care medicine professional because they can keep a person breathing, his heart pumping and brain tissues alive by artificial means on ventilators. When does one give up hope and pull the plug of the ventilator? How and on what basis does one arrive at that decision? No clear answers exist for that one (ask the grieving mother or wife of the patient on an artificial respirator and you will understand what I mean)? What is that something, which, when it leaves the body no amount of technology can bring the body back to life? What is that something which when it leaves the body, rotting and maggots creep in almost immediately. People who have loved the person all their lives are reluctant to even touch the body once the slightest decay has set in (we have all experienced the nauseating smell of dead dogs on the higway… the human body would smell worse because of the larger body mass). Is it what people call soul?
If there is such a soul, what happens to it after it leaves the body leaving it dead. Does only one soul inhabit a living body? Human body is composed of millions of cells each of which is a living entity in itself. These cells replicate, they consumes food and oxygen and display all the properties of a living organism. A human being is actually the combination of millions of living, vital organisms performing as a team. Then does the human body consist of one soul or millions of souls? Do bacteria and viruses have souls? Do trees and flowers have souls? Then with millions of organisms dying every day are there millions of souls floating around in the atmosphere (imagine a million souls in your hand when you clasp your fingers in to a fist)? Do souls exist on some hitherto unknown plane? Do souls get rebirth in to new bodies? If so, then at what exact time of conception does a soul enter a body? Who are we? From where have we come and where do we go after death?
Science has no answers to these and myriad other questions. Neither does religion. I mean religions have answers, but they are so varied that it is almost certain that most of them can’t be true. Isn’t it strange that we worry no end about hurt egos, quarrel over a tiny piece of land, over hypothetical boundary lines separating countries, over amassing of weapons of mass destructions, over global warming, over recessions, about our next raise or the next promotion, about the running nose of our child but almost no one ever gives serious thought to the above questions? Isn’t it frustrating not to know and not to have the means to know?
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Environment or Genes?
This one must have been going on since the second generation of mankind decided to put in an appearance on this earth. Whether the traits displayed by the offspring are genetic (inherited from the parents) or have these been formed and molded by the environment in which the child grows up – the jury is still out on that one. Studies, like studies have a tendency to, have shown all kinds of answer combinations to this one. Some results have suggested genes while some environment and most have shown a combination of both.
I personally have a sneaking suspicion that one day science will prove beyond doubt that everything is inherited and the upbringing only helps to hold back or promote certain traits. And by most traits I mean both physicals traits (tendency to be prone to certain diseases, body fat deposit patterns etc) as well as behavioral traits (aggression, optimism and so on). Now for a moment let us assume that every trait is inherited and go back to the early stages of evolution of mankind in this universe. Now as Darwin says, nature tends to nurture those traits and habits which prolong survival of the species. Hence certain traits have been increasing through out the history of mankind. Initially strength and intelligence were crucial to the survival and propagation of mankind and hence these increased over generations. Gradually intelligence was deemed more important for survival than strength and hence it is no surprise that the brats of today appear more intelligent than their earlier generations (though some may say that it is not a valid comparison considering that the average 10 year old today is exposed to far more than our fore fathers experienced in their life times). However no one argues the fact that intelligence is a far more effective aid to promote quality of life (and life itself) and hence is favored by nature over strength (heard of any pehelwan who has been elected head of State :) – but frail women have attained exalted positions due to sheer mental traits).
Now as mankind evolved, certain people had certain traits which helped them do certain activities better than their peers. For e.g. certain people were stronger and more aggressive and hence proved to be better soldiers while certain other were calmer and wiser which made them good statesmen and rulers. Similar for potters, weavers and myriad other professions. So over a period of time those with traits supporting their particular professions thrived while the weaker ones were wiped away. Back then people must have realized this (not rocket science anyways but pure common sense) and striven to protect and amplify those genes which helped them excel in their chosen professions. I presume this is how the infamous caste system must have snuck into place (agree that this is too simplistic a view but this is broadly speaking).
The caste system, per se, was not a bad idea. The offspring of the strong and aggressive became stronger and braver over generations while the intelligent and wise group became wiser and more intelligent. Blood lines were preserved strictly and inter caste marriages were dealt with firmly. However, the pro caste system group had overlooked two obvious drawbacks. Although strengths were magnified so were weaknesses. The other was that over a period of time it is not possible to prevent men and women from these different groups from falling for each other and mating (yuck choice of word but am trying to keep this scientific). Hence the so called caste system with all its fallacies has been diluted to a large extent.
However it is not possible to totally abolish this phenomenon. Consider the much hyped clan culture in politics. Every newspaper and news channel worth its salt has trumpeted the families rising to prominence in politics (the Nehru Gandhi dynasty, the Karunanidhis and the Marans). All the gory details of patronage to family members have been laid thread bare and reams have been written about it. But is it really unexpected and a bad thing? I do not think so. A seasoned politician has become so because of certain traits which encourage him in his chosen profession of politics (cunning, wily, intelligence and so on). The offspring of this politician is also likely to have inherited these traits, maybe even in stronger doses. And this child has been brought up in an environment where s/he is exposed to the nitty gritties of politics on a daily basis. When this child grows up and wants to join politics s/he is more likely to hit the ground running. Same for offspring’s of film stars (inherited looks, charisma and screen presence) and so on. Hence we should expect to see more and more children joining the profession of their parents and excelling in it which is not a bad thing per se. These children appear to be luckier in the profession of their parents but we should not forget that luck is created by habits which in turn are encouraged by inherited traits.
Nature favors honesty, transparency and all the good things because these traits help in preserving and prolonging the species. Hence, over a period of time these traits are likely to be strengthened and traits which are other wise (bad life styles, dishonesty, violence etc) are likely to weaken their hold over mankind. Hence the future should not be too gloomy. Just keep your fingers crossed and pray that that Darwin was right.
I personally have a sneaking suspicion that one day science will prove beyond doubt that everything is inherited and the upbringing only helps to hold back or promote certain traits. And by most traits I mean both physicals traits (tendency to be prone to certain diseases, body fat deposit patterns etc) as well as behavioral traits (aggression, optimism and so on). Now for a moment let us assume that every trait is inherited and go back to the early stages of evolution of mankind in this universe. Now as Darwin says, nature tends to nurture those traits and habits which prolong survival of the species. Hence certain traits have been increasing through out the history of mankind. Initially strength and intelligence were crucial to the survival and propagation of mankind and hence these increased over generations. Gradually intelligence was deemed more important for survival than strength and hence it is no surprise that the brats of today appear more intelligent than their earlier generations (though some may say that it is not a valid comparison considering that the average 10 year old today is exposed to far more than our fore fathers experienced in their life times). However no one argues the fact that intelligence is a far more effective aid to promote quality of life (and life itself) and hence is favored by nature over strength (heard of any pehelwan who has been elected head of State :) – but frail women have attained exalted positions due to sheer mental traits).
Now as mankind evolved, certain people had certain traits which helped them do certain activities better than their peers. For e.g. certain people were stronger and more aggressive and hence proved to be better soldiers while certain other were calmer and wiser which made them good statesmen and rulers. Similar for potters, weavers and myriad other professions. So over a period of time those with traits supporting their particular professions thrived while the weaker ones were wiped away. Back then people must have realized this (not rocket science anyways but pure common sense) and striven to protect and amplify those genes which helped them excel in their chosen professions. I presume this is how the infamous caste system must have snuck into place (agree that this is too simplistic a view but this is broadly speaking).
The caste system, per se, was not a bad idea. The offspring of the strong and aggressive became stronger and braver over generations while the intelligent and wise group became wiser and more intelligent. Blood lines were preserved strictly and inter caste marriages were dealt with firmly. However, the pro caste system group had overlooked two obvious drawbacks. Although strengths were magnified so were weaknesses. The other was that over a period of time it is not possible to prevent men and women from these different groups from falling for each other and mating (yuck choice of word but am trying to keep this scientific). Hence the so called caste system with all its fallacies has been diluted to a large extent.
However it is not possible to totally abolish this phenomenon. Consider the much hyped clan culture in politics. Every newspaper and news channel worth its salt has trumpeted the families rising to prominence in politics (the Nehru Gandhi dynasty, the Karunanidhis and the Marans). All the gory details of patronage to family members have been laid thread bare and reams have been written about it. But is it really unexpected and a bad thing? I do not think so. A seasoned politician has become so because of certain traits which encourage him in his chosen profession of politics (cunning, wily, intelligence and so on). The offspring of this politician is also likely to have inherited these traits, maybe even in stronger doses. And this child has been brought up in an environment where s/he is exposed to the nitty gritties of politics on a daily basis. When this child grows up and wants to join politics s/he is more likely to hit the ground running. Same for offspring’s of film stars (inherited looks, charisma and screen presence) and so on. Hence we should expect to see more and more children joining the profession of their parents and excelling in it which is not a bad thing per se. These children appear to be luckier in the profession of their parents but we should not forget that luck is created by habits which in turn are encouraged by inherited traits.
Nature favors honesty, transparency and all the good things because these traits help in preserving and prolonging the species. Hence, over a period of time these traits are likely to be strengthened and traits which are other wise (bad life styles, dishonesty, violence etc) are likely to weaken their hold over mankind. Hence the future should not be too gloomy. Just keep your fingers crossed and pray that that Darwin was right.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Good old school days
This is inspired by a blog entry by a dear friend of mine. Reading that post led me down memory lane. I still remember my school days and can’t help but smile. All the memories are pleasant ones and still warm the cockles of my heart. I remember the teachers who took so much pain to deal with this bunch of almost anti social kids. Being from a small town, all the teachers knew all the students and their families by name. We had a good play ground and the games period was the most eagerly awaited one. There was always the added bonus of one of the teachers remaining on leave and his / her period being converted in to an impromptu Games period. Heaven. Even to this day in my dreams when ever I see home or school it is good old Fertilizer.
Our school was divided in to four houses (quaintly named Diamond, Emerald, Ruby and Pearl). The inter house competitions were fierce (IPL seems like child’s play compared to the levels of loyalty that we owed to our houses). Even teachers got involved and did everything possible to support their respective houses.
Memories come flooding back. The strict Hindi teacher, Mehta Sir who was convinced that this group of morons would never learn to differentiate between streeling and pulings. The simple Rana Sir, Behera Sir (Butru) and Pandey Sir (good ol Calcu), the sophisticated Jana Aunty and Varughese Aunty. The list is endless. Our Head master, KV Rao Sir, remains one of the most ideal teachers that any student can hope for. I still remember that in a desperate bid to induce students to converse in English, he encouraged us to pinch anyone found conversing in Hindi (our staple lingua franca at school). That led to serious pinching bouts with students enjoying the pinchings more than even attempting to speak the Queen's english.
Then there were the fledgling romances. Accompanied with idiotic shero shaairee and raunchy movie songs. The chalk and duster battles, the tiffin sharing, the so called combined studies in one of our friend’s houses (spent mostly listening to music, watching movies and creating chaos in general), the rush to be the first out of school during lunch breaks… I still remember that in an attempt at taming us the teachers had hit upon this novel idea of asking the more mischievous ones to clean the class rooms during the morning prayers. It was considered a matter of prestige to get nominated for this task. When the rest of the class returned from prayers, the classroom usually looked like some natural calamity (Richter 10 magnitude) has visited the class. All the desks and benches were usually removed from the class to do a thorough cleaning, leading to the first period being used up almost entirely. Other matters in which we took immense pride was being asked to stand out side classroom (great opportunity to roam about the campus), even standing up on benches (the maximum punishment that was inflicted) and so on.
Recently I had an opportunity to visit Fertilizer Town and my school. Sadly the school looks dilapidated and shrunken. Even the township looks small and shabby. Once this was our whole world and traveling out of the township in to the big bad world was considered something of an adventure. But now it resembled a glorified village. Had the Township changed or has our vision? The play ground looked puny and the classrooms tiny. Is this really where we had spent the most wonderful days of our lives?
Our school was divided in to four houses (quaintly named Diamond, Emerald, Ruby and Pearl). The inter house competitions were fierce (IPL seems like child’s play compared to the levels of loyalty that we owed to our houses). Even teachers got involved and did everything possible to support their respective houses.
Memories come flooding back. The strict Hindi teacher, Mehta Sir who was convinced that this group of morons would never learn to differentiate between streeling and pulings. The simple Rana Sir, Behera Sir (Butru) and Pandey Sir (good ol Calcu), the sophisticated Jana Aunty and Varughese Aunty. The list is endless. Our Head master, KV Rao Sir, remains one of the most ideal teachers that any student can hope for. I still remember that in a desperate bid to induce students to converse in English, he encouraged us to pinch anyone found conversing in Hindi (our staple lingua franca at school). That led to serious pinching bouts with students enjoying the pinchings more than even attempting to speak the Queen's english.
Then there were the fledgling romances. Accompanied with idiotic shero shaairee and raunchy movie songs. The chalk and duster battles, the tiffin sharing, the so called combined studies in one of our friend’s houses (spent mostly listening to music, watching movies and creating chaos in general), the rush to be the first out of school during lunch breaks… I still remember that in an attempt at taming us the teachers had hit upon this novel idea of asking the more mischievous ones to clean the class rooms during the morning prayers. It was considered a matter of prestige to get nominated for this task. When the rest of the class returned from prayers, the classroom usually looked like some natural calamity (Richter 10 magnitude) has visited the class. All the desks and benches were usually removed from the class to do a thorough cleaning, leading to the first period being used up almost entirely. Other matters in which we took immense pride was being asked to stand out side classroom (great opportunity to roam about the campus), even standing up on benches (the maximum punishment that was inflicted) and so on.
Recently I had an opportunity to visit Fertilizer Town and my school. Sadly the school looks dilapidated and shrunken. Even the township looks small and shabby. Once this was our whole world and traveling out of the township in to the big bad world was considered something of an adventure. But now it resembled a glorified village. Had the Township changed or has our vision? The play ground looked puny and the classrooms tiny. Is this really where we had spent the most wonderful days of our lives?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)