Fine Arts are an integral part of our lives. They come in innumerable flavors and have a global appeal. Ever since the primitive man occupied the ancient rocky caves, where they created the first murals, to the masterpieces created during renaissance period, to the modern art forms, the man has always stepped up the gas for sharpening his creative skills. Surprising is the fact that, we the mankind, remain as the only species on this planet who have discovered, practiced and perfected the fine arts. No other life forms, not even our evolutionary cousins, the apes, have anything closely resembling an art form. We are by far the most successful species on this planet. And by far the most art conscious. Are these two facts, somehow inter-related? In this essay we shall investigate this very fact.
When I said that no other species have any art forms, many may object. Isn’t the beautiful nest weaved by the beaver an art form? Isn’t the spider web an art form? For that matter how about the exceptional geometric and architectural genius of honey bees, who create the articulate hives? The list is long. Personally speaking the best resume for a qualification as an art form does not come from terrestrial animals, but from the aquatic giant whales. Scientists have found out that whales do seem to have complicated subsonic ‘songs’ consisting of many notes, but they are not sure whether it has any specific meaning attached. Hence whether this sequence of notes can be termed a song or not, is under dispute.
The only way to lay the dispute to rest is by coining what do we mean by an art? Then we can examine the various claims by various species and categorize them as art forms or otherwise. So what is an art form?
Art can be generally referred to as a by product of creativity. However, let’s take a step further and push a new concept of creativity through acquired skills residing outside the realms of animal instincts. In simpler words, any work piece would be considered an art form, if and only if, the member of any species attains that skill through sustained practice and not through simple genetic inheritance and that, its not a crucial pier to the successful existence for the member. In other words it’s a manifestation of creativity solely devoted to the purpose of entertainment and expression.
The above definition would demote the otherwise considered articulate beaver’s nest or honey bee's hive from an art to just a humble dwelling. Also the fact that all the beavers and bees can create the individual work pieces, because of their inheritance value, leaves us with no option but to consign their claim to the trashcan. One can argue that hunting is an acquired skill, thus lions are hunting artists. However the second rider clause of our definition, that it should not be an activity crucial to existence, nullifies the claim, as the lion is completely dependant on hunting for its living. The day we find a vegetarian lion which just hunts for entertainment value, probably we would have to regard it as an artiste. Till then, the definition above would invalidate all the animal kingdom’s membership forms to the artist groups. Only the claims from the humble Homo Sapiens will be passed. And we are the only members of this elite clan.
A quick sanity check vis-à-vis our definition of arts would confirm this proposition. Does any new born innate any painting, sculpturing, singing, dancing skill? No. So the first rider is cleared. Secondly, is painting, singing et al crucial to our existence or a part of our animal instincts of feed-fight-reproduce? No. Rider clause two is cleared as well. Hence painting, sculpturing, singing et al does qualify as fine arts.
The million dollar question is; if any of these art forms do not directly guarantee a successful existence, and that they do not arm us with any useful tangible paraphernalia that is potent enough for guaranteeing a long and safe life span for human beings, then why did it at all exist and thrive and became so widely practiced? What was the advantage of practicing fine arts? Were there any benefits to the persons practicing fine arts and to the whole mankind? But the first question is how did the art forms originate?
The answer to this issue of genesis could be found in any music store you choose to visit. Look around the music store that you are visiting. Most likely you are flanked by loves songs by artists from all across the globe from different genres. Why among all aspects of the human life, does the pair bonding exercise top the charts of all art forms? Simply because it is one of the strongest animal instincts and simply because this forms the backbone of the survival of any species, ours included. So no matter whether we lived in caves or super high-rise skyscrapers, as long as we live, love songs will sell, poets would compose sonnets professing the love, sculptures and painters would draw the artist’s view of the loved ones, dances would mandate a partner of the other sex, so on and so forth…..Time is immaterial, place is immaterial.
If we could unwind our clocks and probably go back many millennia, we might see, in the heart of a jungle the first Crow-Magnon man, who are credited of inventing the language in upper Pleistocene era some 35,000 years back, singing the first love song for his beloved. Sure, the other forms of ‘wooing the girl’ activities must have existed, but using the language as a tool with musical notes and thereby inventing songs does not predate the language formation. It is not impossible to guess that the first musical incantations must have been used to impress the prospective mate.
The animal kingdom is awash with mating calls from both the sexes and the activities that precede the pairing event. The croaking of the frogs, the noises of the cricket, the dance of the peacock, roar of the lion…..all embody the spirit of ‘wooing the mate’. But the difference is that almost all the frogs croak in the same frequency zone. Ditto for lions. There is no observable evidence of one peacock being a better dancer than the other. The distinction in animal kingdom is achieved by physical strength. Bigger the frog, better the chances that a female frog is attracted. Bigger the dung beetle, bigger the dung ball, better the chances of it attracting a female beetle for nesting. The female beetles don’t care that the smaller beetle has hitched a ride on the Toyota pick up truck and can tell better stories of the jungle. Big is the best bet in animal kingdom as it means better pack of genes which the offspring would inherit.
In animal kingdoms, many a times the herd is led by one dominant male. Other males just rally around till the time they pose no threat to the leader. If a male does stake claim, a fight would result and either the challenger wins to claim the lead role or leaves the herd. The dominant male has the first right of mating with all the females of the herd. Then the others get an opportunity.
There is a definite downside of this arrangement. The problem is purely mathematical and has its roots in genetics. We clearly understand that the success of any species' survival depends on the total available genetic diversity. Thus it is of paramount importance that each member of the species does indulge in spreading its genetic code, which is exactly what happens during the sexual reproduction in all species. However, if there exists a concept of a dominating male, who stakes the claim for first mating rights with all the herd's females, the genes of that dominating male gains an undue genetic advantage over other reticent males. Simply put, the dominating male has the highest probability of being the biological father of the herd's progeny.
Since the mating strategy of the animal kingdom favors the strong, its all but natural that the strongest males get the maximum advantage of preserving their genetic heritage, as more and more females make a beeline for getting the 'strong' genes of the herd's leader and not any other weak male's. However, this stands directly in the path of genetic evolution. Thus the concept of physical domination and subjugation finally retards the genetic evolution of the species.
Compounded to this issue is the fact that most of the species have a breeding season. Thus mating is a seasonal issue. When all the members are experiencing the seasonal libido and fights break out, the most powerful wins and sustains the genes. The problem is that in such a way defective genes in the herd tend to stay along. Result: a poor genetic diversity, which is surely an evolutionary disadvantage.
Human race has a few very strange mating habits. One, we don’t have any fixed breeding season. Two, we are the only species in which the consent of the female is not mandatory for a biological union. The third rule makes us really unique. We are probably the only preferentially monogamous species on this planet. But the third rule is not natural, as the previous two are. It is an enforcement on the typical traditional animal instinct. That is why it is better to say that we are preferentially monogamous as it is the preferred breeding strategy.
So what would have happened had the human mating strategy been the same, always favoring the strongest? In that case, we would surely have been a much poorer species in terms of genetic diversity. Thankfully it did not happen. The agent which ensured that such a catastrophic situation is averted is the fine arts. So how did the fine arts help us in diversifying our genetic pool?
In all species the females are responsible bearing the progeny. The males are responsible for spreading out their genetic heritage to as many females as possible. However, the difference is great. A female has only one egg to achieve the target where as the males can spare millions of sperm cells. This difference makes the females very much choosier when it comes to reproductive attitude and mate selection. That is the biological reason for why women are 'hard to get'. However, in animal kingdom because a strong bias towards strength exists, weak males seldom get the opportunity of pairing.
However, the human race is smarter than others The weak and physically not to strong males had to come up with an alternative mating strategy that would project them as attractive mating partners to the otherwise 'attracted towards strong males' type females. This new strategy would ensure that their genetic lines are carried forward, satisfying the personal interests and in turn enriching the genetic diversity. So a plan B was urgently needed.
Just as a peacock breaks into a dance and the frogs croak, quite the same way the comparatively weak individuals discovered the plan B. It was fine arts. The strategy was simple and smart. Impress the other sex with creative skills and win a mating opportunity. Suddenly, the game was different. The females had an alternative other than the dominating strong males. The alternative promised them of a progeny that would have superior creative skills. A melodious singer, a glib dancer, a nifty craftsman, a gifted painter, a smooth talker stated to get noticed.
As the society evolved just a bit more, where these skills were started getting appreciated, the mating equations changed. It made these primitive art practitioners look like attractive pairing prospects. Subsequently, they gained a great edge over the strong dominating types. As one physically weak individual saw the plan B succeed for another such physically weak individual, the task was cut out. This other individual, who also didn’t want to miss out, started a new branch or a new genre of art forms. This also got rewarded. Even though the traditional strong male still remained a good choice, these new art forms made new, not so strong, males a fine option as well. Next time when you look at a pop singer and worry why he has so much female fan following, blame it on their genetic urge to get a scoopful of his genes.
However, this new equation brought a few great benefits. First as more and more art forms were getting discovered and practiced, the evolution of body art forms were also not lagging behind. This allowed many not so creative members to acquire body art forms and all of a sudden they also started to look good, different and therefore more appealing as a potential partner. Tattooing, nail painting, lipstick at al, had their roots in this same philosophy. So the available pool of attractive mates and partners for pairing were infinitely increased.
This also did a great service to the humanity as a whole. As and when the new offspring emerged out of the union of these creative people, the overall concentration of genes that foster dominating and aggressive behavior started to decline. The society started to turn from savage animal like, towards more orderly and peaceful. Also this gave the weak individual the collective courage to stand up to the tyrannical individuals and paved the way for a peaceful existence. This greatly reduced the homicides and encouraged population growth; another evolutionary edge.
The collective diversity of the genetic pool of humans increased greatly as more and more productive individuals were copulating. However, our species has a strange mating habit which created new complications. Our is the only species, where a female can be led to biological union against her consent, blame it on our face to face mating style which is overpowering for the female species. In this changed pairing climate, the powerful males who were previously the favorites among females, found it rather tough sailing in this new climate. The only way out for them was to use force, which they did.
This barbaric act created serious problems in social stability and peace as it did to the genetic health of our species. To bar such non consented unions, the mankind came up with the third queerest strategy. This came as the pronouncement of preferential monogamy. In this new environment, one man was committed to one woman for their lifetime. This ensured that all members whether strong, weak, creative, intelligent or whatever were involved equally in extending their genetic heritage further.
Also fine arts influenced the culture of the existing societies. As the social groups grew nearer owing to common cultural heritage, which was by and large based on homogeneous or comparatively similar art forms, marriages resulted and this also diversified the genetic pool. Diversification of genetic pool meant that the disease resistance and harmful mutations arising out of faulty genetic copying were greatly attenuated. This ensured that the human species becomes healthier and stronger and lived longer as well.
Collating all the above facets, we can deduce that the discovery of art forms, which was primarily aimed at accentuating the mating potential of a member, gradually permeated into the cultural fabric of the society. Under the new influence of arts the human society transfigured from a savage strength dominated one to a peaceful and reproductively egalitarian one, with each member being wed to a spouse. By doing this, our genetic evolution received a youthful facelift and the available genetic diversity was heightened. This high genetic diversity decreased the probability of population loss owing to catastrophic diseases and genetic malfunctions. Result: human race received a great booster dose in their evolution.
It is true that science and technology are the strongest forces that catapulted the mankind to the pinnacle of animal kingdom in our planet. However, the art forms were the central peg which ensured that our species maintained a great genetic diversity which aided our evolutionary success. It also played pivotal role in formulation of social fabric. As long as we, the human beings, live on this planet, the fine arts will always be an important pier of our success story.
Next time when you see a cave painting, thank the creative genius of the unknown man for if not for his creativity, mankind could have well evolved as barbaric technological entity and probably went on to the path of self destruction or probably been wiped out of the face of this planet by a simple flu pandemic or a combination of both. Lucky aren't we?
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Monday, August 21, 2006
Religion and Superstition: Brothers in Arms
It was 21st September 1995.
I was in standard Xth and it was a very important day of my life.
I was pedaling my Hero Ranger bicycle hard through the busy streets of Patna, as I had to appear in front of an elite panel of professors at the science centre.
They had already scrutinized a thousand or so essay entries for a competition whose 3 winners would rub shoulders with other state level winners in a national total solar eclipse camp at Alwar on Oct 24th 1995.
My entry was selected and I was to appear for the interview, along with 25 odd other hopefuls, which would ascertain whether I could go on to see the total solar eclipse.
So, it was an important day.
As I navigated through the clogged streets, I saw a strange event unfold.
All the mandirs were swarming with a huge crowd and the scene was repeated in all the mandirs on the way, no exceptions. I did not have enough time to inspect what it was all about. I was perfectly aware that it was not a day of festivities. It oddly looked a few devotees too many for it being an inauspicious day of the calendar.
Later that day, when I rejoiced at being selected for representing my state at the national total solar eclipse camp, did the news of Ganesha idols ‘drinking’ milk all over the country lit up all the news carrying fraternities across the country. All the mediums reported the frenzied public reaction which bordered from it being christened as an act of the god, a divine intervention in the lives of all, to a definitive and conclusive evidence of it being the eternal yet a boilerplate act of supernatural miracle, which only the omnipotent God can dish out.
I was stunned.
I just could not believe how can a stone idol ‘drink’ milk?
I was absolutely positive that this news could not be true. Either it was a part of a well planned mass hysteria, which had led people to see what they wanted to see, or if it indeed happened, then it could be explained by scientific theories.
However, with in days of this miraculous event, the scientific fraternity had found out that this was a simple case of surface tension and capillary action, which created nation wide ruffles. But I remained frustrated. This was because whenever I discussed this phenomenon with my friends, they all would solemnly pledge that it was a divine miracle. The arguments were grotesque.
"How can you explain that only on 'that' day all the idols started 'drinking' milk?"
"Why only Ganesha idols drank milk?"
When confronted with the scientific facts, the last resort was quite nasty....
"No matter what science says, it was and it will be a divine incident, don’t you dare question it at all...."
Its deja-vu to me. Do not question the religion or else.....
Galileo questioned the divine theory of geocentric universe and had to pay for his 'sins' with his life, courtesy the church. Kepler introduced the concept of elliptical orbits for heavenly bodies but that was met with serious dispute as it did not agree with the religious portraits of a uniform and perfect universe because an ellipse is not as 'perfect' as the circle is. Even recently we had witnessed the pope ejaculate his wisdom of sex leading to cancer and AIDS. Also we had heard the Vatican declare that the scientists can embark on the mission of finding out the true fabric of the universe but its better to leave the concepts of its origin to the hands of divine superpowers.
So, the history is awash with examples which elucidate with remarkable ease that the religion has always posed as an adversary to the nature of free enquiry and research that asks fundamental questions. In other words, the custodians of the religions want us to be what they want us to be. Its better not to embarrass them with new discoveries, which would erode the mass base of the divine superpower believers and hence would land a body blow to their own powers.
We, the human beings have always believed in superpowers from the heaven. The time when the civilization was in its infancy and science and technology was practically non existent, these superpowers were the only solace to the bewildered human beings who suffered from virtually every element of nature. The result: human beings saw gods in rains, in sun, in boulders, in trees, in diseases, in animals, in fire, in primitive instruments, in stars...almost everything which either eased the human life or tortured it, was a god of some kind.
Then came the complexity when the division of labor implied setting up of different industries. Man discovered agriculture, farming, animal husbandry, pottery, gaming, weaving, administration and religious custodians. As the science was not developed enough, people turned to the religion for answers of the unknown. This made the religious custodians powerful.
At times their solutions hit the nail on its head and the mass base of belief grew. However, the next day another man could describe the phenomenon in scientific language and propose a better solution. This was a dangerous situation. If the unknown man's theory gains popularity, the powerful cease to exist. So he has to be gagged. And that was done more often than not. Result: - The religion kept towing the old lines of thought. Over time, this baggage grew to a huge size and all its artifacts were antiquated theories and practices with little or no tangible benefits vis-à-vis the new technology era. The tangible effects came from the most enterprising source, the man himself.
There came many great men and philanthropist of their times who had a profound effect in the lives of many. They were normal human beings with much more empathy for others and they attracted a good many followers. As the great man passed away, the legacy remained. Curiously, at times, the legacy kept augmenting. The greatness and the nobility were replaced by mythical testimonials of miracles and supernatural powers. Thus the noble human being turned into a saint, a prophet and was propelled to the higher orbits to join the other numerous superpowers. The rest was the same. There was a similar kind of custodian group, which kept towing the old lines for centuries and centuries. Any question about the divinity was a taboo.
Tomorrow we may very well see a new cult for Mahatma Gandhi or Mother Teresa, where people would claim that they could bring men back from the cadaverous state by their healing touch: - pretty much the same as it is said for many godmen and prophets. The custodians propagate the message that its better to be led by the path set by prophets and saints and godmen who lived centuries ago and still believe that’s the best way of life. Any new change would make the old principles and doctrines null and void and there is no scope of updation as the custodians themselves are lesser mortals compared to the superpowers and hence find themselves incapable to carry out any modifications to existing doctrines.
This germinates the seed of superstition. Fuelled by lack of free enquiry, rigid old doctrines which are considered gospels and outclassing the radical thoughts as blasphemy, the religious lines become a supermarket of superstitions. In these supermarkets of superstition and divinity: the palmists, numerologists, vastu-shashtris, zodiac sign readers, miracle healers, occultists, fortune tellers, thought readers et al open their souvenir shops and do brisk business. Scientific temper peters out.
Religion is big business. Look at the huge mandirs that have come up in recent past. The Akshar Dham Mandir in Delhi, an endeavor that costed over 1000 crores. Siddhi Vinayak of Mumbai is poised to sport a 100 kg gold ornamentation. Tirupate Balaji receives over a 1000 crores as alms every year. Our godmen are big business tycoons. Swami Ramdev's Divya Yoga Ashram is a multi million dollar enterprise. So is the ashram of Sai Baba of Puttaparthy. It’s true that divinity does sell.
However, the only way to keep people hooked up to this economically potent industry is through coming up with mega publicity stunts. The incident of 21st September 1995 was once again repeated on Augest 19th 2006. Results were identical. No matter what amount of education has percolated into the society, we still remain in the blind superstitions of religion and remain fancied to the dictum of 'no questions asked'.
Even we suppress the innocent child's queries. We tell our children not to question the religious ethics. I remember a toddler attracting a strong rebuke from his mother when he saw certain similarities in goddess Durga with an octopus, probably because both have multiple limbs.
Apart from superstitions, this closed door policy of little or no change, fans the communal fire and intolerance too. Add a bit of political gimmick to it and you have a lethal cocktail, almost comparable with bollywood's favorite combination of sex and violence which sells everywhere, from mega cities to hamlets.
Religion, itself is a great anchoring concept. Something that can bring about a feeling of relief and justice to many. Something which can root people facing adverse situations in life. Its one of the most complex socio-psychological fabric of the society.
The problem is not with the religion itself. The guardian angles and the custodians are the people who have turned it into a static cesspool of rotting old ideas and customs. It makes us superstitious, weak, and resistant to free thinking and impedes scientific temperament. As long as we the citizens keep a blind faith towards our age old religious doctrines and refuse to imbibe scientific temper by free enquiry, we will remain as one of the most superstitious being living on this planet.
As a famous philosopher had once pointed out: "If people attribute everything that they do not understand to the divinity, there will be no end to the divine things."
Till that time comes, lets rush to the nearest milk booth and then let the idols drink the milk or better lets rush to the sea and collect the 'divinely sweetened sea water', and lets get drunk with superstitions and utter religious prayers in dillirium.
A Men !!!
I was in standard Xth and it was a very important day of my life.
I was pedaling my Hero Ranger bicycle hard through the busy streets of Patna, as I had to appear in front of an elite panel of professors at the science centre.
They had already scrutinized a thousand or so essay entries for a competition whose 3 winners would rub shoulders with other state level winners in a national total solar eclipse camp at Alwar on Oct 24th 1995.
My entry was selected and I was to appear for the interview, along with 25 odd other hopefuls, which would ascertain whether I could go on to see the total solar eclipse.
So, it was an important day.
As I navigated through the clogged streets, I saw a strange event unfold.
All the mandirs were swarming with a huge crowd and the scene was repeated in all the mandirs on the way, no exceptions. I did not have enough time to inspect what it was all about. I was perfectly aware that it was not a day of festivities. It oddly looked a few devotees too many for it being an inauspicious day of the calendar.
Later that day, when I rejoiced at being selected for representing my state at the national total solar eclipse camp, did the news of Ganesha idols ‘drinking’ milk all over the country lit up all the news carrying fraternities across the country. All the mediums reported the frenzied public reaction which bordered from it being christened as an act of the god, a divine intervention in the lives of all, to a definitive and conclusive evidence of it being the eternal yet a boilerplate act of supernatural miracle, which only the omnipotent God can dish out.
I was stunned.
I just could not believe how can a stone idol ‘drink’ milk?
I was absolutely positive that this news could not be true. Either it was a part of a well planned mass hysteria, which had led people to see what they wanted to see, or if it indeed happened, then it could be explained by scientific theories.
However, with in days of this miraculous event, the scientific fraternity had found out that this was a simple case of surface tension and capillary action, which created nation wide ruffles. But I remained frustrated. This was because whenever I discussed this phenomenon with my friends, they all would solemnly pledge that it was a divine miracle. The arguments were grotesque.
"How can you explain that only on 'that' day all the idols started 'drinking' milk?"
"Why only Ganesha idols drank milk?"
When confronted with the scientific facts, the last resort was quite nasty....
"No matter what science says, it was and it will be a divine incident, don’t you dare question it at all...."
Its deja-vu to me. Do not question the religion or else.....
Galileo questioned the divine theory of geocentric universe and had to pay for his 'sins' with his life, courtesy the church. Kepler introduced the concept of elliptical orbits for heavenly bodies but that was met with serious dispute as it did not agree with the religious portraits of a uniform and perfect universe because an ellipse is not as 'perfect' as the circle is. Even recently we had witnessed the pope ejaculate his wisdom of sex leading to cancer and AIDS. Also we had heard the Vatican declare that the scientists can embark on the mission of finding out the true fabric of the universe but its better to leave the concepts of its origin to the hands of divine superpowers.
So, the history is awash with examples which elucidate with remarkable ease that the religion has always posed as an adversary to the nature of free enquiry and research that asks fundamental questions. In other words, the custodians of the religions want us to be what they want us to be. Its better not to embarrass them with new discoveries, which would erode the mass base of the divine superpower believers and hence would land a body blow to their own powers.
We, the human beings have always believed in superpowers from the heaven. The time when the civilization was in its infancy and science and technology was practically non existent, these superpowers were the only solace to the bewildered human beings who suffered from virtually every element of nature. The result: human beings saw gods in rains, in sun, in boulders, in trees, in diseases, in animals, in fire, in primitive instruments, in stars...almost everything which either eased the human life or tortured it, was a god of some kind.
Then came the complexity when the division of labor implied setting up of different industries. Man discovered agriculture, farming, animal husbandry, pottery, gaming, weaving, administration and religious custodians. As the science was not developed enough, people turned to the religion for answers of the unknown. This made the religious custodians powerful.
At times their solutions hit the nail on its head and the mass base of belief grew. However, the next day another man could describe the phenomenon in scientific language and propose a better solution. This was a dangerous situation. If the unknown man's theory gains popularity, the powerful cease to exist. So he has to be gagged. And that was done more often than not. Result: - The religion kept towing the old lines of thought. Over time, this baggage grew to a huge size and all its artifacts were antiquated theories and practices with little or no tangible benefits vis-à-vis the new technology era. The tangible effects came from the most enterprising source, the man himself.
There came many great men and philanthropist of their times who had a profound effect in the lives of many. They were normal human beings with much more empathy for others and they attracted a good many followers. As the great man passed away, the legacy remained. Curiously, at times, the legacy kept augmenting. The greatness and the nobility were replaced by mythical testimonials of miracles and supernatural powers. Thus the noble human being turned into a saint, a prophet and was propelled to the higher orbits to join the other numerous superpowers. The rest was the same. There was a similar kind of custodian group, which kept towing the old lines for centuries and centuries. Any question about the divinity was a taboo.
Tomorrow we may very well see a new cult for Mahatma Gandhi or Mother Teresa, where people would claim that they could bring men back from the cadaverous state by their healing touch: - pretty much the same as it is said for many godmen and prophets. The custodians propagate the message that its better to be led by the path set by prophets and saints and godmen who lived centuries ago and still believe that’s the best way of life. Any new change would make the old principles and doctrines null and void and there is no scope of updation as the custodians themselves are lesser mortals compared to the superpowers and hence find themselves incapable to carry out any modifications to existing doctrines.
This germinates the seed of superstition. Fuelled by lack of free enquiry, rigid old doctrines which are considered gospels and outclassing the radical thoughts as blasphemy, the religious lines become a supermarket of superstitions. In these supermarkets of superstition and divinity: the palmists, numerologists, vastu-shashtris, zodiac sign readers, miracle healers, occultists, fortune tellers, thought readers et al open their souvenir shops and do brisk business. Scientific temper peters out.
Religion is big business. Look at the huge mandirs that have come up in recent past. The Akshar Dham Mandir in Delhi, an endeavor that costed over 1000 crores. Siddhi Vinayak of Mumbai is poised to sport a 100 kg gold ornamentation. Tirupate Balaji receives over a 1000 crores as alms every year. Our godmen are big business tycoons. Swami Ramdev's Divya Yoga Ashram is a multi million dollar enterprise. So is the ashram of Sai Baba of Puttaparthy. It’s true that divinity does sell.
However, the only way to keep people hooked up to this economically potent industry is through coming up with mega publicity stunts. The incident of 21st September 1995 was once again repeated on Augest 19th 2006. Results were identical. No matter what amount of education has percolated into the society, we still remain in the blind superstitions of religion and remain fancied to the dictum of 'no questions asked'.
Even we suppress the innocent child's queries. We tell our children not to question the religious ethics. I remember a toddler attracting a strong rebuke from his mother when he saw certain similarities in goddess Durga with an octopus, probably because both have multiple limbs.
Apart from superstitions, this closed door policy of little or no change, fans the communal fire and intolerance too. Add a bit of political gimmick to it and you have a lethal cocktail, almost comparable with bollywood's favorite combination of sex and violence which sells everywhere, from mega cities to hamlets.
Religion, itself is a great anchoring concept. Something that can bring about a feeling of relief and justice to many. Something which can root people facing adverse situations in life. Its one of the most complex socio-psychological fabric of the society.
The problem is not with the religion itself. The guardian angles and the custodians are the people who have turned it into a static cesspool of rotting old ideas and customs. It makes us superstitious, weak, and resistant to free thinking and impedes scientific temperament. As long as we the citizens keep a blind faith towards our age old religious doctrines and refuse to imbibe scientific temper by free enquiry, we will remain as one of the most superstitious being living on this planet.
As a famous philosopher had once pointed out: "If people attribute everything that they do not understand to the divinity, there will be no end to the divine things."
Till that time comes, lets rush to the nearest milk booth and then let the idols drink the milk or better lets rush to the sea and collect the 'divinely sweetened sea water', and lets get drunk with superstitions and utter religious prayers in dillirium.
A Men !!!
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Does science and technology dictate the ethics or is it the other way round?
Ever since the last primate broke the evolutionary trend and embraced the bipedal stance, the primitive man emerged into this otherwise humdrum planet perpetually locked in Sun's gravitational force, situated at the far end of the milkyway galaxy's spiral arm amidst 400 billion other stars.
This new species was unique for its quite insatiable hunger for more and more knowledge. With more knowledge came the awakening that it needed to remain in herds so as to escape the ferocious saber tooth tigers or the marauding mammoths or other perils lurking in the forests. Social life came into picture.
But there was something unusual about this social life when compared to the other species. There was an inordinate stress on drowning the aggression towards the same species and individual domination (typically by the large males) was replaced by collective ruling.
This is not seen in any animal societies. This not only reduced the volume of same species' murder but it also instilled further confidence in the lesser strong individuals about their role and security in the community.
Gradually, as the different sects of the species collated predominantly under different geographical regions, local communities and clans emerged. These clans had mutually exclusive social habits and that remained the cornerstone of their identity. Coupled with the urge of protecting the clan's exclusive rituals and the need for a uniform decorum for a peaceful co-existence, somewhere rose the first Sun of ethics in the society. The individuals were bound to the clans as long as they would comply with these ethical conducts.
Thus the society learnt the concept of ethics and community laws which later amplified as legalities of the society.
On the other hand, as the society was developing and ethos being worked out, the primitive man had also embarked on the journey of science and technology which would eventually take the man to the space age one day.
This new aid to the human life, the science and technology, added new dimensions to the societal ethics. For instance, during the early days when the man had just learnt to harness the fire, it was extremely important to keep the fire burning. Thus, in many societies keeping the flame alive was an important activity and that gradually gravitated to the basket of work ethics of the man. In the same way, the advancements in garmentation led to the ethics of who wears what and when.
However, the change induced by any science and technological breakthrough was not always music to the ears to all. It meant that existing ethics and laws be viewed under new light and sometimes get discarded; not an easy proposition. This put continuous strain in the social fabric as new ethics would eat up the older ones and at times that would transpire as a potential threat to an existing power group.
When Ptolemy's principle of geocentric universe was challenged by Gallelio in 17th century, it created a major ruffle in the flanks of the church, which was at that point of time the guardian body of all ethical and religious believes. Galileo’s theory contradicted the erstwhile myopia of the church which believed that the Earth was the centre of all actions of the universe. It took a lot of time and effort and also involved human cost (Galileo’s death) before this basic scientific fact could be assimilated into the contemporary ethics of the society.
Today we might be bewildered as to what made such a simple principle to gain acceptance with so much fuss but the fact remains that almost all major scientific and technological advancements have demanded heavy price from the 'then existing' ethics, which many a times the custodians, be it the church or the government or even common masses, find difficult to expend.
The question is, has our civilization reached a state where we can safely conclude that the existing ethics would keep existing? To agree to this proposition would be synonymous to agree with the statement that we would not be introduced to any new path breaking discovery in the future. This is obviously a ridiculous thing to believe. Today the human kind stands at a juncture where from now on the possibilities are immense.
The previous inventions, discoveries and technology augmentations were the basic building blocks and today we stand at a platform where the mankind can truly ride the seat of the creator and achieve feats that till now we thought only the God (if there exists any such God) could.
Let’s take a small case. The ancient Egyptians had invented the first birth control mechanism. The idea was to use a small cotton strip during sexual intercourse which would soak up all the semen and hence we can call it the first crude condom. The idea of using birth control mechanisms were made popular in 20th century, but not before its share of hue and cry. Even today many countries have legal penalties should you be caught using such a measure. The same happened with abortion. As soon as the technology was perfected, it gained its share of popularity and also its share of denouncements. In early days women used to object to having scissorian deliveries as it was 'against God'.
Nowadays it’s absolutely prevalent to stick to birth control measures, have a scissorian delivery or if certain circumstances demand, an abortion is not a taboo. So, we see that if the technology is available and is viable and that if it can fend of the problems associated with the human life, no matter what amount of denouncement happens, it will finally be used. And since it will be used by a huge population, it will percolate to the ethics. Or is it so?
The technology for cloning is available for a while now. However, human cloning is banned in all countries. So is the technology for embryonic stem cells. Also now we have the biotechnology that can determine whether or not a woman is susceptible to breast cancer, but we are not using this information in determination of life insurance cover or employment fitment. We have issued blanket ban on these technologies as these stand directly in the path of our existing ethics. But the question is for how long this can sustain.
It possible to take the genetic code of a father and plant an embryo in his daughter's womb. This will create a clone of the father in his own daughter's womb. The question is will it amount to incest? Won't the daughter herself be the mother of the father? From technological standpoint, it has no problems, but has profound ethical implications.
So which is the dominant force? The technology? Or the ethics?
Historical evidence suggests that technology would finally have the last laugh. The 12 kilo tonne Uranium bomb dropped in Hiroshima killed 130 thousand people. It was not that the scientists were ignorant of its destruction capability, still the technology prevailed over ethics and the collateral damage was 130 thousand lives and many more due to the radioactivity. However one can argue that after one stint of madness, no one has used the nuclear arsenal on humanity, so the ethics seem to be winning. But will they eventually?
A century back there were a lot of issues that were considered unethical which we have taken in our stride nowadays. Who knows, tomorrow we might even be into a worlds where active human cloning could be done to save lives, genetic architects would decide what color you baby's eyes would have, insurance companies would get your complete genetic profile and decide whether or not you could be medically insured, biotechnological wombs would replace the need of child carrying in womenfolk......
All these could then be perfectly ethical and the beings of those days could very well look down upon us for considering these technologies as unethical, quite the same way we do to the 17th century church for not accrediting Galileo..........
This new species was unique for its quite insatiable hunger for more and more knowledge. With more knowledge came the awakening that it needed to remain in herds so as to escape the ferocious saber tooth tigers or the marauding mammoths or other perils lurking in the forests. Social life came into picture.
But there was something unusual about this social life when compared to the other species. There was an inordinate stress on drowning the aggression towards the same species and individual domination (typically by the large males) was replaced by collective ruling.
This is not seen in any animal societies. This not only reduced the volume of same species' murder but it also instilled further confidence in the lesser strong individuals about their role and security in the community.
Gradually, as the different sects of the species collated predominantly under different geographical regions, local communities and clans emerged. These clans had mutually exclusive social habits and that remained the cornerstone of their identity. Coupled with the urge of protecting the clan's exclusive rituals and the need for a uniform decorum for a peaceful co-existence, somewhere rose the first Sun of ethics in the society. The individuals were bound to the clans as long as they would comply with these ethical conducts.
Thus the society learnt the concept of ethics and community laws which later amplified as legalities of the society.
On the other hand, as the society was developing and ethos being worked out, the primitive man had also embarked on the journey of science and technology which would eventually take the man to the space age one day.
This new aid to the human life, the science and technology, added new dimensions to the societal ethics. For instance, during the early days when the man had just learnt to harness the fire, it was extremely important to keep the fire burning. Thus, in many societies keeping the flame alive was an important activity and that gradually gravitated to the basket of work ethics of the man. In the same way, the advancements in garmentation led to the ethics of who wears what and when.
However, the change induced by any science and technological breakthrough was not always music to the ears to all. It meant that existing ethics and laws be viewed under new light and sometimes get discarded; not an easy proposition. This put continuous strain in the social fabric as new ethics would eat up the older ones and at times that would transpire as a potential threat to an existing power group.
When Ptolemy's principle of geocentric universe was challenged by Gallelio in 17th century, it created a major ruffle in the flanks of the church, which was at that point of time the guardian body of all ethical and religious believes. Galileo’s theory contradicted the erstwhile myopia of the church which believed that the Earth was the centre of all actions of the universe. It took a lot of time and effort and also involved human cost (Galileo’s death) before this basic scientific fact could be assimilated into the contemporary ethics of the society.
Today we might be bewildered as to what made such a simple principle to gain acceptance with so much fuss but the fact remains that almost all major scientific and technological advancements have demanded heavy price from the 'then existing' ethics, which many a times the custodians, be it the church or the government or even common masses, find difficult to expend.
The question is, has our civilization reached a state where we can safely conclude that the existing ethics would keep existing? To agree to this proposition would be synonymous to agree with the statement that we would not be introduced to any new path breaking discovery in the future. This is obviously a ridiculous thing to believe. Today the human kind stands at a juncture where from now on the possibilities are immense.
The previous inventions, discoveries and technology augmentations were the basic building blocks and today we stand at a platform where the mankind can truly ride the seat of the creator and achieve feats that till now we thought only the God (if there exists any such God) could.
Let’s take a small case. The ancient Egyptians had invented the first birth control mechanism. The idea was to use a small cotton strip during sexual intercourse which would soak up all the semen and hence we can call it the first crude condom. The idea of using birth control mechanisms were made popular in 20th century, but not before its share of hue and cry. Even today many countries have legal penalties should you be caught using such a measure. The same happened with abortion. As soon as the technology was perfected, it gained its share of popularity and also its share of denouncements. In early days women used to object to having scissorian deliveries as it was 'against God'.
Nowadays it’s absolutely prevalent to stick to birth control measures, have a scissorian delivery or if certain circumstances demand, an abortion is not a taboo. So, we see that if the technology is available and is viable and that if it can fend of the problems associated with the human life, no matter what amount of denouncement happens, it will finally be used. And since it will be used by a huge population, it will percolate to the ethics. Or is it so?
The technology for cloning is available for a while now. However, human cloning is banned in all countries. So is the technology for embryonic stem cells. Also now we have the biotechnology that can determine whether or not a woman is susceptible to breast cancer, but we are not using this information in determination of life insurance cover or employment fitment. We have issued blanket ban on these technologies as these stand directly in the path of our existing ethics. But the question is for how long this can sustain.
It possible to take the genetic code of a father and plant an embryo in his daughter's womb. This will create a clone of the father in his own daughter's womb. The question is will it amount to incest? Won't the daughter herself be the mother of the father? From technological standpoint, it has no problems, but has profound ethical implications.
So which is the dominant force? The technology? Or the ethics?
Historical evidence suggests that technology would finally have the last laugh. The 12 kilo tonne Uranium bomb dropped in Hiroshima killed 130 thousand people. It was not that the scientists were ignorant of its destruction capability, still the technology prevailed over ethics and the collateral damage was 130 thousand lives and many more due to the radioactivity. However one can argue that after one stint of madness, no one has used the nuclear arsenal on humanity, so the ethics seem to be winning. But will they eventually?
A century back there were a lot of issues that were considered unethical which we have taken in our stride nowadays. Who knows, tomorrow we might even be into a worlds where active human cloning could be done to save lives, genetic architects would decide what color you baby's eyes would have, insurance companies would get your complete genetic profile and decide whether or not you could be medically insured, biotechnological wombs would replace the need of child carrying in womenfolk......
All these could then be perfectly ethical and the beings of those days could very well look down upon us for considering these technologies as unethical, quite the same way we do to the 17th century church for not accrediting Galileo..........
How To Get A Good Appraisal
How To Get A Good Appraisal
----------------------------------
So you think that you are smart
And you have the fire
You want to scale great heights
Thats your sole desire
But what impedes your rise to greatness
Is your own attitude
How to improve your damned appraisal
I will tell you dude
So you thought we liked your denim?
and your party shirt?
Dont expect any raise from us
ifwith dress code you flirt
Always wear boring formal clothing
and all the drab hues
clean shaven, black polished boots
will get you all your dues
No chains, no flashy hair style
is the professional mantra
bald head is prohibitted here
its a banned tantra
No smoking, no drinking
no talk of sports
no music, no movies
these spell bad reports
Work or no work doesnt matter
stay for nine hours
be there and be visible
and accolade showers
Always keep a pile of books
and printouts near your comp
It gives you the serious 'image'
with ratings will you romp
Do carry pen and pad in meets
never mind what you write
remember,pretention is sublime
work has no might
Always talk to your managers
with tech gibberish-full plate
open your mouth and words should flow
jsp,xml, servlet.....
Make a din at wokplace
if your 'for loop' has run
keep yourself in high esteem
propoganda is fun
Always look exhausted...
look haggard, beaten and tired
if you are beaming
implies with work you are not wired
Give out loud sighs when we are close
shows the stress on you
it means you are working hard
that how we view
Lap up our droppings
and please us all the way
then you are appraised well
and you make hay
Do whatever you wish all day
beg borrow steal or kill
but at the end of everyday
its timesheet you should fill
Follow these points above by heart
stick to the gun
We are here, your divine savoirs
The S.A.D. in SUN
----------------------------------
So you think that you are smart
And you have the fire
You want to scale great heights
Thats your sole desire
But what impedes your rise to greatness
Is your own attitude
How to improve your damned appraisal
I will tell you dude
So you thought we liked your denim?
and your party shirt?
Dont expect any raise from us
ifwith dress code you flirt
Always wear boring formal clothing
and all the drab hues
clean shaven, black polished boots
will get you all your dues
No chains, no flashy hair style
is the professional mantra
bald head is prohibitted here
its a banned tantra
No smoking, no drinking
no talk of sports
no music, no movies
these spell bad reports
Work or no work doesnt matter
stay for nine hours
be there and be visible
and accolade showers
Always keep a pile of books
and printouts near your comp
It gives you the serious 'image'
with ratings will you romp
Do carry pen and pad in meets
never mind what you write
remember,pretention is sublime
work has no might
Always talk to your managers
with tech gibberish-full plate
open your mouth and words should flow
jsp,xml, servlet.....
Make a din at wokplace
if your 'for loop' has run
keep yourself in high esteem
propoganda is fun
Always look exhausted...
look haggard, beaten and tired
if you are beaming
implies with work you are not wired
Give out loud sighs when we are close
shows the stress on you
it means you are working hard
that how we view
Lap up our droppings
and please us all the way
then you are appraised well
and you make hay
Do whatever you wish all day
beg borrow steal or kill
but at the end of everyday
its timesheet you should fill
Follow these points above by heart
stick to the gun
We are here, your divine savoirs
The S.A.D. in SUN
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
