I shall survive, says the human.

The process of human evolution, and for that matter all of evolution, is generally viewed as a story of solutions. The environment presents a challenge, and the species responds. Evolution is the process of the species finding solutions to life’s challenges.

The question one can ask here is, is that solution a result of pure chance, or is it a result of the ability of that particular species. One way of nullifying that question is by saying that the ability of a species to find a solution is not an innate ability, but is heavily dependent on chance. In other words, the ability is a subset of chance.

Let me explain. Humans, the pinnacle of evolution have an ability to solve the challenges of life. They owe that ability to the mind. However, this ability is fundamentally dependent on observation, and more importantly new, better ideas. By better i mean, a more thorough explanation of the observation. But these ideas are purely by chance, and the occurrence of these ideas is dependent on partially, the genetic make up of the individual and the influence of the external forces, including learning atmosphere, liberty, opportunity etc. Both these things are highly random, and not predictable. Therefore there is no control on the emergence of new ideas, and that is almost purely by chance.

It is true, humans exert a control over their ambient atmosphere more than anybody else. But, one must not forget many earth changing events that happened in the past, that were a direct result of species interaction with the environment. Humans have not done something to the environment that never happened before. One argument that can be put up here is that humans are not like other species. Other species are dependent on evolutionary change to find solutions. Humans have their minds. They are capable of finding solutions much faster. The industrial revolution is a very good example. The result of that revolution was unprecedented control for humans over their surroundings. Yet, how do we know, that the change, or these new ideas present solutions to the challenge of human survival, in the long term? The most important question is, all along, humans have understood history, and even evolutionary history as a series of challenge – solution pairs. How complete is this view?

For example, almost everything in this world, that humans perceive is interpreted in the challenge-solution scenario. Whats the solution to poverty? Whats the solution to illiteracy? Whats the solution to global warming? Whats the solution to war? Fundamentally, whats the solution to survive?

What strikes my mind is that, humans have not been threatened to extinction by any force on earth. Yet, survival is a challenge to humans. Humans, like some species before, found the earth as a vast land of opportunity that was positive towards their chances of survival, after the last ice age. So, they multiplied. Now, they control a vast area of this earth. But, unlike other species, survival to humans is not a individual trait. It is a group trait. That means, we want as many humans as possible to survive. Thats a fundamental part of what we call “human”. This is a major difference between the previous species and ours. So, this is, may be, the solution to the challenge of survival today. But, in this process, we have climate change as the result. Tomorrow, things could be more difficult. Will the social solutions such as morals and these “human” traits survive the challenges posed by the forces of the future?

In my view, history is not to be viewed as a drama of challenge-solution pairs. Chance has a huge part to play in our existence. One must respect that. It may be true that humans have survived by their sheer power to find solutions. But a lot of it was by chance. We can also be sure that chance will remain the prime factor for a long time, perhaps for eternity. It is not the credit of humans that they survived. Or, for that matter, any species. The challenge-solution pair theory is a result of chance. Evolution is a result of chance. The very definition of life, as a molecule of DNA replicating itself, was by chance. It would be short-sightedness if we assume that we will survive. It could be a wrong assumption to blindly believe that humans will find solutions to survival, always. The life on earth is not a result of challenge – solution theory. It is by chance.

I might be too confident in stating that evolution itself is not explainable in challenge-solution basis. True, organisms have risen to life’s challenges. Life survived. But at a heavy price. All the organisms must have had changes. All represented potential solutions. But only a few survived. Those which had the right solutions. But it is not the organism that gets the credit for it. It is purely by chance. Humans have come a long way in surviving. They invented many solutions to life’s challenges. This has lead them to believe that they are invincible. “I shall survive”, screams the human. But, it would be wise for us to realize how much of a role chance had in this survival. This perhaps may also force humans to realize the humility that surrounds our existence.

It is wise if we do not let prejudice let us view the world in a biased manner. Humans are not the only ones to have survived this earth. Our greatness in finding solutions is only a hollow trumpet that fades in the face of chance. The story of life is not a continuous drama of problem solving and arms races, of which we form the peak. More than that, it is of chance. We, are also a part of this huge chess board in which nothing is assured.

more, later…… adios

can i survive?

Apologies for the delay in a post… i was away…

Apologies, also, for the assumptions of my previous post… while the scenario is interesting, it could be possible that i might have over estimated the assumptions. It is too early and difficult to judge human longevity on the basis of evolutionary principles. I will get back on the topic with another post, but for now, lets shelve the idea.

—

Coming out of teenage, i look at the world around me, and i find, what have i learnt in all these years? Sure, i know a lot more than i knew before. I can handle myself much better. I have a personality now. I have a confidence about myself. Still, life seems the same hazy stuff that i never get to know. Uncertainty plagues the world around me. I know, i cannot ask anyone questions. Its simply something that i can never understand. As i look into the future, swathes of uncertainity looming large, i cannot help but wonder, can i survive this?

All the hopes, aspirations, plans and aims seem vaporous, ready to vanish into thin air, on the slightest jolt to the fabric of my perception of reality. When we are euphoric, we tend not to think about the future. A large time frame of reference tends to bring disillusionment, inaction and apathy. Sure, to look at all the way we have come, we survived. We survived. But, to what point and purpose? We celebrate our pinnacles of achievement and genius. We are the zenith of evolution. We control the world. We are the gods of our own creation.

Yet, we see many more things than these few observations from the large frame. Our survival is a game of dice. Chance, mere chance, is the architect of our survival. Evolution is chance. We are proud that we are at the top of the evolutionary tree. Our egos inflate our achievements. To realize how big a role chance has played in our existence, one has to only look from the time scale of millions of years. What achievement has human race to its credit, rather than the sole ability to survive? To be frank, even that, looks seriously threatened by the very same race.

What is progress? Is it the ability to survive? Humans cannot predict the future. Their survival depends on how they adapt, how they realize what threatens their survival. Even all this may not be sufficient to ensure survival when chance rolls its dice. Opinions that we shall survive, come what may, do sound reassuring. But what weight do they have in reality?

When one looks at the human species as a whole, on earth, they are like microscopic species in a test tube sample. Sure, the humans are different, they can think. They control their surroundings. But, how can one dissociate the fact that the ability to find solutions is linked to evolutionary traits, which happen by chance. New ideas, like the wheel, happen by chance, and it is only by chance that species get a leap in the evolutionary race. I wonder if human species as a whole is equal, in terms of speed of evolution, equal to a virus with a high reproduction speed. The mind is a tool in evolution. Similarly, a flexible protein structure on the exterior of a virus is a tool in evolution. The emergence of both is by chance. Then, how is it that the human mind is quick to take the post of evolutionary pinnacle?

I know that many people would disagree with me on this. For many, progress is survival. Progress means actions which lead to better chances for our survival. One logic is that the fact that humans have been forced to act in ways to improve their survival necessitates our continued respect for it and act in a similar manner even in our lives. I do not know if this is a golden rule that cannot be questioned.

More…..Perhaps at some other time, in some other post…. until then…. adios….

During this debate, I am often reminded of the closing lines of Robin Williams – Live at the Metropolitan Opera House, mentioning the uncertainity about the future.
Robin’s son (Zack, played by himself) – “Well, Whats it gonna be?” (in reference to “how will the future be?”)

Robin – “Hey zacka, hey its hmm….. I don’t know …… But, may be along the way, you take my hand, we’ll tell a few jokes and have some fun…… hey, how do you get to the met?”

Zack  – “Money”

Robin – “C’mon pal, you’re not afraid, are you? “

Zack – “Nah, …Fuck it”.

longevity – some questions

Evolution, as we know, is primarily driven by the ability for a particular individual to survive. It is obvious, the individual which is best adapted to survival, survives, and passes on its genes to the next generation. The individuals which do not adapt, tend to survive lesser, and hence, over the millions of years of evolution, have vanished. Therefore, survival is the key factor of evolution. The driver of evolutionary natural selection.

There are a few points of observation to be made here. It should be obvious by now that evolution is not a force. It is a phenomenon. It is a label we attach to the cumulative effect of competition and adversity on the make up of an individual. What I am, is a result of that competition and the adversity of my past. By my past, i mean, I was not “born”. I was transformed. I am at the fag end of an enormously long chain of events that influenced my existence. So many factors, that it would seem chaotic. Closely observe, and you will find order, causality and reason.

Let me come to one very important trait of any species. Longevity. How is one’s life span decided? Who decided it? Forces of competition and ambient pressures. One can speculate that depending on the type of parenting and the timing of reproductive peaks, and the abundance of resources, the lifespan of any species is decided. For example, for a thread of human race to survive, the parent should reach enough age to be able to sustain itself. That takes some time. Next, finding a mate, and giving birth to a child takes a little time. But, most importantly, the parent should be able to take care of the child and allow it to reach adulthood. This takes the same time as the first part. And then, the death of the parent does not affect the line of descendants. Hence, the average life span of a species should be around the double the time the child reaches self sufficiency. That logic makes the human life span to be roughly around 40. But, it is not the case. The reasons are purely speculative. There could be a reason for that. The humans, and indeed apes, of the past faced far more adverse conditions than the present day. For such a species, the birth of a single child could not guarantee a line of race. Therefore, multiple babies, were the order of the day. Hence, this could add at least 20 more years of lifespan to humans. Assuming that 25 years was the added life span, we come to the average of today. But, bear in mind that this is not a result of evolution. Better living conditions were the prime reason. My point is, what is the natural life expectancy, and how was it influenced by evolution. Chimps live to 60 in captivity, so one can speculate that this is an evolutionary trait. Given proper conditions, human life span has not exceeded 100 years, at least for a majority of cultures.

So, what could be the reason for increased longevity? Do note that the traits of lower longevity also get passed on. Because to the force of survival, anything beyond 65 would be the same. By the time a person is 65, his genes would have passed on. He/She is no longer susceptible to the forces of evolution, which are based on the passing on of genes. So, one can speculate that may be, just may be, species could have mated at late ages, say, at 30 instead of today’s prevalent 20. If that is the case, this could mean the average ideal life span of humans to be around 85 – 90. Something thats closer to the ideal – but not extreme – human life span. As resources became lower, environmental pressures could have forced a lower mating age. But, this did not mean that the genes lost their characteristic of longevity under ideal conditions. It could be that such conditions did not exist in the past, and hence there was no possibility for humans to be tested on ideal longevity. It is true that humans today have the highest on average life span. But, it cannot be assumed that this is solely a miracle of modern civilization. It is quite possible that today’s more comfortable world offered a chance for humans to stretch their life spans to the maximum.

more to come later….. adios…..

cheers

vicious cycle…..

It is age old wisdom that the one who is satisfied with what he has and is, is the happiest person alive. We all have figured that out, at one point or another of our lives. The question is, is it possible at all to be satisfied, not just for a few moments, but for eternity? Well, if not eternity, for most part of our lives.

I think i am cursed to an infinite loop of disenchantment with myself. At no point, it seems to me that i am satisfied with myself. Overall, yeah, i feel i am having a great time. But, in individual moments, i feel i never had a great time. The worst part is, people who really seem happy about themselves, smug and satisfied, they don’t impress me at all. I am intent on pointing out the grim and depressing world around them. Those who see it, hate me for it. Those who can’t, dismiss me as a weirdo. But the most interesting thing is that the mind is intent on seeking what it cannot have. Children do that. They always want what they cant have. It sometimes occurs to me, that our mind has evolved that way, with want and greed being a universal phenomenon. Am i delirious? It seems i am stuck.

Price of Information

We are moving towards a networked world. Towards a world where information flow defines the behavior of societies. Information forms the basis of how we make decisions. What role could information and communication devices play in this new world? Can this new flood of info change the way humans interact and make decisions? Does the control of information necessarily imply power?

There are three components of information, as far as the mind can understand. One, is the pure content of the information, and the second, the tone and hidden content of the information. Add to this, the conclusions that are already in our mind connect to the new information, in order to reinforce or degenerate themselves. These three components of information deliver the complete content and intent of the message. Now, the mind has knowledge of that particular entity.

Thanks to technology, and particularly the internet, the flow of information has become as simple as the touch of a key.  As more and more people plug in to the internet as a source of information and entertainment, the roles of traditional media are being challenged. More information is now available for less or no cost. Further, the information is dynamic, allowing for real time inputs and actions. The introduction of blogs, message boards, Wikipedia, social networking sites and most of all, efficient search engines has made the the flow of information easier than ever. This is expected to only increase and accelerate in the future, with more and more people plugging in. This could also mean an increasingly skewed world where in the societies with free flow of information have a distinct edge over others which do not, due to restrictive practices or lack of resources. But, as more and more nations are realizing, in a world that is not uniform in resources, information is the only commodity that is free to be exchanged all over. But, paradoxically, this information could be viewed as the most precious resource, not only as a source of human capital, but also in developing a better, evolved societies, of individuals with broader perspectives. This could enable a sea change in global economics, and even human behavior with economies competing for human resources and ideas.

However, this new and emerging world of information has certain characteristics that need to be examined.

• One, the information on the internet, as the controversy on Wikipedia illustrated, need not be assuredly factual.
• Second, the tone of information is a critical component of how the mind understands the information. Hence, as more and more people join in the information bandwagon, there is a high chance that information is misinterpreted along the long line of hops. This may result in skewed understanding of the information at the end.
•  Third, in this vast and almost limitless amount of digital data, how do we pinpoint on the information we need? Simple information, such as the price of a product is not a big deal. But, serious issues such as discussions and opinions on topics such as politics, ethics, society, sustainability, are all dependent on inferences and arguments, which generally are subjective. Amongst the huge amount of data, where do we look for issues? Even if we looked at issues, how do we decide on an argument, between thousands of opinions and views?

At this point, it seems to me that as the contributors to the debate increase, the observant person is confused with too many views. While most are generally illogical and hence can be discarded, he/she will be left with multiple views on the state of the society. People who strongly believe in ideologies tend to rubbish all other arguments except for the one that supports their view. Others, who are open to new ideas may be dumbfounded by the number of views that surround them. The sheer number of perspectives offered to them could make them puzzled and could result, finally, in inaction.

I am not speaking against a broader and a larger participation in the new information age, but am pointing out that the result of such an influx of opinions, could be inaction. Whether inaction is the right action, well, lets leave that to another time.

Where are we heading?

Almost everybody who studied history knows about the rise and fall of empires. Each kingdom had its heyday, its pinnacle of glory, before it degenerated into shambles. While it is true that some of the societies that exist today are descendants of very old civilizations and have the remnants of their past, their present culture and form is a far cry from their ancestors. In today’s world of information exchange, it is becoming increasingly difficult to define a culture as a separate entity.

The primary problem for a person to form a broad perspective, especially with regard to history and its implications, is that it is difficult to remove the time from one’s frame of reference. Most of us have an inherent difficulty to visualize on a large time scale. That becomes more difficult when it is obvious that we need to abandon some of the fundamental assumptions we make when constructing our perspective. All the people with an amount of patriotism believe that their country holds potential for the title as the greatest civilization on Earth. This leads them to believe that it is their duty to work to make their country great. While the optimism and hope of the outlook is laudable, it is obvious from our past, that no country survives to be a superpower for a long time. Rome was once touted as the greatest city in the world. All that is left of it now, are the imposing palaces and a legacy of its culture and its ideas. It is true, that the rise and subsequent fall of Rome is of huge consequence in history, and the world today would have been a different place, if the history of Rome was any different. Yet, Romans believed for a long time that it was their destiny to be the greatest of all civilizations. Ditto to the imperial empires of France, Spain and Portugal. Even the British empire, once famously touted as the empire on which the sun never sets, has fallen, after about two hundred years of its glorious days.

Yet, the fact that all societies will fall (at least in glory and prosperity, if not in power and peace) after attaining a peak, need not be viewed in pessimism. Each civilization contributes its legacy, its ideas to the progress of humankind.  Its place in history is not in vain, for, it will have its impact on all future cultures. However, patriotism cannot be sustained in a logical argument. If we have learnt anything from history, it is that every empire that has ambition may reach its pinnacle, but will inevitably fall. One can argue that the invention of nuclear weapons is a disaster, but it has formed a situation where no country can directly attack another with nuclear weapons, for the fear of annihilation through retaliation is too horrific. In a world with increasing resource constraints and with the threat of a military attack on large nations significantly diminished, economics is going to be (in fact, already it is) the new tool for power. In such a situation, policy makers and governments need to realize the futility of pursuing power and prosperity as a sole ambition. The aim of societies needs to be a transformation into sustainable, idea driven, people centric, tolerant, liberal societies. That gives those societies a chance to survive, and adapt to the challenges of the future. In the case of societies with power and prosperity driven ambitions, those societies may not be able to survive the heights they would reach, in terms of power and prosperity. And, they would collapse into their past states, if not into anarchy. History shall bear witness.

My argument is not with you.

It is rare for a major Hollywood movie series to be thrilling, racy, managing to deliver again and again, for three consecutive movies. Yep! Thats Bourne trilogy for you.

It has been one of the most engrossing movie of recent times. As we, the audience share Jason’s confusion, we also connect to him many times. We share the helplessness of the situation. In a world that is filled with uncertainty and insecurity, Bourne symbolizes our desire to be in control, and to respond. We see the near machine accuracy, seemingly limitless power of observation and split second response time in Bourne, while at the same time we also see him bleed, get hurt and run away. I thought these things balanced each other, one creating disbelief and the other touching us, making it real. There is a deep sense of morality too. Bourne never kills unless he is threatened fatally by the opponent. That is a significant advance in action movies. I have also come across a blog which points out the minimum carbon foot print Bourne leaves in his travels (of course he does, he cant very well drive in a hummer, he needs crowded places ). Another very interesting feature of the first two movies was a strong stand of limiting aggression. Bourne’s ability to use force only when absolutely needed, showing restraint, is a good example. Limiting aggression to very few moments, and yet, making an action film was a great effort by the screen writers. Of course, the multi nation tour the movie gives us (the reach of CIA), plus the excitement of an undercover hitman is a great combination.

The serious no-nonsense attitude of all the movies in the trilogy has ensured that no frame is out of place. As we start the series with a unconscious man floating in the ocean, his identity gone, we see him search for a sense of himself. A tight plot, and some great acting made the movie a pleasure to watch. I personally think that the second one was the best. Following a complex plot, not knowing who was responsible for what, plus a hazy memory contributed to a wonderful picture. The car chases were the best ever. The background music by Powell perfectly matched the intensity of the movie. When Jason apologizes to the Russian politician’s daughter for killing her parents, the poignancy of the moment was captured perfectly in atonement. In the last installment of the series, finally connecting the dots, Bourne manages to find the complete truth. In the last one though, number of scenes were limited to a small number. Prolonged action sequences and chases culminate in the man jumping down into the river. The man who woke up in a sea of haze, rose again from the river, slipping into the darkness of the night. The muted romance between Nikki and Bourne was very well shot. The smile of a woman with a secret, captured best by Julia Stiles.

The soundtrack is a commensurate effort by John Powell. All through the movies, Bourne’s intensity was captured by Powell brilliantly, be it Atonement, Moscow wind up or Funeral pyre. The end track by Moby is great.

Bourne, to me personally, connects in a multitude of levels. Firstly, the same state of haze around things that we cannot control or understand. Secondly, the intensity of his emotions, and his absolute last resort to violence is something to be aspired for. Most importantly, i realize the mistakes i have committed in my past. The wasted opportunities and the wrongs of my past haunt me. Yet, i cannot change it. I apologize for who i was, for who i am. Yet, it doesn’t change anything. It is a very intense emotion.

Some of the best one liners :

To the Russian politicians daughter – “When what you love gets taken from you, you want to know the truth”.

To Nikki – “I try to apologize for what i have done, for what i am, but it never makes it any better.”

To Pamela Landy, “Get some rest Pam, you look tired”.

To Nikki, implying goodbye, “It gets easier”

Bourne in Russian, to the Russian police officer who is pleading not to shoot – “My argument is not with you”.

choice, freedom and debt

What choice do we have in our lives? Where does real choice end and apparent choice begin? Each of us is an independent entity, capable of observing, thinking and making inferences on any given issue. Knowing that the choice i make could be detrimental to my comforts and apparently happy state of mind, would i still make such a choice? For example, leaving my job, putting my family at risk, i cannot go do something that is my whim, even though it could be my fantasy. That is an apparent choice. Even real choices are often restricted. We can choose only between a couple of parties to make collective decisions on us. We get to choose only between a few brands of soap. So, one can ask, is there a complete and unrestricted choice in our lives? Can there a be a world truly free?

Is there a real sense of responsibility in us? I mean, is there such a thing as responsibility? Morals, mostly, are rules impressed upon by the society on the individual. So are responsibilities. As individuals with a sense of liberty and hatred for rules, do we reject the concept of responsibility? One more question arises. We are here today, in comfort and at peace. But this reality is not time-independent. It is a reality that is the result of a struggle in the past. Some people took that apparent choice. They have made that choice in their time. Today is a result of those choices. The liberty we enjoy today is a result of that choice. We, as the successors of that legacy, are in comfort because of that choice. Yet, if faced with a similar situation, will i have the courage to make that choice? I wonder… Also, morals are not purely rules impressed on the individual. There is a sense of conscience to each one of us. It is not purely out of a social rule, that we feel emotions such as pity, respect and empathy. Do we need to feel indebted to our past? Is there a sense of debt at all? Or is it of no consequence? Is responsibility towards our past, towards the society valid?

In this flux of choices (real and apparent), morals, responsibilities and debt, our decisions are made. There is no guarantee as to how an individual reacts to a situation. However strong be his/her principles are. In this dynamic equation of emotions running through our minds, the decisions we make, especially on principles and ideologies, tend to be biased. What can we do? There is a haze that surrounds human emotion. Observation and analysis could hold the key to arriving at a logical conclusion, even if it means abandoning some of the most enticing principles in responsibility and liberty.

The case for evolution

The concept that “life” is not a creation, and is a continuous struggle against odds and challenges that are thrown at us is an endearing one. What Charles Darwin imagined a hundred and fifty years ago is something that is so fundamental in essence, that its true ramifications are still being debated. Perhaps, in the coming centuries, this debate shall only get more intense.

The magnitude and consequence of a theory so profound in its effects on us are yet to be determined. However, what surprises me is the fact that it took a Charles Darwin to observe a simple result of competition and the quest to survive, but, the overall result being of enormous significance. The history of evolution once again reiterates the value of thinking in a different frame.

The concept of natural selection has questioned the fundamental purpose of human existence. It has questioned the concept of god, creation, redemption and after life. It has demolished the image of man as a superior being. It has also questioned the concept of equality and morals. Evolution is a perfect example of a scientific theory. A theory which opens a new window to view the world from. A theory which is a tool, which posts only the results of observation. The inferences of the mind are yet again, subjective.

Evolution has forced a new respect for the world in which we live. It is obvious that there is no one responsible for our actions, but us alone. There is no caretaker for boons or curses. Climate change is one such major result. The manner in which we act, results cumulatively in the world that we live in. Our actions decide our survival. There are no excuses left for us, but to act.

However, it is not a dark and doomed future that we are condemned to. Every threat represents an opportunity, a chance to respond. The question is, whether we are evolved enough to respond to that opportunity, and survive. Or, squabble the opportunity and bring a threat to our very survival. The move has been made. It is now, our turn.

hmmm… it smells like…. like….

What lies deepest in our minds? What is it that can be considered the most fundamental in our psyche? Something that lies so deep, that it is very difficult to be aware of its existence, when we are conscious.

The urge to survive? Could it be the urge to live? Or is it the memory of the things that present a threat to us? Somethings which we know to be dangerous, and others which we assume to be dangerous. Symbols of threat and death. There are symbols, which are benign. Yet, the mind converts them into threats. There are things which produce a fear so great in us, we surrender without question. It could be a spider, a caterpillar or even a lizard. We know, that these species cannot threaten us with death. Still, there is a huge fear about them. Not just reptiles and insects, there are other threats. Images like a gypsy or a madman.. all are converted into threats by our mind. Even imaginary things represent threats. Ghosts are a great example. The mind interprets things which we do not understand, as a threat. It is only natural. Caution is required in unfamiliar places.

Burrowing deeper, we will find the moments of embarrassment lie in some of the deepest parts of our minds. Those moments are never forgotten. They are suppressed. Moments of pain too. Yet, what surprises me, is that moments of happiness seem to be floating in our mind, never to be found anywhere, but drifting…. as if they never existed…

More deep are smells. Smells have the longest memory. Even sounds.. not individual sounds, but melodies, they last long. Tastes stay a long time in our minds. But the smell of a new object may remind of an incident 40 years back in time. Smells trigger some of the most distant memories in our minds. Fascinating ….

Given the images in our mind, given their interpretations, the question would is, knowing that these images do not represent a threat, can we change our response to these images? If we can, how can we?