Miracles and Expectations

I hope for miracles.
But I do not expect it.
Even if it is something as big as the Copenhagen meet.

I certainly do not expect that one Mr. Obama will go to his country and tell his people that he has agreed to a huge cut in our carbon emission because we are rich enough. So please slow down your growth, divert your valuable resources to find greener solutions; so what if unemployment grows for some time. After all saving Earth is more important that unemployment, right? And oh by the way, I have also pledged huge amount of money to the developing and underdeveloped country.

I also do not expect one Mr. Manmohan Singh to go to his (and my) country and tell his countrymen that he has agreed to huge cuts in carbon emission since we have achieved sufficient progress. The world knows we could become an economic power some day. So for some time let us not worry about the millions who still live under or very near the poverty line. Let's get the environment under control, let us save our future generations; so what if the present generation suffers a little.

You actually think heads of nation can solve this mess?
Then you are naive.

Yeah you have heard / seen those massive protest rallies; but you seriously think the rest of the world is worried. We may tut-tut for some time, but then drive down to a shop 10 minutes from our house in a car.

We human have a peculiar characteristic. We think that we take actions taking into account long-term effect but actually we react only when the danger is imminent and effects us. In this way we are different from animals. They also react when the danger is imminent. But at least they do not claim to take long-term into consideration.

Yes I do believe in miracles.
I will continue to do so.

"Hum ko maloom hai jannat ki hakikat lekin;
Dil ko khush rakhney ko Ghalib yeh khayal achcha hai"
I know the truth about heaven; however it is a happy thought to have.

Tower of Babel and Irregular Verbs

We missed out on a golden opportunity to redress the wrongs done to us by the Gods at Babel. Different languages ensured that we will not be able to build the Tower of Babel. But surely the grammar was codified long after the languages themselves evolved to a quasi-steady state. SO WHICH IDIOT INVENTED IRREGULAR VERBS? Or perhaps Gods introduced to ensure that people may never master each others' language and make another attempt at Babel.

Frustrations in learning new language apart, I think that the Tower of Babel was the noblest endeavour that (hu)man ever attempted: the tower was dedicated to the glory of human beings; what could be nobler?

Enrich the gene pool

This is dangerous territory.

First, because I am no sociologist or biologist. So, what I type out is pure conjecture.

Second, in today's India, anything goes in the name of jingoism. With low tolerance at rock bottom for any idea that is remotely anti-Indian-culture, there is a danger of this post being labelled anti-India. And then there are instances of bloggers being sent notices to withdraw entries and being sued for libel (which actually goes to show that blogs are becoming more and more powerful.)

But here goes nevertheless ...

A rich gene pool comes only when in a given territory the best mate. In the non-human animal world "best" is generally defined as the fittest that is likely to survive. In lions this is taken to an extreme. The victorious lion kills lion cubs sired by the defeated lion. On death of her cubs the lioness becomes receptive again and this ensures that the gene pool is enriched by the strongest lion's gene. Cruel it might seem but terribly effective.

This works in the plant world too. Take fruit bearing trees. Only the trees that survive to flower get pollinated.

A biologist may be able to able to give numerous examples supporting the above facts.

Now let us turn to human beings. (I am now stepping into domain that I have no deep knowledge of). Humans have postponed death. Marvels of medical science ensures that both the strong and the weak reach maturity. Raw existence in nature would ensure the survival of the fittest. But "fittest" among human is no longer means the strongest. Among humans, it is perhaps no longer the survival of the fittest individual. Rather it is the survival of the strongest group. And this means the entire humanity, in a way. (The marvels of medical science is accessible, more or less, to all humans). Survival of the fittest group is found among non-humans also. Like Chimpanzees. But such groups have an Alpha male. Mating rights in non-human groups reside with the Alpha male. With humans mating right resides with all.

Fortunately among humans, in many societies the female has the right to decide. (Before, I go ahead, please note that among non-human animals too the female decides. And she generally chooses to mate with the strongest). In such societies hopefully the female will make a choice based on what could only be defined as "attractiveness factor". The female will choose the best as she sees it fit. So although the human gene pool is not composed of only the "fittest", this choice by the female of the human species may result in a hopefully evolved progeny. (I have simplified the things a bit here. But this is what happens, more or less.) Note that all progeny will be super-humans. Only that the chances of an evolved beings (by a tiny bit; for evolution progresses in series of tiny mutations).

A question comes to mind immediately. Are the fruits of modern medical science actually hindering evolution? A not-so-satisfactory response could be: Relax! Genetic engineering is the solution. (Genetic engineering is not as 'non-natural' as it seems. After all natural selection put evolved brain in early humans in the first place. So the logic goes as follows: Natural Selection => Human Brain => Genetic Engineering => Evolution).

To go forward with my thesis (:-)) we will assume selection by human females works wonderfully.

We finally come to India and other such countries where female does not choose her mate. Before, I hear howl of protest from the ladies who are reading this blog, I hasten to add that even today in India a majority of marriages are arranged by family. Some choose. But the majority don't.

The idea behind arranged marriage is obvious: that the best gene pool resides in good families. And so since ages there are arranged marriages in India. Whether the assumption of good family = good genes holds good, I do not know? But seems to me that by depriving the Indian female of their choice of selecting their husband - for generations - may have left the Indian gene pool a little depleted. Arranged marriages may actually be a benign form of selective (but unnatural) breeding.

So the solution to a future-is-bright India may actually lie in liberating Indian female from the clutches of arranged marriage. No?

Now, if some social scientist (is that an oxymoron?) comes forward and refutes my arguments by reeling of data, it would be great. As I type this I wonder if the Industrial Revolution in England and Renaissance in Europe started when arranged marriages (yes, Europe too had arranged marriages for a very long time) gave way to marriage by choice.

Picture courtesy: Sri Vatsa