Neoliberalism is literally killing us.

“When the last tree is cut, the last fish is caught, and the last river is polluted; when to breathe the air is sickening, you will realize, too late, that wealth is not in bank accounts and that you can not eat money.”

— Alanis Obomsawin

Climate change- An alarming term, used so frequently in our daily discourse, that even a seven year old can tell you about its ill impact on our biosphere. I don’t think there is any need to re-establish the fact that climate change is, indeed, the biggest threat that our species face today. From rising global temperatures, to catastrophic floods and cyclones, we have seen it all. So let’s steer away from these distressing facts that we already know, to something more fundamental and address the root cause of the issue- Corporate greed.

According to the Carbon Majors Report (2017) published in collaboration with the climate accountibility Institute, just 100 companies are responsible for almost 71% of the global carbon emissions. This is a huge number. Yet, ordinary people like you and me, are bamboozled into thinking that we are the ones to be blamed for this dreadful situation. Now, I’m not really saying that we can’t do better personally, to contribute our small share in keeping the environment clean. Obviously, we can. But the Oil and Gas corporations are rendering these efforts inconsequential. They’re deliberately pushing us into the trap of self- guilt for something we are insignificantly responsible.

Let’s take the example of ExxonMobil, an American multinational oil and gas corporation, and one of the biggest contributors to the global carbon emissions. Currently, it is being charged for misleading the public about climate change and funding the climate change denying groups for almost 28 years, when it’s leaked internal letters show that the firm already knew about the extreme detrimental effects of their actions on the environment. This is just one of the numerous examples (also read about Volkswagen cheat devices), where corporate greed and neo-liberal policies teamed up to plan a well organized genocide of general public, while fooling us into believing that we somehow deserve this fate.

If you’re still wondering how neo-liberalism is responsible for all this menace, let me explain a little further. Neoliberalism, as proffered by the likes of Thatcher and Reagan, is the enabling force for the corporate greed that I’ve been talking about. It has two essential objectives. The first is to systematically (and legally) dismantle any obstacle to the exercise of unaccountable private power. The second, and perhaps more sinister, is to grapple them against the democratic public will. These principals have resulted in global catastrophic pollution of environment and climate change. And yet, no one really talks about it. Neoliberalism has made private corporations the ultimate king, and general public, it’s slaves. They’re largely unaccountable to any public grievance and easily get away with minor fines. Our Judicial system seems mostly toothless to curb any kind of wrong doing by these private players. Let’s look at one of the biggest corporate scandal in recent decade, the Volkswagen emission scandal. It began when the US Environmental Protection Agency found that the VW diesel cars were installed with ‘defeat devices’, a kind of software, installed to cheat the emission standard tests. The cars were actually emitting 40 times more NOx emissions in real world usage than that in the testing conditions. Almost 11 million cars were fitted with these devices. All this was done while spending huge amount of money in advertising and promoting their new TDI engines, which resulted in huge sales of these cars. A study published in the Environmental Research Letters estimated several premature deaths as a result of these emmisions in the United States (majority due to particulate pollution (87%) with the remainder due to ozone (13%)). The study also found that continuing these vehicles could cause an additional 130 early deaths in the future. Even after all this, VW escaped pretty easily with some fines and is still continuing its production. Recently, they even claimed that their sales of diesel cars rebounded strongly in the Germany (43% of all sold VW cars), after the scandal. This is what neo-liberalism has resulted in.

Superficial solutions like Carbon Tax, personal green living etc., are often highlighted and promoted by the propagandists of corporates, while keeping the ordinary people at the heart of the issue and at the same time, conveniently swaying away from their own responsibility and deflecting public accountibility. If we really want to take the bull by its horn, we need to collectively voice our concerns against neo-liberalism and persuade our policy makers to hold these private players accountable for their actions.

Why fantasizing about having a mental illness is not cool

Living under the late capitalism is exhausting, no doubt. But still, is it worth dying than living?
Let’s explore this weird internet phenomenon of people wanting to die because they’re apparently the victims of late capitalism. We all have come across these phrases on Twitter “Oh I’m so stressed, wish I was dead”, “This anxiety and depression is killing me” and thousands of similar memes floating around the internet. The problem with all these cool millennial memes is that they are trivialising the whole issue of mental health and reducing it to just a casual phrase you can throw randomly whenever you’re sad or frustrated or maybe stressed. Everyone likes relatable content on the internet and I’m no exception. But the point is, unlike most of the pretentious cool kids on the internet, when I share such content on my social media accounts, it’s more like a cry for help because I can’t really express it to the people around me. I can’t tell anyone that I’m depressed and have suicidal thoughts because then everything would blow up. Somehow we have created an atmosphere where sharing an ironical suicidal meme is fine but sharing your actual suicidal tendencies is a strict No-No!
Being mentally ill is a complex problem and it’s not as simple as it is being portrayed in recent times. For instance, anxiety is not something to be celebrated or flaunted, as if, it is somehow cool to be anxious. Anxiety drains you emotionally, mentally and physically. Imagine being in the shower and thinking of all the worst things that could happen to you throughout the day, even if there’s little or no chance of happening it anyway. Imagine being in a social situation where you want to make a point and express yourself, but your mind keeps reminding you of all the ways you can fuck this up. Imagine a situation where you like someone and desperately want to talk to them, but your mind keeps telling you that this is not gonna work out because you’re not good enough for the other person and you end up rejecting yourself. Now, this is just a small part of being anxious and believe me, it is not a very pleasing experience. I’ve come across a lot of people in my life who misinterpret anxiety as being a shy introverted person, who takes time to open up to people. Though it is possible that a person may be both introvert and anxious at the same time but there is no necessary connection between the two. The other most outrageous thing that bothers me, is when people start using the term “Depression” as a substitute for stress or sadness. Everyone goes through this situation at some point in their life, where they’re stressed because of their unhealthy lifestyle and excessive workload or they’re just sad because their relationships are not working out. No doubt, these are terrible situations, but it doesn’t necessarily imply that you’re depressed. Depression is far more complex than these normal everyday emotions. It’s like being in a constant state of despair, ruminating over the thoughts of self-loathing, regrets and a complete lack of emotional connection to the world around you. A depressed person experiences an obscure mixture of emotions simultaneously. Insomnia, hypersomnia, fatigue, melancholy, hopelessness, nothingness are some common symptoms to identify depression. But unfortunately, we have reduced these extreme symptoms to just “Low mood”, resulting from unhealthy lifestyle and some sorrowful life circumstances. Though it’s true that depression may be triggered by some environmental and societal factors, but the root cause of depression generally lies in the genetic makeup of a person and hence it’s a real clinical disease and not just a lifestyle problem as professed by many. Now, pretending that you’re depressed and just casually throwing the term is not helping the people with actual depression. In fact, it’s working against them in a sense that instead of asking for real clinical help, they resort to unhealthy coping mechanisms like sharing ironical suicidal memes, thinking that everyone else can understand and relate to them, but certainly that’s not the case. So this is my humble request to everyone reading this blog, that do not fantasize about having a mental illness like depression or anxiety just for the sake of acting cool on the internet because- IT’S NOT COOL!!

The forgotten legacy of Dr. Ambedkar

Bahasaheb Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, also known as “The father of Indian Constitution” is often remembered as a popular “Dalit Leader”, who worked for the upliftment of the weaker sections of the society. Our textbook knowledge of Dr. Ambedkar is pretty much limited to just as being a Dalit leader and a proponent of caste based reservation (I will get back to this later). Despite our patriotic love for Indian constitution, we know very little about the real ideological genius behind it. His work, ideas and struggles are often overlooked in highly Brahmin dominated social structure of India. It’s unfortunate that the sheer brilliance of the man is being reduced to an insignificant political tool for caste based mobilization of vote bank. So I’m writing this blog as an attempt to revive the sagacious legacy of Ambedkarism, which is highly misunderstood and intentionally distorted for political gains.

What is Ambedkarism?

Ambedkarism, in its true essence, is an egalitarian view of a human society where rationalism prevails as a fundamental proposition and wisdom being the driving force of society. It envisions India as a shining example of classless and casteless society where every men and women have equal opportunity to strive for what they deserve, irrespective of their social or economic status. 

Dr. Ambedkar, while studying economics in Columbia university was highly influenced by the work of John Dewey on progressive education, liberalism and philosophy of pragmatism, which later were reflected in his vision of progressive India. Ambedkarism, essentially is a collection of all these values when applied to a highly diversified society like India.

Dr. Ambedkar v/s the caste system

It is no secret that Dr. Ambedkar was among the first intellectuals of independent india to challenge the dominant ideals of caste based discrimination. His furious opposition and indignation of caste system was particularly fuelled by his bitter childhood experiences of discrimination and oppression. During the school education, Dr. Ambedkar along with other “untouchables” were segregated and given little attention by the teachers. They were not allowed to sit in same class or drink the water from the same taps as those used by the Savaran kids. The water was poured by the peon from some height for these kids. Ambedkar later described the situation as “No peon, no water”. These outrageous incidents of discrimination in the daily life of a lower caste individual in independent india inspired Dr. Ambedkar to study hard and prove his worth in the Brahmin dominanted society. 

In his highly acclaimed book, Annihilation of caste, Dr. Ambedkar highly stressed on the fact that social reforms are necessary for political and economic reforms. He further dismantled the misconceptions that caste is just a division of labor (as proffered by most upper caste Hindus) by illustrating how caste promotes division of labourers instead of division of labour and undermine their basic human rights. He states :

A tree should be judged by the fruits it yields. If Caste is eugenic, what sort of a race of men should it have produced?Physically speaking the Hindus are a C3 people. They are a race of Pygmies and dwarfs, stunted in stature and wanting in stamina. It is a nation 9/10ths of which is declared to be unfit for military service. This shows that the Caste System does not embody the eugenics of modern scientists. It is a social system which embodies the arrogance and selfishness of a perverse section of the Hindus who were superior enough in social status to set it in fashion, and who had the authority to force it on their inferiors.

Views on women

In the light of recent outrageous cases of brutal crimes against women and their ridiculous justification by our male leaders, it is very important for us as a society, to recall the ideas of Dr. Ambedkar on feminism. Infact, I would go to an extent of calling him as the first male feminist icon of independent India. This is not some kind of exaggeration for the sake of writing and to authenticate this title, I would quote Pradnya Waghule from feminisminindia.com 

“Apart from the numerous speeches which drive home his basic belief in the equality of women, Ambedkar’s theorisation of the interlinked nature of caste and gender-based oppression in India was a pioneering feat. His now oft-quoted 1917 paper called Castes in India shows how in the Indian context, the specific ways in which women and their sexuality are controlled, all hinge on the maintenance of the caste system. He outlines this by showing how strict control of women through sati, child-marriage and restriction of widow remarriage were all devised to deal with the problem of ‘surplus women’. To keep the caste group enclosed, marriage outside the community had to be restricted and to avoid men from marrying outside the community these novel strategies had to be devised. Women had to be controlled, not men.”

Ambedkar’s struggle for the equality for women was not just limited to his writings, but was also backed by robust actions. He introduced the Hindu code bill which facilitated the legal recognition of women as equal citizens. He granted women the right to divorce, the right to inheritance and he provided for legal recognition of inter-caste marriages. 

Ambedkarism and Education

Education is an indispensable part of Ambedkar’s legacy. He realised the importance of education at a very early age when all of his fellow friends decided to give up studies as a result of discrimination in gradings. Fighting against the all odds, he was enrolled in Elphinstone High school and was the only untouchable to achieve this dream. Later, he moved to the US to study economics at Columbia university and finally received his Phd in 1927 from London School of economics. After his return to India, he stressed highly on education of underprivileged kids. He wanted to reform Indian education to more scientific and pragmatic world view. During a budget debate in 1952, he said “Education is something which ought to be brought within the reach of every one..the policy therefore ought to be to make higher education as cheap to the lower classes as it can possibly be made. If all these communities are to be brought to the level of equality, then the only remedy is to adopt the principle of equality and to give favoured treatment to those who are below level.”

He also stressed that the aim and functions of University Education should be to see that the teaching carried on there is suited to adults; that it is scientific, detached and impartial in character; that it aims not so much at filling the mind of the student with facts or theories as at calling forth his own individuality, and stimulating him to mental effort; that it accustoms him to the critical study of the leading authorities, with perhaps, occasional reference to first hand sources of information, and that it implants in his mind a standard of toughness, and gives him a sense of the difficulty as well as the value of reaching at truth.

Views on Religion

With religious fanaticism on the rise and the series of religious confrontations, riots and divisions haunting the Indian society, it becomes extremely important to analyse Dr. Ambedkar’s view on religion and its various aspects. 

Dr. Ambedkar’s view on Hinduism was shaped by his direct encounter with the evils of caste based division in hindu society. This was perhaps the biggest reason that he said “Though, I am born a hindu, I solemnly assure you that I will not die as a hindu”. He, along with thousands of his followers, burned down the copies of the book of Hindu laws called Manusmriti and later converted to Buddhism in 1956. 

He opposed not just the ideas of Hinduism but was also critical of the preaching of Islam. Unlike those who appropriate him (and unlike Gandhi, who, Ambedkar ferociously opposed and unmasked in his later interviews and articles), the one thing Ambedkar was not, was an apologist. The distillate of Ambedkar’s thought on Islam can be found in Pakistan Or The Partition Of India, a collection of his writings and speeches, first published in 1940. He wrote:

“Hinduism is said to divide people and in contrast Islam is said to bind people together. This is only a half-truth. For Islam divides as inexorably as it binds. Islam is a close corporation and the distinction that it makes between Muslims and non-Muslims is a very real, very positive and very alienating distinction. The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is a fraternity, but its benefit is confined to those within that corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity. The second defect of Islam is that it is a system of social self-government and is incompatible with local self-government, because the allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the faith to which he belongs.”

Ambedkarism and Reservation

Now I would like to touch the most controversial and misunderstood aspect of Ambedkarism, which often becomes the most highlighted part of Ambedkar’s legacy. I’ve come across a lot of opponents of caste based reservation in my day to day life. And their frustration and anger is often targeted towards Ambedkar and other proponents of Reservation. As a devout follower of Ambedkarism, it is extremely important for me to clear all the clouds of misconceptions, formed as a result of evaporation of selective propagandic ideas. 

To better understand the views of Ambedkar on Reservation, it is acutely important to consider the background of the society and the time he was born in (As I’ve already stated that he was subjected to discrimination at a very early age, which shaped his ideas of equality and struggle for a better world) 

Professors Vivek kumar of Jawaharlal Nehru University puts forward the exact logic behind the caste based reservation.

“It is important that one should not forget and misunderstand the logic of reservation. There are very significant, fundamental and structural principles on the basis of which this reservation was conceded to SC, STs and to some OBCs after intense debates in the constituent assembly and centuries of movements by SCs, STs, and OBCs. Few of them were:

1. They have faced thousands of years of exclusion and discrimination and were not accepted as even human beings.

2. This exclusion and discrimination of thousands of years was cumulative in nature, that is, it was not in one aspect of life but it was in most of the spheres, for instance in social, economic, political, educational, religious, residential, occupational, etc.

3. The founding fathers of the Indian nation thought that even after these people were accorded human rights enshrined in the democratic constitution of India and there will be penal provisions according to Indian Penal Code one will not be able to obliterate this exclusion and discrimination against these people and there should be some special provisions for them in the realm of Politics, Bureaucracy, and Education.

4. There is an element of social justice in the reservation of SCs, STs, and OBCs. It involves historical corrective of injustices done to SCs and STS.

5. There was no time limit fixed for reservation for SC and STs in Bureaucratic Jobs and in Educational Institutions. Only political reservation under article 330 and 332 of Indian Constitution, which reserves seats in Lok Sabha and in Vidhan Sabhas of different States were for 10 years. However, these reservations have been given new life with different amendments.

6. The most important point is ‘Reservation for SCs and STs’ is directly connected with the issue of representation. It was because they did not have any representation in any sphere of life, that is, in social, economic, political, educational, etc. sphere for thousands of years and therefore they were supposed to get representation in these Institutions.

Nonetheless, Ambedkar had opined that the reservation he was proposing should have a time frame and suggested the periodic re-evaluation of its effectiveness. He urged the elites of the society to work for the betterment of depressed classes so that the need of reservation is no more realised. He had envisaged that during that period, with the help of reservation, there would be significant social as well as economic improvement in the lives of dalits and under privileged sections of society. But Instead of implementing such dreams of Ambedkar in true spirit, reservations have been used as political tool for vote bank politics by our politicians since decades. 

In my opinion, Ambedkar, despite being a remarkable visionary of his time, trivialised the man’s greed for power and money, and was a bit too optimistic about the morality of Brahmin driven society, which turned him into a “God of reservation” from a constructive and careful thinker, an economist, and one of our greatest religious and social reformer of modern times. It torments me to say that India is still far away from the real vision of Dr. Ambedkar but I hope that those who are reading this blog would now rethink about their ideas of reservation and would instead concentrate and question the root cause of reservation, that is, the Hindu Caste system.

The curious case of dark Universe

The universe, as we know it, is a pretty spooky place. It is almost like a ghost movie where everything happens unexpectedly, but we constantly try to wrap our head around the perplexing series of events that somehow leads to the ultimate plot of the story. Galaxies whirl around in unexplained ways. The fabric of space is weirdly elastic, expanding ever faster by an inscrutable energy all of its own. Groups of stars race across space, pulled by the forces from beyond the visible universe. Everything is just so mind boggling!

Our understanding of the universe has increased exponentially in the past few decades or so, but there are still some mysteries that baffle the Astronomers even today. One of those puzzling problems in the modern astronomy is the accelerating expansion and structure of the universe. It is almost 20 head-scratching years since we noticed that some mysterious agent is blowing up the space like a balloon. We still don’t know what it is. It is everywhere and we can’t see it. It makes up more than two-thirds of the universe, but we have no idea where it comes from or what it is made of. But we do have a name for this spooky energy pool, i.e. Dark Energy.

According to the standard model of cosmology, all the matter that we see in the sky make up only 5 percent of the observable universe. The invisible majority consists of 27 percent dark matter and 68 percent dark energy. Both of them are mysteries. This is kind of strange, because it suggests that everything we experience is only a tiny fraction of reality.

Dark matter is thought to be responsible for the existence and the current structure of galaxies. After years of studying the structure of the universe, it became very clear that there is not enough normal matter in the universe. The gravity of the visible matter is not strong enough to form and hold the galaxies together. The stars would more likely be scattered and not form the galaxies. So, the scientists concluded that there must be something inside and around them, that doesn’t emit or reflect light. In more simple words, dark matter is basically the binding force of the universe. Though the dark matter has never been directly observed, but some of its gravitational effects explain the otherwise puzzling phenomenon known as “Gravitational lensing”, which is basically the bending of light around the massive objects like galaxies and black holes.

Dark energy, on the other hand, is even more peculiar and inexplicable. It is an allegorical “Dark” form of the energy which is hypothesized to suffuse the entire universe and has some strange properties that are different than what is currently known to us. We can’t detect it, we can’t measure it and we can’t taste it. But we do see its effects very clearly. 

In 1929, Edwin Hubble suggested that universe is not static (as the Einstein believed), but is rather expanding. Then in 1998, two groups of astronomers reported that dozens of distant supernovae appeared surprisingly faint. They concluded that the expansion of the universe must be accelerating, dimming these distant explosions. It came as rather a shock, because although we have known for more than 60 years that the universe is expanding, people had always assumed that the expansion must be slowing down. This is where the concept of dark energy first came into light. Dark energy was attributed to be responsible for this ever accelerating expansion of universe. 

We have multiple ideas about what dark energy might be. One idea is that dark energy is nothing, but the property of empty space. It can generate more space and is very active. So, as the universe expands, it could be just more and more space appears to fill the gaps and this leads to faster expanding of the universe. Another interesting idea is that empty space is actually full of temporary, virtual particles that spontaneously and continually form from nothing and then disappear into nothing again. The energy from those particles could be the dark energy. These explanations contradict our basic understanding of the universe. Therefore, they are widely argued against. The mystery of dark energy is still unexplained by any robust observation coherent with our current understanding of physics.

So, there are still a lot of questions that need to be answered. Our theories about the existence and the nature of the dark energy and dark matter are still in the embryonic stage. Hopefully, the human’s thirst for the knowledge of the universe will continue to reveal the “Dark” side of the universe we live in.

Credible sources to prove that GMOs are perfectly safe.

American Association for the Advancement of Science: ”The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.” (http://bit.ly/11cR4sB)

American Medical Association: ”There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.” (http://bit.ly/166OUdM)

World Health Organization: ”No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.” (http://bit.ly/18yzzVI)

National Academy of Sciences: ”To date more than 98 million acres of genetically modified crops have been grown worldwide. No evidence of human health problems associated with the ingestion of these crops or resulting food products have been identified.” (http://bit.ly/13Cib0Y)

The Royal Society of Medicine: ”Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA.” (http://1.usa.gov/12huL7Z)

The European Commission: ”The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” (http://bit.ly/133BoZW)

American Council on Science and Health: ”[W]ith the continuing accumulation of evidence of safety and efficiency, and the complete absence of any evidence of harm to the public or the environment, more and more consumers are becoming as comfortable with agricultural biotechnology as they are with medical biotechnology.” (http://bit.ly/12hvoyg)

American Dietetic Association: ”It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that agricultural and food biotechnology techniques can enhance the quality, safety, nutritional value, and variety of food available for human consumption and increase the efficiency of food production, food processing, food distribution, and environmental and waste management.” (http://1.usa.gov/12hvWnE)

American Phytopathological Society: ”The American Phytopathological Society (APS), which represents approximately 5,000 scientists who work with plant pathogens, the diseases they cause, and ways of controlling them, supports biotechnology as a means for improving plant health, food safety, and sustainable growth in plant productivity.” (http://bit.ly/14Ft4RL)

American Society for Cell Biology: ”Far from presenting a threat to the public health, GM crops in many cases improve it. The ASCB vigorously supports research and development in the area of genetically engineered organisms, including the development of genetically modified (GM) crop plants.” (http://bit.ly/163sWdL)

American Society for Microbiology: ”The ASM is not aware of any acceptable evidence that food produced with biotechnology and subject to FDA oversight constitutes high risk or is unsafe. We are sufficiently convinced to assure the public that plant varieties and products created with biotechnology have the potential of improved nutrition, better taste and longer shelf-life.” (http://bit.ly/13Cl2ak)

American Society of Plant Biologists: ”The risks of unintended consequences of this type of gene transfer are comparable to the random mixing of genes that occurs during classical breeding… The ASPB believes strongly that, with continued responsible regulation and oversight, GE will bring many significant health and environmental benefits to the world and its people.” (http://bit.ly/13bLJiR)

International Seed Federation: ”The development of GM crops has benefited farmers, consumers and the environment… Today, data shows that GM crops and foods are as safe as their conventional counterparts: millions of hectares worldwide have been cultivated with GM crops and billions of people have eaten GM foods without any documented harmful effect on human health or the environment.” (http://bit.ly/138rZLW)

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology: ”Over the last decade, 8.5 million farmers have grown transgenic varieties of crops on more than 1 billion acres of farmland in 17 countries. These crops have been consumed by humans and animals in most countries. Transgenic crops on the market today are as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts, and likely more so given the greater regulatory scrutiny to which they are exposed.” (http://bit.ly/11cTKq9)

Crop Science Society of America: ”The Crop Science Society of America supports education and research in all aspects of crop production, including the judicious application of biotechnology.” (http://bit.ly/138sQMB)
International Society of African Scientists: ”Africa and the Caribbean cannot afford to be left further behind in acquiring the uses and benefits of this new agricultural revolution.” (http://bit.ly/14Fp1oK)
Federation of Animal Science Societies: ”Meat, milk and eggs from livestock and poultry consuming biotech feeds are safe for human consumption.” (http://bit.ly/133F79K)

Society for In Vitro Biology: ”The SIVB supports the current science-based approach for the evaluation and regulation of genetically engineered crops. The SIVB supports the need for easy public access to available information on the safety of genetically modified crop products. In addition, the SIVB feels that foods from genetically modified crops, which are determined to be substantially equivalent to those made from crops, do not require mandatory labeling.” (http://bit.ly/18yFDxo)

Consensus document on GMOs Safety (14 Italian scientific societies): ”GMOs on the market today, having successfully passed all the tests and procedures necessary to authorization, are to be considered, on the basis of current knowledge, safe to use for human and animal consumption.” (http://bit.ly/166WHYZ)

Society of Toxicology: ”Scientific analysis indicates that the process of GM food production is unlikely to lead to hazards of a different nature than those already familiar to toxicologists. The level of safety of current GM foods to consumers appears to be equivalent to that of traditional foods.” (http://bit.ly/13bOaSt)

“Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture” – Prepared by the Royal Society of London, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences, and the Third World Academy of Sciences:“Foods can be produced through the use of GM technology that are more nutritious, stable in storage, and in principle health promoting – bringing benefits to consumers in both industrialized and developing nations.” (http://bit.ly/17Cliq5)

French Academy of Science: ”All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria.” (http://bit.ly/15Hm3wO)

Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities: ”Food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and the US poses no risks greater than those from the corresponding conventional food. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior with respect to health.” (http://bit.ly/17ClMMF)

International Council for Science: ”Currently available genetically modified crops – and foods derived from them – have been judged safe to eat, and the methods used to test them have been deemed appropriate.” (http://bit.ly/15Hn487)

The pendulum of human world

Our world can be best understood by an analogy with a simple pendulum. It is constantly oscillating between two extreme ideological points, namely the left and the right. 

The velocity at either of the extreme position is zero, and is maximum at the equilibrium position. This velocity is the symbolic representation of human progress. 

If we start analysing the motion and the trajectory of this allegorical pendulum, we can easily comprehend the oscillatory phase of destruction and reconstruction, that our world constantly goes through.

Looking at the current world situation, it is not very difficult to understand that we are gradually moving towards the right extremum. The global rise of nationalism, conservativism, xenophobia and an overall negligence of science are the obvious indication​s of this position. But the only force resisting the pendulum to reach the maximum amplitude is the frictional force. This friction is basically the sum total of all the sensible voices all around the world. So, we all need to be a part of this resistive force, in order to reduce the impact of the momentary stagnant point that we are slowly approaching.

The absurdity of existence

Our world is an artistic masterpiece of absurdity. A winsome collection of abstract art, formed fortuitously, like an unsown seedling springing out of a sidewalk crack.
We are like the atoms of the spilled out ink on the fabric of spacetime, randomly forming a meaningless pattern. There is no significance of a particular atom, except that the pattern is incomplete without it.

The randomness of our futile existence has no reason for being the way it is. It has no destination to reach, no ambition to accomplish. It is all, what it is. The Mankind’s existential enquiry when confront the unreasonable silence of the universe, the absurdity is born. This absurdity is not to be feared, but to be embraced.

The self-annihilation pattern of human civilisation is a pattern of everything in the universe, right from the quantum world to the boundless universe. Everything which begins with a singularity, reaches the singularity, and this singularity is the frontier of absurdity.

An alternate draft of Carl Sagan’s famous ‘Pale Blue Dot’ speech.

On Feb. 14, 1990, famed scientist Carl Sagan gave us an incredible perspective on our home planet that had never been seen before.

As NASA’s Voyager 1 spacecraft was about to leave our Solar System in 1989, Sagan, who was a member of the mission’s imaging team, pleaded with officials to turn the camera around to take one last look back at Earth before the spaceship left our solar system.

The resulting image, with the Earth as a speck less than 0.12 pixels in size, became known as “the pale blue dot.”

I’ve written an alternate version of this incredible speech, inspired by George Carlin.

Warning : Explicit language

“Look at it. Fucking look at it. Look at it again. Look at that fucking dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s it. All of us dumbfucks. Everyone you hate, everyone you didn’t get to know, everyone you ever pretended to hear of when you were trying to impress someone, every asshole human being who ever fucked shit up till they died. That dead ball of useless salt water and rock isn’t just the aggregate of four billion years of death and feces, it’s also the only source we’ve ever had for suffering, save those few lucky bastards who died horribly in space.

Thousands of pointlessly confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines – all wrong, all equally wrong and murdering each other for it, every manhunter and cannibal, everyone who ever stupidly ate shit and died, every armadillo-fucking forager, every dumbass and coward, every liar and destroyer of civilization, every inbred king who thought he was the shit, and peasant who waded in it, every young couple who thought they were in love, every cheating mother and abusive father, every useless child brought screaming into a world without purpose or care, every inventor of dildos and guns, every explorer of depravity and servitude, every teacher of shitty morals, every corrupt politician, every dead “superstar,” every dead “supreme leader” in the history of our species lived there–on a mote of shit suspended in cosmic hellfire.


The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of this urine-soaked dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.

Oh, sure, we posture, in some fake self-importance, forever indulging the suicidal delusion that we matter in the Universe any more than the parasites that live in the assholes of parasites that live in the assholes of vultures, and that’s the only reason our tiny malfunctioning brains can be challenged by this point of pale, piss-in-the-stars blue light. Our planet is lonely for no reason, just like all of us, an insignificant speck in the insignificant cosmic dark that serves as a fitting metaphor for our mortality. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no help that can come from anywhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life, and it does not give a shit if we live or die. There is nowhere else to go. We’re stuck on this shithole rock. We don’t even visit. We’re too dumb to figure out how to settle elsewhere. Earth is where we make our stand, where we can choose to inflict our horrors on an unsuspecting cosmos in the future.

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. But that’s a pile of horseshit. We know the truth. Nothing matters. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores how none of this shit matters, and that even if we do preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, it will be for all the wrong reasons, in order to trap future generations in the only home we’ve ever known, out of fear.”

An Awe-full dream

Background-
I was trying to sleep last night and it was already 45 minutes since I closed my eyes, but my mind wouldn’t let me sleep. It was flooded with random thoughts, ideas, things I should’ve said or done and I was completely distressed. It was nothing new for me and I knew that my mind was hungry, it need to be fed with some brain food. So, I opened this page called ‘yes you can see milky way’and started looking at all the magnificent 360 views of milky way galaxy and other space photography. I was awestruck, my eyes widened and my mind calmed down. I was outpouring with emotions and tears came streaming down my face. I felt so mitigated to let it all go and finally, set to sleep in a state of serenity.

Now, comes the dream part :

(Usually,I don’t remember what I dream, but this time there was something extraordinary about it that I can never forget)

It was a night of new moon and there was no electricity all over the earth (maybe because of a Solar Superstorm or something). There was no light pollution of any kind, no flashing head lights, no gleaming city lights and not even the moonlight, just a complete cosmic darkness enveloping the earth upto the infinity.
There was an unusual deafening silence engulfing the world. No one was talking, no one was praying and no one was cursing. It was just like Pablo Neruda’s ‘Keeping Quite‘ came to life.

Instinctively, everyone comes out on the street but no one could see anyone. It was impossible to identify the faces they love and the faces they hate. All the virtues of individuality were lost and then suddenly, a wind of consciousness blew and everyone lost their superficial existence. The earth as a single organism looked up at the sky and was awed by the splendour of milky way galaxy.
It was a clear sky and all those little sources of life and light were shining in all their glory. I was just an insignificant, yet very significant part of this amazing miracle when the earth lost its human existence and became conscious of the glory of universe. 

Problems with Militant Atheism.

Atheism has become an intellectually fashionable trend now a days, particularly because people consider it to be a rational stand in our world view. But is it really as prudent and sagacious as it is propounded? I highly doubt so.

Before I express my concerns with modern day atheism, I want to make one thing very clear that this article in no way, is intended to justify religious fanaticism. In fact, I oppose the ‘anthropomorphic god’ image as proffered by all Abrahamic religions, much more than the idea of Atheism.

             

“Everyone of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another”                                                                                 – Carl Sagan

The concept of Modern atheism inevitably comes with certain level of arrogance, egotism and self glorification. All these destructive virtues of human nature, piles up to make atheism equally dangerous to dogmatic belief systems. When you listen to (or read) modern day atheists like Sam harris, Richard dawkins, Bill maher etc. , you not only comprehend fierce criticism of religions and believers, but also some level of contemptuous bullying.

What these modern day atheists do, is to essentially pickup scriptures of Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) , point out everything wrong with them, extrapolate their pseudo-intellectual methods for every other religion and conclude that everything wrong in the world is directly related to religion. They deliberately neglect the other factors (like socio-economic aspects) because that would make their argument weaker. I wonder why don’t they speak about eastern philosophies (like zen buddhism, taoism and others) to support their generalized perception of religion? I can only think of two reasons for this; Either they didn’t even care to read or learn about them or they couldn’t find anything wrong with them (which they can use to support their claims)

I’m all in favor of justified criticism of the religions and their belief in an omnipresent deity, but sometimes, this rational criticism reach up to a level of unsympathetic bashing, personal mockery and humiliation of believers. This seems to me, as the beginning of an era of intolerance towards dissidents, which can certainly be destructive for human progress.

To support my argument further, I would like to quote Richard dawkins from his famous book ‘The God Delusion’ (which is an exceptionally well written book) : “Horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place”

Now, I’m in fact an antagonist of religious indoctrination of children but that doesn’t mean, I’ve any right to compare horror of sexual abuse to psychological impacts of such indoctrination. This is not only an outrageously moronic comparison but also insensitive and shows a perilous trend of immorality in modern day atheism (because there are atheists who shamelessly justify these statements just like religious fundamentalists).

“An atheist is someone who has compelling evidence that there is no god. I’m not that wise, but neither do i consider there to be anything approaching adequate evidence for such a god. Why are you in such a hurry to make up your mind? Why not simply wait until there is compelling evidence. To be certain of the existence of god and to be certain of the non-existence of god, seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed” – Carl Sagan

Beside the concerns of menacing tendency of atheism, what’s even more concerning is the fact that some modern day atheists closely resemble to the people they oppose, i.e. theists. Though, they both seems to be polar opposite of each other, but are in fact strikingly similar ; theists reassure their faiths and believes through religion and atheists reassure their intellectualism by bashing religion. Both are logically inconsistent, have deeply rooted preconceived notions and are resistant to evidences which goes against their thinking bubble. The only difference being, that they have interchanged lenses of same spectacle, which enables them to see the world in black and white. Infact, I would go to an extent of saying that if ignorance is a coin, then theism and atheism are head and tail. 

I’m no one to judge any individual, particularly because of my limited experience, but I’m convinced with the very fact that when you bound yourself with rigid ideas, you tend to deny the beauty of evidence. Is it really that hard to accept every kind of knowledge with an open mind (and without preheld beliefs) and say “I don’t know, lets find out” ?

Few days back, I read this beautifully written article, titled “God Dismantled”

link : https://docs.google.com/document/d/15UjfTZWwFX-w-2bqxw7SBk0EcV7_n9vyK7j0HI4Su1Q/edit?usp=sharing

The author of the article presented his views very aggressively, just like most of the modern day atheists. My response to his articles reads as follows :

“You’ve expressed yourself beautifully with this passionately written article, and I agree with most of the facts and arguments that you’ve put forward (there are some facts about which i’m not sure). But at the same time, I’m in disagreement with certain parts of it.

I’ve already read very similar texts from Richard Dawkins, Sam harris and Christopher hitchens and I don’t consider them ‘Modern Intellectuals’ as you claim, but rather I prefer to call them as ‘Modern Atheists’. I was little disappointed to see more of their arrogant thoughts and less of the humbleness of Carl Sagan.
I would like to quote some lines from your article which are either logically inconsistent or outright imperious.
1. “It [religion] has poisoned the rational minds for centuries”

I really don’t understand how a “Rational” mind can be poisoned by something which is purely fictional. If a person can be manipulated by some written words in a book, he can not be considered rational in the very first place.

2. “Religion is dangerous and it kills”

Again, I’ve no idea how can religion kill someone? Only a gullible person who lacks morality and literally believes in everything written in these silly religious texts, can kill someone. The problem here is that you’re not able to understand the real issue. The root of all the evils in the world is not religion, but it’s the human itself. Religion didn’t create human, it is the human who created the religion.

If the people are scientifically literate, and are aware of the scientific tools and methods,  I can not think of a reason that they would ever believe in all these fictional stories of holy-shit scriptures.

3. “Cherry-picking convention with the parts they [moderates] love”

This is exactly what most of atheists do. They just pick up the part they hate. Did you see the hypocrisy? Infact, this is the primary reason why I think that both theists and atheists are equally arrogant.

4. ” A moderate is merely a failed fundamentalist”

This is perhaps one of the most outrageous line in your article (which is basically from Sam harris). Not only it is arrogant and venomous to say this, but also utterly stupid. Do you really consider billions of world’s population as failed fundamentalists? See, this is where atheists get equally dangerous to theists.

Besides that, the problem with the modern atheists is that they discard religion straightaway, but do not popularise Science as an alternate way of thinking. This is where Carl Sagan excelled. As you quoted him from ‘Pale Blue Dot’ , I hope you read the Introduction of the book where he says “I’ve tried to present more than one facet of an issue. There will be places where I seem to be arguing with myself. I am. Seeing some merit to more than one side, I often argue with myself”. Only a rational and humble person can say this and thats why you don’t see all these modern pseudo-intellectual atheists doing the same.

5. “We have new age spiritualist who say God is the universe”

This depends on how you define god. Modern atheists (and theists) have hijacked this word and equated it to some crazy white bearded man sitting in the heaven. But being a Pantheist/Agnostic , I like the use of the word “God” as Albert Einstein used it.

 

“The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.”

― Carl Sagan

Some people argue that religion is the ultimate source of morality and others proclaim Science to be an alternate source for the same. I highly doubt both the arguments. There can never be a single source of morality, compassion or any kind of human learning. For complex being like humans, any kind of learning is based on the variety of experiences, and the people who rely completely on a single class of texts for these kind of human learning, are capable of bringing out destruction for our world. As in the words of Sagan : There are not yet obvious signs of extraterrestrial intelligence, and this makes us wonder whether civilizations like ours rush inevitably into self-destruction. I dream about it . . . and sometimes they are bad dreams.”

We all are well aware of the human sufferings due to religious beliefs in the past (and present), particularly because they are highlighted very often, and rightly so. But, is scientific education enough (as most atheists claim) to keep in check, of self-destructive nature of humans? I don’t know and I’m still looking for an answer. So consider this question for an open discussion.

Question : In the making of first atomic bomb (Manhattan project) , some of the best scientists and inventors were involved in making a destructive tool for humanity. They had scientific education and they knew very well about the consequences of their actions. but still they did so. Does that mean science is not enough to make a moral stand?