Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Himalayas
I wish I was free enough to scale the Himalayas of the world. Allow me, the Great One, to scale the Himalayas of the mind in search of higher truth.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Infinity
Infinity is akin to a circle. How? No matter which way you go, you keep going.
You go either inside out or outside in. You start with gross matter and keep dividing it till you reach "infinity". This is same "infinity" as what you reach when you keep going outwards from your world. They both meet at infinity.
Infinity: Its a circle without radius and circumference. But, most importantly with a centre.
You go either inside out or outside in. You start with gross matter and keep dividing it till you reach "infinity". This is same "infinity" as what you reach when you keep going outwards from your world. They both meet at infinity.
Infinity: Its a circle without radius and circumference. But, most importantly with a centre.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Development v/s Environment
Argument: Development is critical for developing and under-developed countries. There is a huge population without access to proper sanitation, drinking water, electricity and secure shelter. Infrastructure should be created that includes roads, drains, water pipes and electricity grids that are local to the area. Then to support these, electricity generation units, tools and machinery manufacturing units, cement factories, dams, etc. have to be built elsewhere. This requires some portion of the nature to be "reclaimed" for these purposes.
Counter-argument: Man has already spoiled the environment by building dams, electricity generating units, factories, etc. Hence, no more of these should be allowed. The "green" technologies to tap solar, wind and other "renewable" natural resources should only be allowed. Bio-fuels and other non-polluting fuels should be used in vehicles.
My stance: Humans have never been friendly to the environment. We have used our intelligence to find ways to defy nature. At the same time, we have not been intelligent enough to understand fully that we have been cutting a tree branch while sitting on the same branch towards the unconnected edge.
On one side, we have invented artificial methods (like medicine) to improve the longevity of ourselves and increase the chances of survival. On the other side, we want to deny basic quality of life to others amongst us!
Some of us live comfortably in a secure home with running water, modern sanitation and electricity for lighting, TV (and AC). At the same time, we oppose building new infrastructure similar to what enables us to do these!
Some of us are blind and fail to see that no technology is 100% environmental friendly. Each have their own costs to be paid by someone or the other. If the vehicles directly steal the food from the poor's mouth (in the form of bio-fuels), then solar photo-voltaic power generation are enemies of the environment, as that requires storing electricity in batteries, which are polluting during it's life cycle.
We can only delay the inevitable. Nothing is black and white. There are no Heroes and Villains in the real world. If you have to cut 10 trees to enable someone to improve the quality of life from below average to average, so be it. But make sure you plant 100 trees. Mother earth has abundant barren land.
No "green" technology can exist without doing a bit of environmental damage. If solar panels require manufacturing and batteries, then windmills require manufacturing too. And then there is another dimension to it: economics. No one has infinite resources to build "green" technologies. It's a balance. For example, we cannot expect an individual to give up his petrol car to buy a 100% "green" car (which itself is only theory) that is 10 times as costly if he can't afford it.
To be 100% environment-friendly, one has to:
- quit living in homes (made of artificial material)
- quit taking medicines (made of artificial chemicals)
- quit wearing clothes (made in factories that require some form of energy)
- start living in the wilderness without any modern amenities
So, let's learn not to take 0 or 1 approach, black or white approach and hero or villain approach. Let's learn to appreciate the fact that humans have never been 100% nature-friendly and would never ever be.
Let us strive to understand ways to push the inevitable as far as possible.
Counter-argument: Man has already spoiled the environment by building dams, electricity generating units, factories, etc. Hence, no more of these should be allowed. The "green" technologies to tap solar, wind and other "renewable" natural resources should only be allowed. Bio-fuels and other non-polluting fuels should be used in vehicles.
My stance: Humans have never been friendly to the environment. We have used our intelligence to find ways to defy nature. At the same time, we have not been intelligent enough to understand fully that we have been cutting a tree branch while sitting on the same branch towards the unconnected edge.
On one side, we have invented artificial methods (like medicine) to improve the longevity of ourselves and increase the chances of survival. On the other side, we want to deny basic quality of life to others amongst us!
Some of us live comfortably in a secure home with running water, modern sanitation and electricity for lighting, TV (and AC). At the same time, we oppose building new infrastructure similar to what enables us to do these!
Some of us are blind and fail to see that no technology is 100% environmental friendly. Each have their own costs to be paid by someone or the other. If the vehicles directly steal the food from the poor's mouth (in the form of bio-fuels), then solar photo-voltaic power generation are enemies of the environment, as that requires storing electricity in batteries, which are polluting during it's life cycle.
We can only delay the inevitable. Nothing is black and white. There are no Heroes and Villains in the real world. If you have to cut 10 trees to enable someone to improve the quality of life from below average to average, so be it. But make sure you plant 100 trees. Mother earth has abundant barren land.
No "green" technology can exist without doing a bit of environmental damage. If solar panels require manufacturing and batteries, then windmills require manufacturing too. And then there is another dimension to it: economics. No one has infinite resources to build "green" technologies. It's a balance. For example, we cannot expect an individual to give up his petrol car to buy a 100% "green" car (which itself is only theory) that is 10 times as costly if he can't afford it.
To be 100% environment-friendly, one has to:
- quit living in homes (made of artificial material)
- quit taking medicines (made of artificial chemicals)
- quit wearing clothes (made in factories that require some form of energy)
- start living in the wilderness without any modern amenities
So, let's learn not to take 0 or 1 approach, black or white approach and hero or villain approach. Let's learn to appreciate the fact that humans have never been 100% nature-friendly and would never ever be.
Let us strive to understand ways to push the inevitable as far as possible.
Time
Something I thought during an email exchange with a close friend... Time is the toughest of all. It is absolutely non-negotiable and absolutely consistent. This is also probably the only absolute reference that a common man can easily understand.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
