I have noticed Indians who have a lot of skills, not utilizing them to improve their lives - monetarily or physically. Since I was born in a land of an excess of a billion people, not exactly the ideal land of opportunity, I was able to appreciate this better.
While the competition is an extrinsic factor, the devil inside is the level of contempt. On one hand, every one is trying to outperform the other by any means possible. On the other hand, a person decides to stop growing once she or he reaches a stable job and has a family to care. May be they are sides of the same coin - the pseudo security and contempt is a manifestation of extreme competition. Put together, these two factors kill the ingenious talent and the potential for a much better life.
There are lot of Indian who are still successful and make a very decent living in India. But there is an interesting twist to this tale - I see a lot more Indian scientists, doctors and software professionals doing much better when they work outside India. It may be more money, less competition or just their changed mindset.
Another important factor is that as a person outperforms competition and takes up a more responsible post, he/she is entitled with some power and responsibility. It will be an understatement if I say that many are afraid to take that responsibility. Because it becomes increasingly difficult to meet the expectations every time. Since you have to set your own goals and beat them, you will face your greatest competition - yourself. Very few actually win this fight within. But those who do, achieve tremendous heights.
In my personal opinion, due to these in-bred competition, corruption and our own unique way we handle things, an Indian working elsewhere has a amazing potential for growth and improvement. He has much less destructive forces working against him and when he progresses to a much less restraining environment, his productive self explodes with flying colors.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Sicko
Watched this documentary of the controversial Michael Moore. It is probably the least politically motivated of his documentaries and that made it special. It talks about the US health and insurance "industries" in US. It talks about how the average cost of medical help in US is way above the other developed nations. His journey for the quest and comparison of the health industry in UK, France and Canada finally ends up in communist Cuba. All the western coutries cover their citizen's medical expenses with their tax money itself - almost free medicine. Of-course health care in Cuba was found equivalent in quality and much much cheaper than in US.
I knew medicine and treatment are costly affairs in US. But after watching the documentary, I found how similar these companies are to the greediest multinationals - Insurance companies reducing losses by hook or crook - not sanctioning the money, scrutinizing for every crack as to deny the claim etc. They are purely financial entities with little care for lives they are taking away. End of the year, it is just the accounts book that matters.
Kudos to Moore for touching on a real social (non-political) problem. though there has been a lot of emotional stories and sensationalism, finally it does justice to the subject. After all its people dying without medical aid that we are talking about. Hope this documentary helps!!
I knew medicine and treatment are costly affairs in US. But after watching the documentary, I found how similar these companies are to the greediest multinationals - Insurance companies reducing losses by hook or crook - not sanctioning the money, scrutinizing for every crack as to deny the claim etc. They are purely financial entities with little care for lives they are taking away. End of the year, it is just the accounts book that matters.
Kudos to Moore for touching on a real social (non-political) problem. though there has been a lot of emotional stories and sensationalism, finally it does justice to the subject. After all its people dying without medical aid that we are talking about. Hope this documentary helps!!
Thursday, December 27, 2007
A country's Identity crisis
A country which came into being from the British partition of India, waged three wars with its neighbor, a democracy overthrown twice by military generals in the past fifty years, spends 16% of its GDP (max for a developing country)on defense and turning nuclear, receiving humanitarian and military aid from most of the developed nations, has a per capita income of $850/yr, harboring and sponsoring militant groups.... this list can go on and on.
Let us get to the final blow - assassination of the most promising prime-ministoral candidate, thus killing the last hopes of democracy in the near future. Uncle Sam has been keeping this country in good light and good shape since they helped him in war on terror. US has been selling this image of Pakistan to the rest of the world only under the promise of restoring democracy in the country. This assassination has invigorated US and has made it nervous. The irony of the situation is the same US which was heavily against a one-man-rule in North Korea or Iraq, has to now defend Pakistan at whatever cost since it has unfinished business in pak-afghan borders. It will be interesting to see how much pressure they can apply and how this double standards develop.
Consider Musharraf's problems - there has been multiple attempts on his life due to the same organization which is claimed to have done this. In my opinion, he is alive only because he is still in power. The moment he loses that, his life is in grave danger. If true, the current unrest and the frightening reach of Al Queda on the assets of a nuclear state if very upsetting. May be these assets are as safe as they claim - but the strong anti-Musharraf commotion and riots may open things up for planned terrorists.
The latest update - Al Queda did not take responsibility. But if it was them, seems like a fine way to drive a wedge in US-Pakistan relationships. South east Asia which has always been a nuclear flash point, is in for a rough ride. India is preparing her defenses, sealing the borders. China is watching too. A country with outraged commoners, heavy terrorist infiltration and atleast 5 nuclear bombs and whose identity is surely in crisis - watch out for the worst!!
Let us get to the final blow - assassination of the most promising prime-ministoral candidate, thus killing the last hopes of democracy in the near future. Uncle Sam has been keeping this country in good light and good shape since they helped him in war on terror. US has been selling this image of Pakistan to the rest of the world only under the promise of restoring democracy in the country. This assassination has invigorated US and has made it nervous. The irony of the situation is the same US which was heavily against a one-man-rule in North Korea or Iraq, has to now defend Pakistan at whatever cost since it has unfinished business in pak-afghan borders. It will be interesting to see how much pressure they can apply and how this double standards develop.
Consider Musharraf's problems - there has been multiple attempts on his life due to the same organization which is claimed to have done this. In my opinion, he is alive only because he is still in power. The moment he loses that, his life is in grave danger. If true, the current unrest and the frightening reach of Al Queda on the assets of a nuclear state if very upsetting. May be these assets are as safe as they claim - but the strong anti-Musharraf commotion and riots may open things up for planned terrorists.
The latest update - Al Queda did not take responsibility. But if it was them, seems like a fine way to drive a wedge in US-Pakistan relationships. South east Asia which has always been a nuclear flash point, is in for a rough ride. India is preparing her defenses, sealing the borders. China is watching too. A country with outraged commoners, heavy terrorist infiltration and atleast 5 nuclear bombs and whose identity is surely in crisis - watch out for the worst!!
Intelligent design by IT
This is the unpopular side of a never ending debate on the Darwin's theory of Evolution and Natural Selection.
It states that some intelligent being must have created all the complexity of plants and animals that we see around and may be selection is not that natural. Essentially this faction advocates that things in nature are so methodical and magical that pure random selection cannot account for the complexities and varieties that exists out there.
The advocacy for this theory is provided by concept of irreducible complexity - "certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, and are at the same time too complex to have arisen naturally through chance mutations" - Wikipedia
Another famous argument advocating for intelligent design is specified complexity. This however has been subject very high criticism and has been proved inconsistent in ways - mathematical and logical. Hence we will just ignore this till a later point.
For the most part, these people who propose alternate theories tend to prove their theory to be plausible than providing concrete evidence against the widely accepted theory. Putting a logic behind anything is very easy - but proving the majority theory as otherwise is not so. Simply put, if you claim that you are right and entirely contradict the popular idea, unless you categorically disprove the existing idea, yours is not worth consideration.
We can see the similarity between different species - look at the enormous amount of fossilized evidence, the time line associated with these fossils. There is no evidence of man before a million years. There are creatures which are currently extinct but show a clear intermediary between two species that live even today. How will you disprove these? Do you mean some intelligent creature planted these to that we can doubt about IT later?
Now here we are wondering about these theories. If "IT" was the intelligent designer who did all this, why would IT take the pains to do it? A science experiment? may be... If I have done an experiment of this magnitude on a planet, I would stay there and watch it, make amends or reap some benefits out of what I did. Is every specified complexity that IT worked so hard to create, utterly a waste of time?.. May be it is not yet time for IT.
I am not against change or anything. But Darwin's theory brought a better understanding including a lot of new breakthroughs in medicine, genetic variations, vaccination, gave rise to new branches of studies and improve human living standards. If proved right what will the intelligent design bring in? Watching the skies for some UFO to come to help with AIDS research? or fear of alien attack and trying to beat IT with artificial organisms of our own? TIG - trust in God?
I don't see the point with these guys. Darwin theory was a revolution, Microbiology and Genetics were revolutions, Nano technology is a revolution whereas Intelligent design is not. People with faith in god do not need some one with scientific know-how to prove that God exists. They have faith, which is good enough for them. If someone disproves intelligent design, these people wont stop trusting in God. Science may require the concept of God but God does not require scientific proof.
God willing, these people and their opinions will be put to rest - very soon.
It states that some intelligent being must have created all the complexity of plants and animals that we see around and may be selection is not that natural. Essentially this faction advocates that things in nature are so methodical and magical that pure random selection cannot account for the complexities and varieties that exists out there.
The advocacy for this theory is provided by concept of irreducible complexity - "certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, and are at the same time too complex to have arisen naturally through chance mutations" - Wikipedia
Another famous argument advocating for intelligent design is specified complexity. This however has been subject very high criticism and has been proved inconsistent in ways - mathematical and logical. Hence we will just ignore this till a later point.
For the most part, these people who propose alternate theories tend to prove their theory to be plausible than providing concrete evidence against the widely accepted theory. Putting a logic behind anything is very easy - but proving the majority theory as otherwise is not so. Simply put, if you claim that you are right and entirely contradict the popular idea, unless you categorically disprove the existing idea, yours is not worth consideration.
We can see the similarity between different species - look at the enormous amount of fossilized evidence, the time line associated with these fossils. There is no evidence of man before a million years. There are creatures which are currently extinct but show a clear intermediary between two species that live even today. How will you disprove these? Do you mean some intelligent creature planted these to that we can doubt about IT later?
Now here we are wondering about these theories. If "IT" was the intelligent designer who did all this, why would IT take the pains to do it? A science experiment? may be... If I have done an experiment of this magnitude on a planet, I would stay there and watch it, make amends or reap some benefits out of what I did. Is every specified complexity that IT worked so hard to create, utterly a waste of time?.. May be it is not yet time for IT.
I am not against change or anything. But Darwin's theory brought a better understanding including a lot of new breakthroughs in medicine, genetic variations, vaccination, gave rise to new branches of studies and improve human living standards. If proved right what will the intelligent design bring in? Watching the skies for some UFO to come to help with AIDS research? or fear of alien attack and trying to beat IT with artificial organisms of our own? TIG - trust in God?
I don't see the point with these guys. Darwin theory was a revolution, Microbiology and Genetics were revolutions, Nano technology is a revolution whereas Intelligent design is not. People with faith in god do not need some one with scientific know-how to prove that God exists. They have faith, which is good enough for them. If someone disproves intelligent design, these people wont stop trusting in God. Science may require the concept of God but God does not require scientific proof.
God willing, these people and their opinions will be put to rest - very soon.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Decisions
Do I or do I not?
We all are faced with some tough decision in life at some point or the other. If you look back after a few years or decades how much of a phenomenal effect that one decision has had on your entire life. It may be as basic as choosing the right school, right job or the right life partner - which are by no means trivial.
You would have toiled through the fires of your thought - which would have taken a toll on your "Processor" and brought you within an inch of "Crashing". But in at later time, you would have felt proud that you did the thinking and made the right choice at the right time.
The important thing is to stick with your dreams goal and decisions and give all you have got before judging the nature of the decision itself. I have seen a lot of my friends struggling with simple decisions in life - like buying a piece of clothing or deciding the dish for dinner. Some take life's decision with very less thought and then think about whether the decision was right. If there is one thing that I have seen in my experience, analyzing and suspecting the nature of your decision should occur predominantly before you take it.
Having said that, timing is crucial when it comes to life changing decisions. Though you need to take time to analyze situations, it should be rationed with care. Taking more time will cost you more in two ways - you wont concentrate on the tasks at hand and the opportunity cost of what you would be in case you had already taken the decision. I had a few friends who have more than multiple goals sets at the same time and will struggle prioritizing them - finally ending up nowhere.
One more important thing is being open about your own decision with little emotional content. If some thing takes a turn for the worse, taking a third persons view of the same to fix the problem is often much less stressful. Ego and overconfidence has ruined many crucial decisions. I have been in situations when require a lot of analysis and careful dissection of the situation. But taking as much time required to convince myself of the outcome is the best way. That way, even if something goes wrong, we would attack the problem than feeling bad about the decision itself.
As long as you believe in something and have your own logic tested working , turn a deaf ear to opinions and comments - which for most part will be noise affecting your clarity of thought. Once you cultivate this habit of noise cancellation, your decisions will keep getting better!!
We all are faced with some tough decision in life at some point or the other. If you look back after a few years or decades how much of a phenomenal effect that one decision has had on your entire life. It may be as basic as choosing the right school, right job or the right life partner - which are by no means trivial.
You would have toiled through the fires of your thought - which would have taken a toll on your "Processor" and brought you within an inch of "Crashing". But in at later time, you would have felt proud that you did the thinking and made the right choice at the right time.
The important thing is to stick with your dreams goal and decisions and give all you have got before judging the nature of the decision itself. I have seen a lot of my friends struggling with simple decisions in life - like buying a piece of clothing or deciding the dish for dinner. Some take life's decision with very less thought and then think about whether the decision was right. If there is one thing that I have seen in my experience, analyzing and suspecting the nature of your decision should occur predominantly before you take it.
Having said that, timing is crucial when it comes to life changing decisions. Though you need to take time to analyze situations, it should be rationed with care. Taking more time will cost you more in two ways - you wont concentrate on the tasks at hand and the opportunity cost of what you would be in case you had already taken the decision. I had a few friends who have more than multiple goals sets at the same time and will struggle prioritizing them - finally ending up nowhere.
One more important thing is being open about your own decision with little emotional content. If some thing takes a turn for the worse, taking a third persons view of the same to fix the problem is often much less stressful. Ego and overconfidence has ruined many crucial decisions. I have been in situations when require a lot of analysis and careful dissection of the situation. But taking as much time required to convince myself of the outcome is the best way. That way, even if something goes wrong, we would attack the problem than feeling bad about the decision itself.
As long as you believe in something and have your own logic tested working , turn a deaf ear to opinions and comments - which for most part will be noise affecting your clarity of thought. Once you cultivate this habit of noise cancellation, your decisions will keep getting better!!
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Creator or Creation
Who is He? the creator or a creation?
God is regarded as the supreme being and the creator of all life . They say man is his supreme creation - the pinnacle of his work. Wait a minute... Shouldn't it be the other way round?
To clarify, I am not an atheist and I have total trust and faith in the god as defined by my religion. But I can assure you that a supreme being, worship and adherence to common rules of well-being is present with almost every person, and has enormous benefits . Atheists may hold this supreme being as their own conscience or their sense of duty/charity. But we wont be divulging on the topic here.
The concept of a supreme being has a lot of psychological advantages. The notion of faith makes trust in people, second nature. This makes the man a socially connected and gives a general environment based on the trust and good-will. That is goodness in a package.
It infuses hope and reassurance in the needy and suffering. Thought of an almighty give people the courage and hope to fight against problems and calamities. This is probably the reason why we never think of Him is times of peace and prosperity. That is perseverance and reason for struggle in a package.
Probably the most important of them all is a concept of a judgment day. A day when you have to account for your doings. When the first two points encourage good things, this one stops some from doing bad things. This feeling that someones watching you all the time and that you will be responsible for your deeds is absolutely essential to keep order in the world. Moreover personally it lets you mature as a social creature.
However magnificent, the concept has its loopholes. Our brains are basically hard wired to look for loopholes, cracks in any system. As captain Kirk used to put in in the "Star Trek - Original" "We as a race are born to solve problems. We cannot just exist - we need a sense of purpose and problems to solve". I believe that is exactly what this idea brings in - a sense of purpose and an unsolvable riddle which is always just out of reach.
Unfortunately, the largest section of people today are the ones who use the concept of gods to justify what ever they do. There tends to be a lot of businesses that are catalyzed by the concept of God. The same trust and faith that is built through this concept is its downfall - people become gullible. Hence in the present scenario, it does not make as much sense as, say 1000 years before. Sadly, give it another 1000 years and it may not exist any more....
God is regarded as the supreme being and the creator of all life . They say man is his supreme creation - the pinnacle of his work. Wait a minute... Shouldn't it be the other way round?
To clarify, I am not an atheist and I have total trust and faith in the god as defined by my religion. But I can assure you that a supreme being, worship and adherence to common rules of well-being is present with almost every person, and has enormous benefits . Atheists may hold this supreme being as their own conscience or their sense of duty/charity. But we wont be divulging on the topic here.
The concept of a supreme being has a lot of psychological advantages. The notion of faith makes trust in people, second nature. This makes the man a socially connected and gives a general environment based on the trust and good-will. That is goodness in a package.
It infuses hope and reassurance in the needy and suffering. Thought of an almighty give people the courage and hope to fight against problems and calamities. This is probably the reason why we never think of Him is times of peace and prosperity. That is perseverance and reason for struggle in a package.
Probably the most important of them all is a concept of a judgment day. A day when you have to account for your doings. When the first two points encourage good things, this one stops some from doing bad things. This feeling that someones watching you all the time and that you will be responsible for your deeds is absolutely essential to keep order in the world. Moreover personally it lets you mature as a social creature.
However magnificent, the concept has its loopholes. Our brains are basically hard wired to look for loopholes, cracks in any system. As captain Kirk used to put in in the "Star Trek - Original" "We as a race are born to solve problems. We cannot just exist - we need a sense of purpose and problems to solve". I believe that is exactly what this idea brings in - a sense of purpose and an unsolvable riddle which is always just out of reach.
Unfortunately, the largest section of people today are the ones who use the concept of gods to justify what ever they do. There tends to be a lot of businesses that are catalyzed by the concept of God. The same trust and faith that is built through this concept is its downfall - people become gullible. Hence in the present scenario, it does not make as much sense as, say 1000 years before. Sadly, give it another 1000 years and it may not exist any more....
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Love actually..
Love has lost its original meaning. The totally dedicated, all giving, honest lover is seldom found/seen. All that is noticeable are people who are emotionally unstable, with very little compromise and easy-give-up attitude. Having a boyfriend or girlfriend has become the social trend. Neither sex wants to get into a committed relationship as they see more disadvantages. The love of today is a immature emotional dependency, very spontaneous and short lasted.
People think more rational and practical while choosing their mates. The emotional content, if any, is fast disappearing. The top parameters are monetary, physical, IQ and social aspects of the person. They have replaced things like long term compatibility,true affection, compromise, determination,forgiveness and moral value.
They say "Girls are pure at heart"-meaning, they are able to forget flings faster and get on with life.And "Guys are emotionally unstable" - meaning, they need to get a girl before the girl gets a guy (and they usually do). So when we are all hard-coded this way, it is not surprising how things have turned up.
People fall in love for want of attention and not the giving of it. It is an irony that as children we are encouraged to act mature and as adults we decide to act childing just to get this attention. The time lovers spend together may have increased, but much of this is to test the other persons patience, availability or honesty than anything meaningful. Else it will be to reiterate the fact that they are still in love. The underlying meaning is long lost and in my view, will stay that way.
People think more rational and practical while choosing their mates. The emotional content, if any, is fast disappearing. The top parameters are monetary, physical, IQ and social aspects of the person. They have replaced things like long term compatibility,true affection, compromise, determination,forgiveness and moral value.
They say "Girls are pure at heart"-meaning, they are able to forget flings faster and get on with life.And "Guys are emotionally unstable" - meaning, they need to get a girl before the girl gets a guy (and they usually do). So when we are all hard-coded this way, it is not surprising how things have turned up.
People fall in love for want of attention and not the giving of it. It is an irony that as children we are encouraged to act mature and as adults we decide to act childing just to get this attention. The time lovers spend together may have increased, but much of this is to test the other persons patience, availability or honesty than anything meaningful. Else it will be to reiterate the fact that they are still in love. The underlying meaning is long lost and in my view, will stay that way.
Friday, March 09, 2007
Delusions about right and wrong
If there is one question which has haunted humans, it is this. What is right and what is wrong? and more importantly, who gets to decide it?
Some people may can it conscience or religion or legal systems. But all these are concepts created by men for justifying his deeds. The practices which were normal in medieval days are considered entirely barbaric/unsocial in modern days. In some cases, even the vice versa is true. Even the legal systems in most countries justify murder in self-defense, not to mention the brave soldier - honored for his murders at the battlefield.
Though man may boast about great civilization, grand cities and social order, he is an animal and he will remain that ways. They say that the history belongs to the victorious. The most powerful and influencing people create and dictate the right and the wrong. They created the religions, legalize systems, social rules and punishments. And every one of these things can stay alive and living only if it bends to the will of the powerful.
There may be an argument about conscience and discretion. Conscience is an acquired phenomenon and discretion is totally dependent the the situation and personal vantage. Your early days as a child, your immediate environment and the ways people treat you decides you conscience level. Thus the ethical dilemma about right and wrong is a phantom, something which will be of debate for eternity. As the perceptions change, times change so changes the distinction between right and the wrong, till it becomes as vague as..... well the vaguest thing imaginable.
Am i right or wrong?
Some people may can it conscience or religion or legal systems. But all these are concepts created by men for justifying his deeds. The practices which were normal in medieval days are considered entirely barbaric/unsocial in modern days. In some cases, even the vice versa is true. Even the legal systems in most countries justify murder in self-defense, not to mention the brave soldier - honored for his murders at the battlefield.
Though man may boast about great civilization, grand cities and social order, he is an animal and he will remain that ways. They say that the history belongs to the victorious. The most powerful and influencing people create and dictate the right and the wrong. They created the religions, legalize systems, social rules and punishments. And every one of these things can stay alive and living only if it bends to the will of the powerful.
There may be an argument about conscience and discretion. Conscience is an acquired phenomenon and discretion is totally dependent the the situation and personal vantage. Your early days as a child, your immediate environment and the ways people treat you decides you conscience level. Thus the ethical dilemma about right and wrong is a phantom, something which will be of debate for eternity. As the perceptions change, times change so changes the distinction between right and the wrong, till it becomes as vague as..... well the vaguest thing imaginable.
Am i right or wrong?
My first blog
As expected, my first blog is a small intro on myself. I am one of a Billion Indians on the planet and one who is very proud to be one. As every average middle-class indian, i am an educated, ambitious, quickwitted, high thinking, independent guy. Some of my negatives as i have heard people say are my rebelliousness , outspoken nature and my laziness. Enuff about me, now lets rock some sensitive topics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)