Food for Thought?

Fundamentalism is the immediate threat for mankind, I think. 

Who are fundamentalists? The right-wing Christian conservatism which has grown into a major political force in a few countries, like the United States, is one. The militant Islamism which now appears to pose the most immediate threat to peace and security in the West specially and the world over, is another one. The militarist Zionism which convinces millions of Israelis and their supporters around the world that they are justified in their decades of oppression of the Palestinian people because God said that the land between the Nile and the Euphrates was theirs, also belong to this. Many new forms of ethnic nationalism are already in play, like the one which tore apart central Europe in the 1990s, or the rise of Hindu nationalism in India.

Why do we have fundamentalists? Because, there is always someone there to support every form of fundamentalism. The only opposition is from those who are directly affected by it, which, as one can see, is never a very large group. And for others, fundamentalism satisfies an important need. I think because of that, except where it causes unspeakable horror and destruction in our society, it is celebrated, and kept at a high pedestal.

Naturally, resistance, if any, will only be a feeble one. 

Why there is Turmoil Everyewhere

In established democracies like USA, India, or UK, many are the undemocratic deviations that go unnoticed, overlooked, or even celebrated, though they take pride in calling themselves democratic. This in fact is an indication that more and more countries may seek to satisfy democracy only as a notion. Restrictive policies and practices are there in many states, effectively preventing people from expressing, or openly declaring their choice. Why should it be so?

I think this is a natural response. To whatever disturbances the societies are regularly experiencing. 

I have a doubt here. Why should the societies that follow the ideal form of government, face difficulties?

I think I have found the answer. Democracy, in fact is a highly inefficient way for any species to govern itself. Mainly due to two reasons. One, a great share of constituents' sweat and toil is wasted for governing themselves, a rather nonproductive effort. And it plays no part at all, in the longevity and welfare of the species. Two, there can be large scale duplication and wasteful work just for meeting the needs of concordance of the society at large, while grappling with the miscellany of governance.

In the case of humans, this is further exacerbated by the unwritten duty all of us have given to ourselves, incessantly speaking good words about democracy. Since, as we continue to sing its praise, we miss to see all of the above.

Book Review: SOFT SKILLS

SOFT SKILLS  by  Manmohan Josh is about the unseen side of ability. That those who work needs to have certain abilities that allow them to do their jobs effectively. These abilities are known as hard or technical skills and normally there are formal ways of acquiring these. But there are certain qualities, which are generally encompassing attitudes, habits and how we interact with other people. These qualities, known as soft skills, also contrbutes to success.

The discussion begins by explaining the many aspects of personality develpoment and related tools, like SWOT analysis. After an overview of leadership, and management, with emphasis on various styles, the all important topic of the modern times, stress, is discussed. Close to which comes a few more connected topics, thinking skills and its application to problem solving. Infact the most significant area of the manifestation of such skills, namely decision making, forms the core of the next chapter. A grand overview of the styles and socpe of communication, workplace ethics, as well as the importance of personal qualities in relation to work, brings the short and sweet book to a close.

I found this book a good commentary on the state of the art, as far as personal management go. And of the qualities one should necessarily have, for a successful tenure anywhere.

Book Review: On the Origins of New Forms of Life

On the Origins of New Forms of Life: A New Theory  by Eugene M. McCarthy. How does evolution occur? — That is, what natural processes bring new types of organisms into being? Expressed more technically, one might ask, what are the genetic processes that have produced the various forms scientists recognize and assign scientific names? This is the question considered in this book, and it attracted me a lot, evolution being my pet topic. 

First chapter of the book opens with a discussion of the word species, a word that lies at the center of modern biological thought, examining its history, meaning, and usage. And questions the style we have acquired of attributing unique properties to groups denoted by this word. After a brief discussion about other theories is in  this regard in the next couple of chapters, what is known about stabilization process and its prevalence is discussed. The evidence of the fossil record as it bears on the relative prevalence of the processes postulated by neo-Darwinian theory and by stabilization theory comes next, followed by examination of stabilization theory in detail. A rather rich background about the historical connection provide intellectual context for the discussion. How stabilization theory can be applied while re-evaluating the origin of mammals, in the light of the reasoning stipulated in this new perspective. 

It then explains the stabilization theory in detail, the main tenets of which are, 1) Typical form of life treated as a species comes into being via certain processes ("stabilization processes") that produce new stable forms in an extremely rapid manner, as against the 'Typical new form comes into being gradually through the accumulation of certain characteristic traits within an evolving population over time' of Darwin, and 2) These processes produce new forms that are, for genetic reasons, inherently stable from the time of their inception right up to the time of their extinction, with negigible tendency to change over time in response to environmental constraints, as against the 'The accumulation and spread of these traits is due to environmental influences favoring the survival and reproduction of individuals having such traits (natural selection), of Darwin. In short, stabilization theory suggests we should seek to explain the origin of any given set of similar forms in terms of their derivation from some preexisting set of forms with similar traits.

As I mentioned, this being my pet topic I went into it with interest. Of course the author puts life as something produced rapidly by a stabilization process, and has a distinctive and characteristic set of traits from the time of its inception that does not change significantly thereafter. But the book does not produce a good reason that can act as an incentive to this process, though it mentions of the lack of such incentives in the explanation and analysis of Darwin's theory of evolution. I also feel, more than the modalities of the process evolution, in which this theory does not show much deviation from the classic one, one needs to enquire into the causes of evolution. 

(I think, my theory of the unsure male can fit in here.)

I wish I knew long back!

Sign of the Times