Loading...Gaussian distribution is not a mathematical construct but a natural law. It is normal distribution that occurs in populations, events and seemingly random & mass instances of all sorts.
Another natural law that should be easy to agree upon is that what is good for Earth is good for all life forms dependent & residing upon it.
Also, common sense would dictate that Earth is limited as to how much life can it sustain.
Hence, Death is not merely desirable but essential. Else, earth would soon be devoured by life’s longing for itself, its innate goal to proliferate.
Predation, therefore, plays a crucial role in maintaining the health of our one & only home. So does calamities, wars, diseases & so called natural disasters.
—
Morality, on the other hand, is not Natural.
It is a man made construct. It seeks to eradicate pain, suffering & death. All forces causing so are termed Evil.
Yes, it does accept non-violent, painless natural death but essentially its basis is man’s fear of pain, suffering & death.
Morality as a common code of conduct for humans, as commandments to regulate behavior is required but it has unduly drawn focus away from health of Earth to health of Mankind.
Under the guise of morality based on common fear of masses, mankind, for ages, has eroded Earth & other life forms on it. It has devised systems, theories, religions, sciences, etc. based on concepts like justice, fairness, equality, virtuosity & such. The combined effect is a significant tilt towards the welfare of people & not the planet without which they cannot exist.
Mother earth, consequentially is getting sicker and has developed fever & shivers as a starter. Global warming & icy winters are merely a warning. If not treated, health of our home can only worsen.
One thought which is being pursued is search for an alternative home, like mars or moon.
But isn’t it conceivable that Mars is not our future but our past. That like Earth it was once a hospitable planet which hosted human beings and their activities increased the carbon dioxide in its environment and made it hotter & hotter till it became unlivable & decimated all life on it.
Perhaps a few escaped. To Planet Earth.
(That may explain the sudden onset of industrial revolution only in Caucasian Europe while Indigenous Indians lived at peaceful co-existence with nature elsewhere in Americas, Australia, Africa, & the polar continents).
Only to repeat the cycle … to make another Mars in the offing.
 —
With the context above, let’s examine one man made concept, the Democracy. More specifically, the system of governance, not devised but practiced by us, the Indian Nation.
Democracy is based on one person one vote – all equal. Monarchy allowed the fittest to emerge as the Natural Leader with one person holding all the votes. Both extremes are against the Gaussian law. By law the population would appear as a pyramid. With majority at the base. And decreasingly fewer on the upper rungs.
If democracy was imposed in a jungle, surely an insect or a rat would emerge as the leader. Insects & rodents would vote en masse to elect one of their kind. In the hope that they shall do them the maximum good little realizing that the ones elected from their kiln would abandon them rather quickly because they shall try & hasten their evolution to the next rung in the ladder. They would want to become bigger predators. Though disappointed, the voters would understand and may even empathize. After all the desire to evolve is innate, they even take pride that one of their ilks has made it to the next rung.
Tigers would hardly vote. They know they simply lack the numbers to make an impact on the outcome. They would become disengaged and rely simply on their own strengths to get by in the jungle. (I am in the process of writing a book extending this scenario to all beings of the forest and the resultant state of the jungle)
The Gaussian distribution is simply a reflection of the reality. In the above context, we know that species which breed more tend to be lower on the food chain. And vice versa.
Anthropologic studies have established similar patterns in humans everywhere. Those whose survival is assured do not bother much to reproduce and if they do they keep the quantity small so as to ensure similar quality of life for their offspring. In ghettos, on the other hand, a culture of hopelessness pervades. Life is lived on a day to day, one breeds simply because there is no responsibility towards the offspring.
Once again, what is described above are two extremes. For majority, the boundary arguments do not apply. The point, nonetheless, is that a system which is based on quantum alone is apt if the assumption that all are equal is warranted by rather limited variance in quality.
There is much more that I can say. I’d rather have a dialogue. Pl contribute.
Hi Naveen,
1. All life forms including Humans know only one thing, that is to proliferate as much as possible. Your assertion that life forms which are sure about their species’ well being will stop to multiply is not correct. Fundamental property of life is to sustain over time using whatever means possible. Diversification and Multiplication is are some of the ideas. We are the product of such natural ideas…
2. Death and predation are not essential for Earth to sustain. These are some of the natural phenomenon and ideas in the scheme of life which are in agreement with the fundamental principal. Earth will remain whether there is life or no life. It may change its form which is quite natural and happens all the time. Question is, will we Humans survive such change in form of earth. I am sure several species will survive…
3. I believe that Humans were not knowingly sabotaging their Mother Earth. They had their eyes strapped by greed. Greed for the well being (and capacity to proliferate) of an individual or a society is quite natural. Every life form is greedy following the fundamental principle of sustainability of life. Now when Humans have realized that they were playing with the nature to a dangerous extent they are trying to control the extent of damage, which of course may be too late for them…
4. It is not necessary to have Earth like conditions (oxygen, water etc..) principally, for life to originate or sustain. Excellent examples are found in deep sea and volcanoes etc where life forms are found without water and oxygen living happily in some ghastly acid and noxious gases. It is believed that the life started in highly un-Earth-like environment with no oxygen at the time. It is naive to believe that life will always take forms similar to what we see, several billion Mars’ may have unimaginable forms of life…
5. Democracy in India has not been a bad experience. In fact many a times Rats have chosen the Tigers. If you study deeply enough you will see that Rats were so scared of Tigers that they were voting for Tigers for more than 50 years. I consider the Tigers to be the one with extra-ordinary muscle power, who may not necessarily have extra-ordinary brains. One of the Rats or a Monkey may have more brains than these tigers who will not get a chance if the Rats keep on electing the Tigers…
Many thanks for taking the time to peruse & comment. This forum, in my view, can do with more interactivity. Evidently, my communication did not convey adequately, my failure. Your understanding of what was said differs from what was intended. Before I attempt to clarify, I request you to try & find 5 positives in the post as much as you took trouble to articulate disagreements. I look forward to more critiques.
Let me try to concentrate more on the original post instead of wandering which I did earlier expressing my own views.
1. Democracy as a system of governance is criticized with the arguments such as the nature of people found in nature follows natural laws such as normal distribution and actually can vary widely, hence all equal is not true. Such distribution is said to be backed by Anthropological studies.
2. Author suggests that once the masses chose a leader from among themselves, the leader leaves the masses and joins the ‘higher rung’. This fact is beautifully illustrated by George Orwell in ‘Animal Farm’ where the Pigs become Humans.
3. Author suggests that Monarchy allowed the natural leader to rise above all to lead. It is correct that such a system propels the best to the top. Some of the great leaders of the past such as Chandragupta Maurya were self made and natural leaders. They united vast provinces and created excellent system of governance.
4. Authors seems to be suggesting that Monarchy (One has all votes) and Democracy (All are equal), are two extremes. Although author criticize democracy and does not criticize Monarchy, I understand that the author is suggesting that both the ends of extremes are (may) not good. Something in the middle as a system of governance may be a better choice.
5. Author talks about Natural and Man-made phenomenon such as death and destruction, and Morality, Good and Evil. Article describes the destruction of nature caused by Man in the name of Morality. However the first two sections of the article which deals with nature and Man’s deeds are not properly connected with the third section which talks about a system of governance.
Do you think this is a better observation on the article? Let me know if I am still not talking about what you intended to write in the article.
It would be nice if you propose some solutions and alternatives.
Let me try to concentrate more on the original post instead of wandering which I did earlier expressing my own views.
1. Democracy as a system of governance is criticized with the arguments such as the nature of people found in nature follows natural laws such as normal distribution and actually can vary widely, hence all equal is not true. Such distribution is said to be backed by Anthropological studies.
2. Author suggests that once the masses chose a leader from among themselves, the leader leaves the masses and joins the ‘higher rung’. This fact is beautifully illustrated by George Orwell in ‘Animal Farm’ where the Pigs become Humans.
3. Author suggests that Monarchy allowed the natural leader to rise above all to lead. It is correct that such a system propels the best to the top. Some of the great leaders of the past such as Chandragupta Maurya were self made and natural leaders. They united vast provinces and created excellent system of governance.
4. Authors seems to be suggesting that Monarchy (One has all votes) and Democracy (All are equal), are two extremes. Although author criticize democracy and does not criticize Monarchy, I understand that the author is suggesting that both are the extremes and (maybe) not good. Something in the middle as a system of governance may be a better choice.
5. Author talks about Natural and Man-made phenomenon such as death and destruction, and Morality, Good and Evil. Article describes the destruction of nature caused by Man in the name of Morality. However the first two sections of the article which deals with nature and Man’s deeds are not clearly connected with the third section which talks about a system of governance. Or I am not able to make that connection.
Do you think this is a better observation on the article? Let me know if I am still not talking about what you intended to write in the article.
It would be nice if you propose some solutions and alternatives.
In THE BIG Picture Earth is not a group of nations. It is an entity that nurtures us all.
The governance systems of humans must include earth as a key stakeholder.
Democracy, as practiced, is not serving interests of the planet that we live on.
Yet, it is fast gaining ground. Corrections are needed.
The emphasis must shift from quantity to quality. Of life. Of people. Of survival of the fittest.
Only predator for human is human itself. Its elimination is neither possible nor beneficial in THE BIG Picture.
There might be a billion planets out there but the one we are on is home. Even in the slim possibility of migration to another, We still must save it.
This may already be our second & perhaps, last chance.
We got to come with a system which lessens the need for people to proliferate.
Really, there is so much more to say …I shall do so based upon response.
Unfortunately Humans as the nature has made them think from the PERSONAL perspective like any other life form on earth. Society and governments are derived from the individual. System is bottom up from individual to country and nowadays to the planet to some extent (People have finally started talking about planet).
When the individual was thinking about personal gains he was not worried about what will happen to the planet or the environment. Still majority thinks in this manner. People dump waste in the rivers without thinking that that will corrupt the river because that does not affect them personally and visibly.
Thus the society and governments were not worried about the environment, they were all thinking about personal well being. Unless you become selfless, you cannot include earth as a stakeholder in anything because it does not affect you [Note: Nowadays people have realized that Earth should be a stakeholder]. You will say that my poverty eradication program is more important than reducing my carbon foot-print because the former affects me directly, immediately.
I do not think system of governance has anything to do with the Big Picture of life and planet. There are several types of governments already and each one has its own problems.
Let me propose my own solution. Proper education. Proper education is the solution to most of the problems of this world in general and India in particular. System of governance will not matter if the populace is educated. People will understand that overpopulation is a burden if they are educated. People will understand that damaging the planet is not in there interest. People will understand that it is possible to care about the environment and life. Note that Educated people are already realizing these facts.
Ensuring ‘proper education’ is a very fundamental part of governance. Also, the very purpose of governance is to have individuals work for the greater good of the group, to induce ‘self-less-ness’ via carrot & stick.
We can think about alternative forms of governance.
But before doing that we should clearly note down where, how and why democracy has failed.
List the purpose of governance?
List some of the specific failures of Democracy?