Do Ideas Matter?

Ideas are generally speaking vastly underrated. Yet they have been of extreme importance throughout history and their importance has increased dramatically with the rise of the digital economy. As children, we are usually not taught the history of ideas. Instead we are taught the history of physical things. We study in depth all about emperors and kings, empires and kingdoms, their political interactions, their rise and fall. Rarely if ever, do we get the opportunity or have the inclination to study the ideas that motivated these historical people and events. Events are exciting to read and visualize. Ideas? Not so much. But it is ideas that outlast political structures and people that in the long run are essentially ephemeral. Our history is often unintelligible without an understanding of the underlying ideas that motivated the exciting events and people that we read about.

As an example, take the Crusades. For Western Europe and the consequent development of Western culture and civilization and thus that of the West, this was a watershed event. The question is why? simply reading about the battles as the tide of war ebbed back and forth over time tells us very little. There have been many battles between similar adversaries in the past and there would be many more in the future. What was so different about the Crusades? The difference was in the ideas that the Crusaders encountered when they first arrived in the region. After all the dust had settled down in the aftermath of the First Crusade, the newcomers found themselves embedded in a highly developed, cosmopolitan environment. They were exposed to new concepts and ways of doing things; ideas that were radical for them and that had a major impact back home. Eventually these ideas (among other influences) resulted in the culture that today is called the West.

Another excellent example of the importance of ideas is the American Revolution. There have been many times in history when a people have detached themselves from a parent country. In this regard, the American Revolution is no different from countless other revolts. What was the difference? The ideas that helped to generate the US constitution and the institutions that it spawned that Americans today revere so much. It can be argued that the impact of the ideas of the American Revolution were not confined to the new state. These ideas spread back to Europe where they germinated and commingled with other trends and eventually resulted in imposing limits on monarch and helped to expand the spread of various forms of democratic governance.

Similarly, the importance of the Russian Revolution lies not so much in the fact of the revolt itself but rather in the idea that powered the revolt.  The idea of Communism and the reordering of society that it imagined was what distinguished the Russian Revolution just as the idea of democratic governance was what had distinguished the American revolution from other such revolts. Also similar to the American Revolution, the impact of the Russian Revolution was not confined to Russia. The basic ideas that underlay Communism (or rather fear of those basic ideas) prompted Western capitalist nations to start introducing middle class and to a smaller extent lower class inducements and entitlements.

The impact of colonialism was not so much in the fact of foreign rule. Nearly every empire has involved forcible occupation of a land and the subjugation of the people living on it. colonialism's impact is that it imposed and spread Western ideas of governance and social conduct amongst the subject peoples. Colonialism's greatest triumph did not lie in successfully occupying foreign territories. It lay in inducing native peoples to not only adopt and adapt Western notions of political and social conduct and customs but to turn their backs on traditional notions of the same.

The impact of ideas is not confined to the political realm alone. Ideas on the economy for example have had major impact on our daily lives. These ideas have caused major upheavals but also caused strong economic growth. The Great Depression of the 1930s was caused mainly by the particular economic ideas that were then in vogue. It was countered most effectively by radical ideas espoused by John Maynard Keynes. Those ideas in turn were countered by still other notions advanced most prominently by Milton Friedman. The implementation of all these ideas over time has had important consequences for people all over the world.

Scientific ideas have enormously enriched our lives and endangered them as well. These ideas have resulted in technologies that have made our lives easier and more productive in our various tasks. At the same time, many of those same ideas have made it easier for us to be killed in new, novel and spectacularly gruesome fashion. Scientific ideas are also important because these eventually filter down to the primary school level where they are absorbed by us and in the end affect our world view.

A major part of the reason behind the continued dominance of the Western paradigm even after decolonization has been the cultural ideas that have emanated from the West and been transmitted around the world by its enormously successful cultural industries.

Ideas on religion have not only played a major role in history, they continue to do so. The Crusades mentioned above were themselves motivated by religious ideas regarding heathens and how to deal with them and also by ideas regarding the proper role of the Church in European lives. Questions regarding the proper Islamic response to colonization and later the decolonization process spurred Islamic religious thought which in turn has helped large numbers of ordinary Muslims understand their religion better. Ideas on religion have also been behind violent acts in many different parts of the world - both Muslim and non-Muslim.

So ideas are of crucial importance. They have been the moving force behind much of history. Each part of the world is distinctively what it is because of ideas. And different kinds of ideas continue to exert a strong influence on us both as individuals and as the collective that is called a nation. Failing to understand the basic ideas behind what we observe today means that we are failing to understand not only our past but also our present which in turn means that we will fail to understand our future.

Related articles

• Revolutions (socyberty.com)
• Niall Ferguson: why the West is now in decline (telegraph.co.uk)

Hypocrisy Redux

Hypocrisy - everyone purports to hate it. Yet we all engage in it to some extent at some point(s) in our lives. This is a character trait which is almost always seen as a major flaw -- in others. We are always being hypocritical to the extent that we hide our true feelings and state of mind from others. In some cases, this can actually be positive. Small temporary acts of hypocrisy may well be necessary for the smooth flow of our relationships. The alternative is radical honesty which is fine in theory and may well work out in practice for a lot of people but it could lead to breakdown in relationships that may well not have occurred otherwise. The major problem with hypocrisy is not temporary acts of the same. The problem occurs when this mode of behavior becomes a permanent or a major facet of our personality. Hypocritical acts are acts of omission and lies. These can be big or small, but they add up over time and eventually result in a double life.

Hypocrisy comes in many forms and flavors. Perhaps most common is racial hypocrisy; condemning a particular people due to the perceived inferiority of their race based on specious physical characteristics while at the same time often secretly fraternizing with them. Another very common form of hypocrisy comes in loudly and volubly advocating the importance of family while at the same time pursuing actions that undermine family life. Public figures and people who achieve prominence seem to suffer from this disproportionately. Religion is another avenue where people pursue hypocritical actions. This typically comes in the form of insisting on others following the tenets of one's particular religious faith while not observing the same at the same time. For example, nearly every religion condemns financial corruption. Countless people do the same on religious grounds while at the same time being financially corrupt. Needless to say, such actions give ammunition to opponents of religion. Yet another form of hypocrisy comes when we demand greater morality from prominent figures than what we ourselves practice.

Does it matter even if various form(s) of hypocrisy are widespread in a society? Generally speaking the answer is yes it matters but in come cases, the answer can be an equivocal depends. Some forms of behavior are best not publicized. Sexual promiscuity is a prime example of this. If I think that people in my society are not sexually adventurous and this is also generally condemned, then that will act as an impediment on behavior that is considered unacceptable. If however I feel that others are also doing the same kinds of action, then I will be more brazen in my behavior. On the other hand, hypocritical behavior on crime, specially financial crime, is a bad idea as the negative impact of such actions affects a far larger number of people.

Hypocrisy that affects the smooth functioning of larger society needs to be condemned in no uncertain terms. Hypocrisy that affects an individual also needs to be condemned but in a counseling manner; the primary aim being to reform the individual's behavior.

Related articles

• Honesty and Hypocrisy (abdulmuneer.wordpress.com)
• Hypocrites, please stand up (saladinasteakhouse.wordpress.com)
• How does one define hypocrisy? (mojoey.blogspot.com)
• Hypocrisy in Indian Society (guptasudhir.wordpress.com)
• You too: Seven rules for honest hypocrisy management (psychologytoday.com)
• The origins of the specious: How hypocrisy happens (psychologytoday.com)

A Thought on Language and Discourse

Why has the general level of discourse specially in public fora declined so much over the last 30 years or so? Over time, not only do we seem to have become more intolerant of other people's views (which is a topic for another day), we also are more likely to use language that would have been unacceptable only a generation ago. This is increasingly reflected in speeches given by public representatives in country after country. More importantly, it is being reflected in electronic media like movies, songs and video games; I say more importantly because movies and music in general tend to have a large impact on the public consciousness. These are one of the primary mechanisms through which culture now evolves both globally and locally.

Language is a reflection of our thoughts. Lacking telepathy, the only way in which we can express our views is via language whether spoken or written. When coarse language becomes acceptable in our writings and our speech, this reflects a coarsening of our thoughts. Thoughts in turn are important because they ultimately translate into actions. Coarse thoughts lead to a greater likelihood of socially inappropriate or unacceptable actions. This has happened sufficiently gradually that we have adjusted to this reality without truly realizing what has happened. This does not mean that we do not appreciate fine language. Most of us enjoy watching older movies or listening to older songs because they use a level of language that has largely disappeared from our daily lives. Graceful language is a joy to hear. It is a thing of beauty that can move people emotionally. Perhaps by degrading the level of our discourse, we are without realizing it stunting ourselves emotionally.

Related articles

• verbal flow (lpstribling.wordpress.com)

Dependence on Technology

Technological development is a wonderful thing. We now routinely use products that would have seemed almost magical just a few years ago. The Net has proved (and is still proving) to be a great paradigm changer. New kinds of products and services are sprouting like weeds in a garden. Yet, I cannot help feeling that as all this technology weaves itself into the fabric of our existence, we are coming to depend on it like crutches. Technology is having the paradoxical effect of empowering us and at the same time impoverishing us.

Since the Industrial Revolution started, there has been an ever increasing explosion of new technology rapidly coming into our lives. Each new wave has taken a shorter period of time to become an integral part of our lives and the pace is picking up. But as we plunge into this brave new world of increasing technological dependence, perhaps we are giving up a kind of freedom without even realizing it. Each gadget/toy/tool that we use puts certain demands on us. It is rarely the case that technology adapts itself to our current way of doing things. In practice, there is a period of mutual adaptation as we figure out how best to use our latest shiny new toy. In the process, how we do something changes often without our realization. On the occasions when we do realize this, we justify it as better way of doing things. The problem is that soon we are dependent on this new technology and if it gets taken away for whatever reason, we are suddenly left helpless. There are many examples of this phenomenon. If we lose our cell phones, not only do we feel helpless and out of touch, we also lose our contact list. Previously, most of us could remember approximately 10 of our most commonly used numbers. Now that we have transferred our contact list to our mobiles, we can barely remember one or two. Another example: we increasingly use computers for personal and work reasons. If something happens to our machine, our work is at the very least severely impacted. Similarly we are slowly giving up face to face contacts in favor of a more impersonal form of communication proffered by mobiles and the Net.

We are right now in the middle of a grand social experiment. Until fairly recently, the introduction of new technology (while being increasingly fast paced) was sufficiently slow that we could adapt to it in some fashion. Since 2000 however a kind of a tipping point seems to have been reached. New technologies are being introduced at an ever increasing pace. With them come new ways of work, social and personal interactions. However, these new forms are also increasing our dependence on the technological tools that enable them. While this increasing dependence can be exhilarating and invigorating, it also exposes us to difficult to recognize dangers. The release of the stuxnet virus is an illustration of this. An extremely sophisticated form of computer malware, it deliberately targeted systems being used by Iranian nuclear facilities. In many respects, this virus is a watershed event. It has shown that sophisticated attacks on vital infrastructure can be done remotely. It is only a matter of time. On a more personal level, large number of people have already experienced identity thefts. Since a large portion of our lives is now online, it has become easier to impersonate thereby causing financial and possibly physical harm.

What will be the end result of this ever increasing dependence on technology? It is hard to say. What can be said is that while we gain from our technological dependence, it is not a free lunch. There is a price to pay. Exactly what that price will be will become clear gradually. The crucial question by then will be was it worth it?

Related articles

• 4 reasons why an increased pace of change means greater unpredictability (rossdawsonblog.com)
• Eric Logan: What the Luddites Really Fought Against - Smithsonian Magazine (smithsonianmag.com)

When Disaster Strikes

Japan's recent earthquake and tsunami has shown the awesome power of nature and our essential helplessness before these titanic forces. When an advanced country like Japan is laid low in a few seconds, how can less advanced countries hope to cope?

We live in a age which aims to not only reduce risk to a minimum but preferably eliminate it altogether. It does not matter which country we live in or what our income/economic/education/whatever background is. Natural disasters particularly are often viewed as a affront to our vaunted technological achievements. However, when a natural disaster does come, it frequently demonstrates the limitations of our technology.

Natural disasters often also serve to highlight national characteristics. All the footage that I have seen of the survivors shows that there has been no panic in the aftermath. Yes, thousands of people are missing. Yes, those who have lived through this trauma are desperately searching for their loved ones. But there has been no looting, no rioting, not even a show of anger as far as I can tell. Something fairly similar was also seen in the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquake. Unfortunately this is often not the case in third world disasters.

Why is this so? I believe that the reaction of the survivors in an earthquake is conditioned by their economic, political and especially social circumstances before the event. A kleptomaniac government will necessarily encourage distrust amongst its citizenry in order to facilitate its stealing. This distrust will tend to carry through into the aftermath of a natural disaster which then means that every person will tend to look out for their self and their immediate family. The citizenry of a government which does not encourage such distrust will tend to stick together and help each other out even if the government cannot. So in Japan, we have political and social circumstances which tend to encourage people to trust each other and the government. Since people expect each other to behave in a proper fashion no matter what the conditions, we don't see rowdy, violent, desperate behavior. I think the dignified manner in which the survivors of this catastrophe are behaving should serve as an object lesson to all of us everywhere.

Related articles

• Japan Disaster Commentary and Resources (blogs.securiteam.com)
• Catastrophe in Japan (jkvc.wordpress.com)
• When Disaster Strikes (A Response to the Events in Japan) (doingthewritething.wordpress.com)
• The Trickle Effect of World Disasters on Business (pantheos.wordpress.com)

Aspects of Racism

Jews are racists. Israeli rabbis have backed a ruling by Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu that bans renting property to non Jews. This proves that Jews consider non Jews to be beneath them and hence shows that Jews are inherently racist. Obviously this statement - Jews are racists - is far too broad and too general. It condemns many for the attitudes of the few. Uttered in any forum, this statement will rightly provoke a huge outcry. It also ignores that many rabbis around the world who have condemned this ruling.

The controversy stirred by this ruling highlights the multi-faceted nature of racism. People mostly tend to think of this issue in black and white terms. The vast majority of people are racist to some degree. This racism is usually not overt any more. However covert racism exists and this is actually more harmful and hurting. People are quick to point out the racism of others as shown in this, this and this post but will not see their own.

Priorities

What do we consider to be important matters and what are unimportant (or at least relatively less important) matters to us? Our priorities affect us and those around us and the converse is also true; the priorities of the people around us affect them individually and us as well. While we tend to think that our priorities are dictated only by us, the fact is that our priorities are also affected by what we read and see around us. Not only that, there is often a mismatch between the priorities that we think are important and the priorities that would be important to us if we were super rational (or Homo Economicus as economists love to portray us). On top of all this, each of us plays multiple roles in our daily lives. Each role has its own set of priorities and all of these priorities must be juggled on a daily basis - something that is not easy and does not come naturally to most people. As Gema from Florida put it so nicely in this post on priorities "balancing priorities has been like juggling fireballs barehanded and with little training." In essence what is it that the vast majority of personal development sites, articles, blogs etc. are teaching? How to handle all the different priorities that we encounter in our daily lives in our various roles.

Related articles

• Balancing Priorities (radicalparenting.com)
• Juggling Priorities During the Holidays (1-2-3getorganized.blogspot.com)

Wikileaks

Image via WikipediaFreedom of expression is a much valued concept. Strongly associated with this is freedom of press. This concept, much beloved of democratic governments, is being tested to the limit thanks to Wikileaks. This was a much lauded site that was doing sterling service for the cause of freedom everywhere until of course it started releasing material that had been classified by the US (or as some people like to put it "the Powers That Be"). At this point, suddenly Wikileaks became an evil organization. The way the Americans have reacted, one would imagine that this was the end of civilization as we know it. Barbarians are storming the gate!

Yet if one actually starts to go through the material released so far, the inescapable conclusion is that this is a storm in a teacup. I have gone through some of the material on the Wikileaks site and read the analysis published in the press. The vast majority of the cables are completely innocuous. One cable I read described a wedding and this was classified as secret! Not only is this secrecy run amok, this is actually insane. One of the key requirements of democracy is an informed citizenry. Classifying material secret regardless of their actual provenance diminishes democracy by making the citizenry less informed and thus less liable to judge material that affects them often vitally on its merits. It is for this reason that one of the first steps of totalitarianism is to restrict information and freedom of information.

Wikileaks has done the world a tremendous service by releasing this information. By shining a bright light on activities that a lot of people would prefer remain dark, it has become harder to indulge in nefarious activities. These are the kinds of activities that eventually generate violent reactions - what is known euphemistically as blow-back. That in turn will hopefully make for a less violent, saner and (dare I say it) a more equitable world.

Related articles

• The US's Reaction To Wikileaks Is Doing A Lot More Harm Than The Leaks Themselves (techdirt.com)
• "Senator Lieberman on WikiLeaks Julian Assange" and related posts (economycollapse.blogspot.com)
• Why is wikileaks being treated as a leaker, or hacker, rather than publisher? (tobiasbuckell.com)
• Govt's reaction to WikiLeaks 'troubling' (news.theage.com.au)
• Attempts to prosecute WikiLeaks endanger press freedoms - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com (indigenist.blogspot.com)
• Take personal action for Wikileaks and Free Speech (wilderside.wordpress.com)

Is Privacy a Concern in an Online World?

Privacy: the state of being free from intrusion or disturbance in one's private life or affairs. Most people would almost instinctively agree with this dictionary definition. However, in an online, always connected world, can we (or even should we) talk about privacy in any meaningful fashion?

Should we be worried about privacy in an online, always connected world? There is a large amount of concern nowadays regarding privacy issues mainly due to the increasing penetration of computers into our lives. Is this concern justified or is this a concern mainly felt by oldsters who do not "get" the wonderful new world of online connectivity?

Today the basic problem regarding privacy is that the technology that affects our privacy has advanced very rapidly and our laws and more importantly our attitudes have not kept pace. An older generation which grew up in a time when the information gathering capabilities of institutions and individuals was considerably circumscribed feel appalled at the sheer intrusive capabilities of modern technology. A younger generation which has grown up in tandem with this new developing technology is slowly starting to feel that there may be an issue with privacy and the technology that they now take for granted.

Whether this is actually an issue or not is determined by the extent to which we as individuals and as nations are willing to be accept intrusions into our daily lives. Since the birth of empires and states, there has been a tension between those who want to exercise control which involves reducing the amount of privacy and the rest of society which desires at the very least a minimum amount of privacy. In earlier times, the cost of gathering privacy reducing information was high enough to reduce the level of intrusion in most people's lives. This dynamic started to change with industrialization. One of the effects of industrialization was that it steadily reduced the cost of gathering, storing and sorting information about people. This was a major reason why Communism degenerated into a totalitarian society. In an earlier age, Communism simply could not have developed in the fashion it did; the technology of control was just not refined enough. The difference between today and twenty years ago is that the above-mentioned technology of control is now much more subtle than before. In the old Soviet state, control was not merely intrusive, it was obvious and obnoxious. This kind of control eventually engenders a reaction which is all the greater the longer it is imposed. This is why North Korea for example is actually a fragile state whereas Iran which has a less obvious control oriented regime is not to the same extent.

The internet has enabled a dramatic reduction in the cost of gathering and storing all sorts of information. At the same time, developments in hardware specially chip design and storage and developments in distributed computing coupled with high speed links within and between networks have

Related articles by Zemanta

• It's Not Just About Privacy, Millennials Want Trust (itsjosipnotjoseph.com)
• Opinion: Will You Compromise Your Privacy For "Ice Cream"? (startupmeme.com)
• An Unalienable Right to Privacy (slashgear.com)

Fear

We live in a world of fear. Fear, like anger, is a primal emotion. Like anger, fear short-circuits the rational mind. Fear often leads to actions and decisions that viewed objectively do not make sense. Fear also often results in such actions and decisions being perpetuated despite any evidence to the contrary.

Here is an interesting question and one that is linked to the topic of fear: why has the European Union (EU) not accepted Turkey's application for membership? This is a modern country with a strongly secular bias. It is a growing economy. Certainly the country is more advanced than many East European countries. Yet Poland was accepted and Turkey has not been. Why? Is it because the majority faith in Turkey is Muslim? Is there a visceral fear of the dreaded Turk storming the gates of Vienna? Objectively speaking, accepting Turkey makes a lot of sense for the EU. Turkey has a young, dynamic population. It is manifestly not interested in spreading Islam amongst non-muslims. Turks have not been participants in the global Jihadist movement. Turkey will inject much needed fresh blood into the EU. By its own estimates, European countries will very soon need to import thousands of workers every year in order to maintain their growth rates and living standards. This is a consequence of falling birthrates throughout the developed European economies. Where will these extra workers come from? Eastern Europe? Maybe in the short term but over the medium to long term, this source will dry up. The only alternative left are third world countries. Turkey is a logical choice. Yet there is strong opposition to the country joining the EU. What has caused this? It seems to be a fear of the other, the outsider. Again fear is causing people to react not only in an illogical manner but in one that is inimical to their medium to long term interests.

In other areas as well, fear makes people behave strangely. We have the rather strange phenomenon of majorities being afraid of minorities in a large number of countries. Sometimes this fear is economic. In many Asian countries, Chinese minorities enjoy a disproportionate share of the county's wealth thanks to their hard working ethos and strong family and community links. This economic success often breeds resentment and in times of trouble comes out in the form of pogroms against the minority as was seen during the fall of Suharto in Indonesia. Many other times, however, the majority fears the minority because of its religion. This is the case in India where many members of the Hindu majority seem to be afraid of the Muslim minority. It also seems to be the case in Pakistan where there is some fear of the Christian minority even though this is smaller than the Muslim minority in India. The fear that the majority feels for a particular minority sometimes results in (sometimes massive) violence against the latter. It frequently also results in an often unspoken, unacknowledged institutionalized discrimination. Again take the case of the Muslim minority in India. They represent perhaps 12% of the population. Yet their representation in various sectors of the economy ranges from 3-4% at best. Unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence suggests that amongst the general population there is a discrimination against Muslims in a community's daily life. Again fear seems to be a basic motivator.

This level of fear is by no means restricted to third world countries. Developed countries seem to have a particularly acute sense of this. The example of Turkey mentioned above is a case in point. Arizona, USA has passed a law that authorizes police to conduct spot checks on persons deemed to be possible illegal immigrants. Here there is a fear that the country or state is being swamped with illegal immigrants who are taking the jobs of local residents and who are responsible for criminal actions even though the evidence suggests otherwise. Indeed, the USA, the most powerful country in the world and one with the largest economy has been in a collective zone of fear since 9/11. It is because of this fear that ordinary citizens have allowed an extra-ordinary erosion of their civil liberties to take place; an erosion that is steadily continuing.

So fear means that we turn a blind eye to actions and events that in the long term are harmful to our personal and national interests. We are unable to perceive the danger we are in because our rational mind which would warn us is bypassed when we live in a state of fear over a period of time. The interesting aspect is that over time we come to accept living like this as the norm. It is only when we move out of the environment that we realize how warped our thinking and our personality had become due to fear.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Saturday Debate: Should Turkey be admitted to the EU? (libdemvoice.org)
• David Cameron warns EU not to shut Turkey out (guardian.co.uk)
• Joshua Stanton: Islamophobia: Targeting an American Community (huffingtonpost.com)
• Alright, alright: here's why I still think the EU is treating Turkey abominably (blogs.telegraph.co.uk)
• Roots of Terror, Nazi Syndrome II (teabreak.pk)
• Russell Simmons is Wrong about the Ground Zero Mosque (beliefnet.com)

The Price of Technological Progress

When we think about the price of technological progress, we tend to think about its dark side. Nuclear fission can be used to generate electricity as well as bombs. Explosives can be used to destroy roads as well as build them. Computer networks bring people together and make larger, more collaborative works possible. They also enable new forms of criminal activities. Countless other examples can be given of how different technologies can be used for useful as well as harmful purposes.

This however is not the only price that we have paid for our rapid and rapidly continuing technological progress. We have paid the price in other forms that we are generally not even aware of. The quickening pace of technological advancement and the social changes that it has engendered has led to a general coarsening of our lives. In many aspects, our attitudes, the things we tend to take for granted and some of the things that we have lost would have horrified earlier generations.

Take the birth control pill for example. This has had positive benefits. Women have gained a greater control over the number and timing of their pregnancies. However, there has also been an unexpected effect; pregnancies out of wedlock are no longer considered shameful. This is an astonishing change that has occurred in the space of a single generation. Ofcourse a question arises: does it matter? I believe it does. I think that marriage brings a stability to society as a whole. Whether marriage is viewed as a sacred construct not to be tampered with under any circumstances or whether it is viewed as a contract that binds two people together and that should not be tampered with lightly does not really matter. A married individual assumes a burden of responsibility that he/she is not likely to disregard easily. It is much easier to walk away from a relationship when there is no marital contract. The result is that a large number of children grow up in one parent households. Research has shown that children growing up in such households are more likely to suffer from poverty than two parent households. The end result is that society as a whole suffers.

Such an effect however is an example that we can generally see and discuss and I will leave discussion of such broad changes till another post. Technological progress has resulted in other more subtle changes in our society and our thinking. These are changes that we are usually not even aware of. The worse thing is that if we do become aware of such changes, we tend to dismiss them as inconsequential but as I mentioned above, the cumulative effect of such changes is a general coarsening of our lives.

A good example of the subtle effects of technological progress is the art of writing. A positive benefit of technology has been that more is now being written on a wider variety of subjects than ever before. The problem is the very ease of writing. In the days when pen had to be physically put to paper, writers needed to structure their thoughts carefully in order to reduce the amount of editing later. This resulted on average in better prose (and perhaps even poetry). Today, the editing effort is relatively trivial thanks to computers and word processors. This convenience can (and sometimes does) result in intricately detailed and beautifully executed story-lines and writing. More often, it results in shoddy thinking resulting in shoddy writing. Most of what is written is thus essentially forgettable.

Another effect that technology has had on writing is that the pace of life has increased over time. Greater complexity in society and our economy comes at the cost of us having to devote increasingly greater amounts of time towards understanding and reacting to these forces. This means that we have less amount of time to devote to any particular task. This has had the effect that we now want our information in sound bites. The effect on writing is that the older style which required leisurely reading is now considered obsolete. Again the question arises: does it matter and again I will argue that it does. Sound bites have the unfortunate effect of reducing complex issues to simplistic slogans which not only do not inform, they actually do the opposite. While this would not matter in the case of fiction, it matters enormously for analyzing information. Why do people in the West largely fail to understand the roots of what they consider terrorism? Why are people not reacting to the financial collapse? Why are people not more alarmed about global warming? I believe this is because most people rely on sound bites that they get from TV and radio. This trend of using sound bites has steadily increased over time. An end result is twitter. Humans talk (and write). Birds twitter. People who twittered were previously considered to be brainless dullards. Even the dictionary meaning of twitter reflects this. Perhaps this is a sign of our times that twitter has become so popular. It is not as though writing a tweet is harmless. Despite what most people would think, going on twitter and writing a tweet can actually be dangerous. This is because twitter encourages writing and publishing spontaneously. As some people have discovered, this can cause job losses.

Related to the effect on writing is the effect on hand writing. People have lost the art of good hand writing and I include myself in this category. My parents generation was actually taught good hand writing. This focus was subsequently lost. Today with the ubiquitous use of computers and the spread of the net, people simply do not need to put pen to paper at all. As a result, the ability to write beautifully has largely disappeared. The most dramatic effect of this has been the loss of the art of calligraphy. This was a labor of love. Even today we admire good calligraphy. However, no one is willing to learn how to do this today. The master calligraphers of old are now in their twilight days. Their children are not willing to learn what was a family trade. Once these people go, the world will be a poorer place for this loss. While this is a subtle effect, its passing is nevertheless something to mourn about.

Then what about the art of conversation? The ability to carry an interesting and elegant conversation on a wide range of topics was considered the hallmark of a gentleman and a lady in virtually every culture in previous times. An educated person was someone who was widely read and frequently widely traveled. Today what is considered an educated person is essentially a technocrat. An insidious effect of this is that there has been a loss of grace. The ability to interact with each other and specially with strangers has degraded over time. What is considered civilized behavior today would to a large extent have been considered boorish in an earlier era.

Technology is wonderful. It has given us many benefits and have enriched our lives in many different ways. It is now difficult if not impossible to imagine life without electricity, running water, computers and the many activities made possible by them, automobiles, airplanes to give just a few examples. All these things have enriched us and opened up a range of possibilities that simply could not have existed before. Personally I would not want to turn the clock back. Yet there has been a price to pay for all these achievements. The tragedy is that as a civilization we are like junkies demanding our latest technological fix and not noticing the subtle loss of beauty and grace.

Related articles by Zemanta

• 'A rat race is for rats. We're not rats' - Jimmy Reid's speech in 1972 (liberalconspiracy.org)

Events That Changed The World: The Battle of Badr

A little known event in the outside world, the Battle of Badr holds a special significance for Muslims throughout the world. This was the first major battle between the (small) Muslim community and their numerically superior opponents. Literally this battle was a battle for survival not only for the Muslims as a community but for Islam as a religion. The Muslim forces were vastly outnumbered by a ratio of about three to one. Moreover, their opponents, the Quraish were better equipped. All in all, this was a battle that should have gone the other way and the Muslims should have lost. Their victory ensured that Madina - the hub of the burgeoning Muslim community would henceforth be taken seriously as an upcoming power in the Arabian peninsula. From this time onwards, the Muslims were not in a serious danger of being wiped out despite several major struggles within Arabia that still lay in the future.

Why was Badr such a game changer? There have been many battles between embattled communities and a superior foe. Most of them did not result in history changing events. If the outcome had gone in the other direction, in most cases the course of history would have remained unchanged and the world we find ourselves in today would be largely unaffected barring perhaps a few cosmetic changes. What was ultimately so different about Badr?

In a day and age which de-emphasizes religion, a large number of people do not realize the way religion affected our ancestor's thinking and way of life. To a degree, this is still reflected in the Islamic world but elsewhere and even in the Islamic world, religious and non-religious life are viewed as two largely distinct and separate spheres. Most people in Muslim countries today will say that Islam is a complete way of life but this is largely lip service. This was not so in the past when religion played and vital and dynamic role in daily life. Understanding this is the key to understanding why Badr was so important.

As stated above, Badr was the one battle threatened the new religion's survival. Once this challenge was successfully overcome, Islam gained adherents at a steadily increasing rate. By the time the Prophet died, virtually the whole Arabian peninsula had become Muslim. If nothing further had happened, then the subsequent history of the world would have been very different. To understand this, one has to understand not simply political history but also religious history.

Arabia is right next to the Mediterranean Sea. At the time of the Battle of Badr, this area was divided between the Roman and the Persian empires. These two opposing camps were equally matched and for some time now there had essentially been a standoff between them. On the religious front, there was a continuous and steady expansion of Christianity. Till that point, the Arabs had not made any mark on the world scene. So it is not surprising that nobody foresaw the eruption of the Arab armies that was to occur a few years later. What was even less foreseeable was that these same Arab armies would be fighting in the name of a new religion that was to stop the expansion of Christianity in its tracks in the South and East. Thereafter, Christianity would expand to the north and the north-east.

If any Roman or Persian general had actually observed the Battle of Badr, they would probably have laughed at the numbers involved. Yet the repercussions were to be stunning. So lets go back to the question of what could have happened if the Muslims had lost this battle. We can say with a high degree of probability that as a consequence Islam as a religion would have been extinguished. What could be the consequences of that?

The empire that the Arabs established was not just a military one. For a people who were essentially tribal, the Arabs forged an astonishingly cosmopolitan and advanced looking society within an incredibly short period of time. One result of their conquests was that they acquired a large body of knowledge of various sciences. This they preserved. More importantly, this body was translated into Arabic and the work was then extended by Arab scholars. Nor was this the only contribution. The Arab empire also had (relatively) easy access to China and India. Arab rulers actively encouraged the importation and absorption of advanced in various sciences and technologies made by these cultures. So we had the spread of paper making techniques for example or much more importantly the incorporation of the concept of zero into mathematics.

Today, people who want to acquire advanced cutting-edge knowledge try to get admission into various universities in Western countries. At that time, people would try and get admission into various Arab educational institutes for the same purpose. So the Arab Muslim empire not only preserved the ancient knowledge, it extended and transmitted it to a wide range of people who then went back to their countries and set up educational institutes along the same lines. What is the genesis of Oxford and Cambridge? It is to be found in the educational structures that the early Arabs put up. Why did the Arabs do all this? Interestingly enough it was because of Islam. The Koran repeatedly points out to various natural phenomena as evidence of God's power and challenges its readers to study and think about them. The Hadith (collections of sayings of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH)) repeatedly emphasize the importance of education for both men and women. I mentioned above that in earlier times, religion was of extreme importance in the daily lives of people. For the Arabs who conquered Persia and vast swathes of the Roman empire, preserving, extending and spreading knowledge was a religiously sanctioned activity. In the process they forged a dynamic, cosmopolitan society at a time when the Church had a stranglehold on all aspects of Christian life.

If the Battle of Badr had been lost and as a result Islam extinguished, the Arabs would most likely not have ventured out of Arabia at all. If they had, they would not have been a coherent military force like they actually were. The most likely result would have been a three way standoff between Persia, Rome and the Arabs. Let's say that they managed to make the conquests that they actually did. Their empire in the absence of Islam would have been a military one much like the Mongol empire which came later. Over time, the Arabs would have been absorbed into the local culture just like the Mongols were. A new culture incorporating and expanding elements of the existing cultures and adding new ones to create something new and unique would not have arisen. Almost certainly important works by the ancient Greek scholars would have been lost; the Church at that time being intolerant of all knowledge which it did not specifically sanction. The important work that Arab scholars did in preserving, translating, extending and transmitting this knowledge would have not have taken place. Universities would not have been established in Europe at the time that they were and in the shape that they were. Indeed there is a possibility that universities would not have been established in Europe at all. This has a direct impact on the modern world since the great universities of the US are direct descendants of European universities like Oxford.

All the lost knowledge would have had to be re-discovered painstakingly over the centuries. Knowledge builds on the works of earlier generations. Re-discovering work done by the ancients would have pushed the existing state of knowledge by several centuries. This has a direct bearing on technology. Technological advancement rides on the back of pure science. We can build a reliable electricity infrastructure because we know the fundamental properties of electricity. In the absence of this we would not have been able to get consistent electricity.

The Arab influence can also be seen in other spheres. The whole concept of chivalry which played such an important role in medieval Europe and which was later to influence the concept of what being a gentleman entailed was heavily influenced by the Arab concept of chivalry. This in turn was influenced by Islamic doctrine. I would say that the Arabs refined their concept of chivalry after Islam. In the absence of Islam, this whole concept would have been different and would certainly not have influenced European notions of chivalry in the way it did. This means that today our idea of what being a gentleman means would have been very different. There are countless other examples of the many different ways in which Islam and the Arabs influenced the development of the modern world. Without Islam, these developments would have been very different both in scope, scale and timeline.

Before I conclude, there is another point to address that can arise in the reader's mind. Without Islam, the world would not be facing the problem of misdirected Islamic fundamentalism. My response to that is that without Islam, the world today would be in a very different form and in my opinion a much poorer place.

We normally tend to view history as a series of grand events. Empires operating on an epic scale. Clashes that are titanic in nature. Yet in the development of the world, it is often the small, unknown event that effects much greater, more far reaching change. The Battle of Badr is just such an event. If the battle had been lost, Islam would have been extinguished and had that happened, the repercussions would have flowed through time causing some events to not happen, others to happen differently and still others to happen which actually did not occur. The world today would have been a different and almost certainly poorer place not only economically but also culturally.

Rituals

Image via Wikipedia

Every single one of us living today is governed by rituals. Many of these rituals are not even obvious to us. Nevertheless they are present and persistent.

The most obvious rituals are used in religion. Every single religion regardless of genesis has a prescribed set of rituals. Indeed this is one of the hallmarks of organized religion. A question that often arises in the context of religion is why are all these rituals needed? Are they necessary to connect with God? Quite self evidently, the answer is no. So why the rituals? Does one necessarily have to be religious in order to be spiritual? There are a large number of people who think not; people who think that it is better to be spiritual rather than religious. Since religion also seeks to raise the spiritual level of an individual and in addition has a large number of rituals that must be adhered to, why not cut out the religion and focus on the spiritual.

Every religion, belief, spiritual practice etc. is an attempt to form a connection with the Divine. The ultimate goal is the attainment of a spiritual state where this connection becomes virtually effortless and part of an individual's daily life. Such a connection not achieved easily. It takes consistent major effort and a long duration. Not all people have the inclination or the capacity to put in the hard work (which can be both mental and physical) necessary. Nevertheless this desire remains. There is thus generally a gap between desire and achievable reality. This gap is bridged by rituals. Take for example the five daily prayers of Islam. Does God (Allah) need these prayers. No. The prayers are necessary to remind people of God (Allah). They require a certain amount of time to be set aside from worldly concerns and spend it instead on spiritual contemplation. Similarly other Muslim rituals serve comparable purposes. They are designed to help people gain a greater connection with the Divine through internal spiritual contemplation. What matters is not so much the act of the ritual itself as the state that it engenders in a person. Islam is not alone in this. The other major religions: Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism each have their own sets of rituals and mantras. Again the purpose is to help an ordinary believer to at least get started on the path of spiritual attainment. In this regard, rituals serve an important, indeed role.

The importance of rituals is not confined to our religious life only although generally it is perceived in this fashion. Rituals play an indispensable role in our daily lives. Everyone has a set of activities that are practiced to start and get through the day. What are these activities if not rituals? They play an important role by allowing us to do these activities without thinking about them. Then there are the rituals that are undertaken at a community or society level. The set of activities that are undertaken during marriages for instance. Each community has a set of rituals that are performed during a marriage. These rituals can differ amongst member of the same religion based on where they are living. So the marriage rites undertaken by Muslims in India and Pakistan are different from the marriage rites undertaken by Muslims in the Arab world. What about the activities taken during a national holiday? Most nations have unique ways of celebrating these i.e. they have a unique set of rituals that are used to commemorate these occasions. All these rituals play a role in forging a binding link within a community or a nation.

So rituals are not merely useless remnants of a dead past. They are an important link in a chain that joins our present with our past and will join our present with our future. Breaking this link disconnects us and leaves us rudderless.

Related articles by Zemanta

• What Is A Ritual? (lukeford.net)
• How Your Rituals Could be Killing You (stevenaitchison.co.uk)
• Teaching Religion in Schools : Religious Rites and Rituals from Across the Globe (brighthub.com)
• Understand Muslims: The Five Pillars of Islam (brighthub.com)
• Religion Versus Spirituality (itakeoffthemask.com)
• What are the benefits of Mantras (prophet666.com)

Events That Changed The World

Image via Wikipedia

History in many respects is a fascinating subject. There are so many variables in any particular event. So many things could have gone differently in any era. Even a slight change could well have resulted in a world vastly different from the one we currently live. Events That Changed The World is a series of posts that is going to be my take on different events that I think are significant and that could have resulted in a different world had they turned out to be other than what they actually did.

The Opium Of The People

Image via Wikipedia

Karl Marx got it wrong. His famous dictum is typically rendered as "religion is the opiate of the people". The quote is taken from a lengthy paragraph which appeared in (and this is a real mouthful of a title) in a work titled "Contribution to Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of right" in which Marx is positively lyrical in his anti-religion diatribe.

So why do I think he got it wrong? The (very) short answer is modern society. Let me explain. The whole emphasis of modern society is on the masses doing a limited number of things. We are supposed to work, eat, shop and sleep. There are a few other activities that can also be engaged in but these are the major ones. Oh yes. One other activity. Engage in sex. Lots of it. And not for reproductive purposes either. Think about it. What was the one thing that Americans were encouraged to do after 9/11? Pray? Focus on family? Reflect on their life? reflect on mortality? How about asking why these terrible events took place? Infact it was none of these. The one thing above all else that Americans were encouraged to do was to (drum-roll please) ..... shop!

This my friends is the true opiate of the people. Our true worth is considered in terms of our shopping abilities. Feeling down? Shop for new clothes or shoes or something else. Don't feel like shopping for material goods? No problem. Go to your nearest cineplex. Enjoy a good movie. Oh and don't forget to buy the popcorn and drinks to enjoy while watching the movie and on your way out buy a few movie mementos as a reminder of the good time you have just had. What are the temples of modern life? What are the social spaces where we can go and meet people. What are the events that serve to bind us as a community? The answer to these questions is linked ultimately to shopping. Instead of a traditional market which typically had small shops and was pedestrian friendly, we are expected to go to huge malls which are designed to take us from one outlet to another and discourage us from lingering in the interim. Dubai is a prime example of this. The city is filled with shopping malls - each bigger and more elaborate than the previous one. Each mall is filled with designer shops and each shop is filled with an enticing array of goods. Each mall also has a very similar architecture despite superficial differences in appearance. The shops are all connected by corridors which do not have much seating space. More significantly, there are no areas where people can pause and reflect. In other words, we are being subconsciously encouraged to go into the next outlet as fast as we can. The one space in each mall which does have seating space is the food court. So if we don't shop, then we can eat Mcdonalds or Burger King or Pizza Hut or whatever.

When we are not shopping or going to a movie, we can watch TV in the comfort of our homes where we have access to hundreds of channels. And what choice! American Idol! Desperate housewives! Big Brother! Wimbledon! Golf! The choice is endless and nearly all of it is designed to stop us from thinking. Just think about it. Does watching the latest football (or cricket or rugby or soccer or indeed any sport) match, make you any better off? Are you any better off because you saw the latest episode of your favorite TV show? What will happen if you don't see these? Will your life take a turn for the worse? Will a disaster befall you? Will your wife (or husband or significant other) leave you? All that will have happened is that you will have spent a certain portion of your life in an activity that is essentially meaningless. And remember that this is time gone forever. You are never going to get it back. So are these things not true opiate for the people? We tend to think of ourselves as being so much better than people of old. We are much more sophisticated. Far less susceptible to external manipulations. But are we really? Are we not being manipulated all the time? We are being constantly manipulated to do things that the Government deems to be in our best interest and a major component of that is shopping. Even watching TV is geared towards ultimately getting us into the shops. The average time of a typical TV show has gone down by almost 10 minutes since the 60s. An episode of the original Star Trek is about 50 minutes (the rest of the time is taken by advertisements) whereas an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation is only about 42 minutes. What has replaced the lost minutes? Ads of course. Ads designed to get us into a shopping mode. This has happened gradually. The result is manipulation without us being aware of it. We constantly bemoan the rat race and yet we feel obliged to participate in it. Why? why don't we exit? Because we feel that we cannot? But why do we feel that way?

So this is what modern society does to us. we are worth what we buy. Everything is geared towards getting us into the shops and buy. Another objective is also served by this. People who are mentally geared towards acquiring the latest trappings, the latest greatest thing and who are constantly striving to acquire the material things that they have been convinced constitute "the good life" are people who are not thinking too deeply about what is going on in the world and what is affecting them personally. We have been drugged into a mental slumber through a combination of shopping and entertainment (which includes all forms of sports activities). And always these things are being put just out of our reach so that we have to run harder and harder to remain in essentially the same place.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Sport - The New Religion (psychologytoday.com)
• The Class That Exploits Us (lewrockwell.com)

Freedom of Expression?

Image via Wikipedia

Freedom of expression is a much touted, almost sacred right especially in Western nations which invoke liberalism in their heritage. So what is freedom of expression? Wikipedia defines it as the freedom to speak without censorship and/or limitation. This basic idea in turn encompasses atleast three other aspects. These are:

• freedom to seek information and ideas.
• freedom to receive information and ideas.
• freedom to disseminate information and ideas

This is a powerful concept and one that is necessary for development and advancement of knowledge. All leading societies have encompassed this freedom; indeed such societies only lost their edge when these freedoms were removed.

However, this freedom is not unrestricted. There are important caveats. There are important limitations on freedom of speech which are placed there for the good of society. These limitations follow the harm principle and the offence principle. So for example, my right to view hate speech is proscribed on the grounds of offence principle. This is most clearly articulated in cases of anti-semitism. People routinely censor themselves in situations where they feel that what they are writing or depicting is verging on anti-semitism. An illustration of the harm principle would be that my right to yell "bomb" in a crowded cinema/theatre/market place what have you is proscribed on the grounds that such an action will cause panic and lead to people getting hurt or worse. These limitations are important for the proper functioning of society. As individuals living in a particular cultural milieu, we willingly accept these restrictions on the understanding that doing so will result in a greater good and the benefits accrued to society and by extension to me as an individual will overshadow the harm done to me by this restriction on my freedom.

Generally speaking, each society defines the acceptable limits on freedom of speech. The problem occurs when actions deemed acceptable in one society impinge on the limitations imposed by another. In an internet age, where information is increasingly not only digital but is rapidly spread throughout the world via the Internet, this is an increasingly common problem.

The one area where such cultural conflicts arouse the greatest passion is religion. For almost 10 years now, there has been a palpable tension between muslim and non-muslim societies and within muslim societies over actions of a resolute minority. A fallout of these tensions has been that Islam and the concerns of Muslims have suddenly impinged on the general consciousness of Westerners. While this has had benefits, there has also been an increase in the number of non-Muslims in Western societies who feel that Muslims are being pandered to a far greater extent than is warranted. Some of these people have then proceeded to attack Islam and specially the prophet Muhammad (PBUH). When this in turn generated a (sometimes violent) reaction amongst Muslim societies, these elements then took the argument that not being allowed to speak against an important religious figure was a restriction on freedom of speech.

The recent fracas over an insensitive group formed on Facebook is a continuation of this dialectic. Speaking out against or making fun of the Prophet (PBUH) is known to elicit a (sometimes violent) reaction amongst Muslims which is then presented as evidence of Muslim intractability. Such people then don a garb of freedom of speech around themselves and present an argument that not being allowed to do so is the thin edge of the wedge towards censorship. However, as has been mentioned above, freedom of speech is not an unlimited right. There are important restrictions that limit this right. These restrictions serve as boundaries of what is acceptable and what is not. The question is that when a global platform is used to express an opinion, then to what extent if any should there be limitations on freedom of speech? Like any other peoples, there are differences of opinion as to what is acceptable and what is not. It has to be recognized that what is acceptable in one Muslim country may be unacceptable in another. But it should also be equally recognized that there are some issues that unite all Muslims no matter what their persuasion is. Mocking the Prophet (PBUH) is one such issue as has been made abundantly clear to the world community by now. On such issues, the harm principle and the offence principle that serve as limits to freedom of speech should be applicable on global platforms.

In this regard, the decision by Pakistan to block Facebook is completely justified. the alternate of blocking only the offending pages would not have sent as strong a message as blocking the entire website did. (It is to be noted however, that this blockage needs to be temporary. If it becomes permanent, then that would become unwarranted censorship). With this blockage, Muslims are saying in essence that speaking against or mocking the Prophet (PBUH) hurts the sensibilities of a billion Muslims. Please don't do this to our religion. Muslims understand the importance of freedom of speech. They strive to attain and protect it in their own countries. But actions such as draw Muhammad (PBUH) day serve no purpose. Indeed they actively harm the cause of freedom of speech.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Blasphemy and Freedom of Speech (teabreak.pk)
• Europe must defend free expression | Thorbjørn Jagland (guardian.co.uk)
• American cartoonist condemns "Everybody Draw Mohammed Page" on Facebook (canada.com)
• Freedom of Expression? By Khalid Baig (teabreak.pk)