Why simplify when it's so simple to complicate?

I don't know how many would agree with me when I say that we are unnecessarily complicating simple things all through our lives and in all aspects of our life. I feel, developed countries complicate much more than undeveloped ones, as do learned people against illiterates. If you look at a simple tribal community, the complications are minimal but there, the community leaders and chieftains try to introduce a certain amount of complication by pronouncing regulations and customs. All festivities are part of this complication. The basic idea or motive of most complications I believe, is an attempt just to distinguish and standout. It may be between animals and themselves for primitive folks and between primitives and them for more civilized. After all the fundamentals of life for all living creatures is : birth; growth; finding food; reproduction; rearing the next generation and death. From these basics,  step by step complications are introduced, as societies evolved and advanced. These complications are in each and every aspect of life. If you start thinking carefully and step by step, you will realize that most complications are anthropocentric and entirely for the welfare of a single species "Homo sapiens". However, some of the complications are simply meant to be different or difficult. Fashion is a typical example of this category. The efforts made in the direction of healthcare and longevity is also a complication that has resulted in a surge in the numbers of this species by bringing down death rate. I can't comprehend the complications in dressing; makeup etc., which typically is the result of the philosophy "why simplify when it is so simple to complicate". Anthropocentrism, has created an irreversible imbalance in nature and the human species has increased in numbers disproportionate to its level in the ecosystem affecting homeostasis. Gigantism is believed to have led to the extinction of creatures like Dinosaurs. Likewise, increase in number out of proportion in an ecosystem could also lead to ultimate extinction. Stability and simplicity would  go together just as complexity and instability would. Don't you feel I am just trying to complicate simple things. This is what most philosophers do in my opinion. Philosophy and religion like fashion are typically the result of restless human mind that is full of imagination and for not knowing what to do has engaged itself in doing this. Well,then, how to find out what is complication? If you don't do that or do it differently, is it affecting you? If it does, it is not complication. If it doesn't, it's complication. I think I have simplified complication enough. To put it differently, can I say, doing something for the sake of doing is complication. But I have to admit that it's one's fundamental right to complicate but it is not right to force it on those wanting to be simple.

Olympic games - some thoughts.

In the year 2020, the Olympics(Summer Olympics for some) is scheduled to be held at Tokyo, Japan. Hosting Olympics once in four years has become a prestige issue and not all countries can get the opportunity and many cannot afford to host even if offered. There are 196 or 195 countries(depending on Taiwan's status), of which less than a dozen countries alone have had the opportunity to host Olympics. Seven cities in the world have hosted more than once. The reason for several countries not offering to host, is the volume of financial burden( around at least six billion dollars at present), the infrastructure and human resources required. From 1896 till 2016, the category and number of games and sports events have also been increasing. However, several events appeared and also disappeared in various Olympics over the years. There were only nine types of events in the first modern Olympics in 1896 which rose to 28  in London Olympics in 2012 and continued till Rio Olympics in 2016. There are totally 306 events in these 28 types of games and sports. In addition, inaugural and valedictory functions have to be also held. Hence, Organizing Olympics is nightmarish even for governments of several countries. I believe Olympics is the biggest global event happening once in four years with the participation of maximum number of countries. It is a Herculean task to successfully organize this event for any country however big or small it maybe. Apart from all routine problems you may visualize in organizing such an event, the last to be added was in 1972 in Munich, Germany . This problem is the protection from terrorism. Hats off to all the countries who have been organizing this Magnum opus and Brazil in particular, as this is the latest successfully completed. It is easy to find fault in any event,however well it would have been organised. Fault finders are invariably incapable of doing anything good.
Until now, I don't think there is any major or significant opposition to the conduct of this event. Still, I feel that this should not remain an event for the few endowed and empowered countries only. At present It is so, because of the magnitude of the event and almost total participation globally. Demand for inclusion as event and willingness to host are much more than what could be met. Why not resize Olympics and make it smaller and manageable for many countries to host by sorting it as water sports; field games; athletics; gymnastics etc. and hold it either simultaneously or one after another in a sequence and with required time intervals in different countries and different continents. This could ensure greater participation in organizing as well as competing. More opportunities thrown world wide for business and other development oriented improvements even in less privileged countries and populations. I don't think that what I suggest is immediately feasible or acceptable to many. But the purpose is to generate an alternative thinking and healthy critical discussion leading to new and exciting changes. Several changes happening today might have been outright rejected those days. But I hope and wish that a new thought process is initiated in the right direction. Initial acceptance can be limited and it does not affect the final emergence.

Is future so scary?

Many old fashioned thinkers as well as environmentalists always scare you with predictions of future by sheer extrapolation of small time happenings. This could be because they really feel that way or they think these type of predictions would caution people to desist from their destructive attitude and activities. Extrapolation seldom works perfectly even in science. From time immemorial, these people have been saying the same, but data appears to contradict the doomsday approach. Life has neither been shortened over time, nor has become miserable, compared to the past.
In fact, according to a 2011 estimate, the global birth rate is 15000 per hour but the death rate is just 6316 per hour indicating a doubling of the population much faster than we have thought. In 1960s it took 33 years for an addition of one billion to our population where as by the end of the last century(1999) it reduced to twelve years and now it's much faster. Remember that this increase in population is happening inspite of voluntary and forced birth control as well as increasing infertility. Among several reasons, considerable reduction in foetal mortality and the significant decline in general death rate, are two important reasons, thanks to advances in medical sciences. Even in such a short period as five years from 2009 to 2014, the death rate has reduced from 8.37 to 7.89 per thousand. This is inspite of the dreaded increase in pollution levels and all negative and fearful attributes to the modern world such as new devastating diseases like HIV. More than fifty years ago, tuberculosis, and epidemics of plague, cholera, small pox, malaria etc were believed to be ringing the death knell for humanity. Recently, HIV and Cancer were predicted to wipe out considerable populations in at least a few countries. But we are on the verge of breakthroughs in treating them and have already succeeded to the extent of lengthening lives. Global warming and melting polar caps are now projected as beginnings of doom for life on earth. In many populous tropical countries, famine like conditions due to shortage of food brought about by monsoon failures and rapid use of arable lands for housing as well as aridity and desertification due to rapid dwindling of fresh water are predicted to take them close to the end. In reality, the standard of living has been considerably and consistently on the increase in such countries. Improved agriculture produces several times increase in food. As more and more problems arise due to anthropogenic activities, newer and newer solutions are discovered. Whenever you think a dead end has been reached, a door always opens up. Some decades ago, a scare was created suggesting a global energy crisis as nonrenewable energy sources were understood to be rapidly depleting. People could not believe that renewable sources would be developed to replace them. Even now some people are skeptic and unconvinced of the non conventional energy sources. I am reminded of the " Theory of compensation" which me and my friend (who is no more), proposed after years of extensive and intensive discussions. We are convinced that everything positive is always accompanied by a negative and everything negative has always a positive accompaniment often not readily visible. It is the incapacity of our brains that does not allow us to visualize the two together. The optimists always try to see the positives and the pessimists the negatives.
If you are unbiased, you will find both positives and negatives in things happening around us. Painting a scary picture of the future or predicting the approach of Doomsday, are really overdoing caution and uncalled for.For some, future has always been, is and would be scary. From the days of civilization, elders have been painting a gloomy picture of the future and praising the past. Young people have been optimistically going ahead and succeeding. This is going to happen all along.

Is honesty genetic?

Importance of bringing up children has always been emphasized in developing good and capable citizens in any country. But the concept of child rearing has not been understood properly by most parents especially in populous, developing countries. Bringing up children the right way, has assumed importance and a high priority these days, as life is becoming increasingly difficult with increasing competition and there is a need for exceptional skills to achieve things and even to survive. Conditions have changed so much and the children have much higher IQs and excellent exposure, old methods of strict and authoritarian regimentation will not only not work but could also become counterproductive. I am addressing this problem especially for people in the third world countries. It has been established that right from foetus stage, learning process starts. In the name of tradition and culture, several unnecessary restrictions and superstitions are imposed and children are not respected and often ill treated or abused . Many in the name of discipline refuse to discuss and explain to children, why they make children do something the way the children don't want or like. Some assume that children cannot understand. It is essential to basically believe that children can understand almost every thing and try to tell them. If they fail to understand,it only means that you don't want them to understand. Good creative thinking can be promoted in children only by treating them equal and discussing with them. They must also be encouraged to discuss their issues with us. We are often tempted to think that good bringing up is just giving the best clothes; best play materials; good school and all expensive facilities. A good upbringing need not have to be expensive at all. How much you care for your children especially mentally, while deciding on things in which they are involved or relevant to them. Same way, in giving them freedom to do what they want except guiding them on what is right and wrong and educating them on the consequences of their actions. At least in India, I can authentically say that parents and elders force children to do only what they want, right from what they buy, dress, eat, and study. In some cases they also decide the persons with whom their child can move or become friendly. It's all due to unwanted fear of their child getting cheated. Whether controlled or given freedom, the child getting cheated is essentially based on its upbringing and circumstances. Many think that obedience is doing everything the way they want by asking them. Obedience is not asking your permission and doing things. Obedience is following right ways and doing right things so that no disrepute is brought either to you or to themselves. The worst aspect of upbringing is the fear of punishment and unwillingness to accept mistakes. I often use to wonder as to what causes children to tell lies and refuse to accept mistakes. The answer I could arrive at was upbringing and environment. The children watch with intent,their parents, other elders and peers especially for their honesty. Sometimes parents force children to tell lies on their behalf, to save them from embarrassment or punishment. This trains them. Further, if a child is honest and accepts its mistake, it is punished often heavily. It is the fear of punishment plus the observation of others' when they commit mistakes that prompts it to tell a lie to escape. When it successfully escaped punishment with a lie, there is a reinforcement on the benefit of dishonesty and continues with it sometimes quite unnecessarily. I am convinced that if honesty is appreciated and either no punishment or minimum punishment such as a warning depending on the mistake, is given children would be encouraged to be honest.Parents need to be extra careful and should not be dishonest when children are watching let alone using them for it. I do agree that it is not easy in a society so far away from honesty in personal, professional and political life to suddenly switch over. It's a pity that although no child is born without honesty by the time it grows the first thing learnt is to tell lies and be dishonest. Criminality could be genetic but not honesty. It's just the training and upbringing.

Would it just be a day dream?

At least to me the reasons attributed to Brexit and the subsequent success of the idea in a referendum are neither convincing nor acceptable. It is a negative decision indicating the impact of the negative and parochial attitude of a group of cynical politicians drawing majority support. In referendums of this type unanimity and not majority should be the deciding factor.The establishment of EU was such a great achievement for humanity just on the heels of merger of East and West Germany inducing people to anticipate a similar happening in Korea which is presently not feasible. I am sure well meaning people around the civilized world would feel sad over any disaggregation or disintegration, be it EU or Srilanka or any part of the world. Separation is several times easier than unification because it is more instinctive, primitive and retrograde. It is like entropy. Evolution and civilization should teach us, more understanding, tolerance and consideration not only for fellow human beings but even for fellow living beings and differentiate us maximum from the early Neanderthal humans.
A country like Britain with all its hegemony of the past should not become parochial and try to split away for selfish reasons. If you resort to referendum mode, no country can function. Fellows in government in Democratic countries should act as knowledgeable representatives of the people and take positive decisions.They should not go to people with a referendum for every decision. Maybe they take this as a plank in fighting the next election. Election should act as a referendum where more than one individual from a party with a choice of plans/ ideas contest and whoever wins finally implement the changes. Divisive and negative forces are more powerful and influential with the masses. Forces of unity; understanding; appreciation and concern have to fight a long battle but need to succeed. When people don't want territories of a country like Ireland/ Scotland to separate from U.K.why they want UK to separate from EU. The noble and far-reaching concept of one world, one people and one government seems just a day dream and next to impossible with even a vestige of the existing generation. Compassion should be the only religion to unite us all.

FROM SURREALITY TO REALITY

    Most of you won't agree to what I feel. Still I would like to bring out my feelings. As times change, fashions change; attitudes change; vocations and avocations change. But certain hackneyed beliefs and unwanted emotions once useful do not change but continue to haunt us. It's time we initiate a change in common thinking.
Countries and border limitations should at present be only for administrative and management purposes. In course of time, restricted movement of people and materials should vanish. No one should have a right to stop someone from entering or leaving a place in any part of the world. Freedom should be real. Most restrictions and limitations are essentially the result of negative thinking that is very difficult to eliminate with most people. This does not amount to a claim to do away totally all rules, regulations and laws. People often do not remember that any regulation or law is in place only to facilitate humanity and not to trouble. Many forget that rules are for us and we are not for rules.  In many places in the world, when any new rule or regulation is thought of, people worry more about misuse than use and put in clauses and restrictions to effectively prevent misuse. Although, in terms of numbers the mis or abusers will be small, negative attitude makes us think only of them than those who would use and be benefited. Negativity is essentially the result of the atmosphere and outlook with which we are brought up from childhood for generations. It's not easy to change to a total positive outlook easily or suddenly.
Though much is talked about globalization, it remains much within the realm of economics and business. No one is serious about globalization in the real sense. Some one being an Indian or American or Australian is merely an accident mostly by birth. Although, legally even by domicile you can, but will still be referred to by birth/ origin. What does it matter whether I am an Indian or American or Indian American or American Indian? What does it matter if my skin color is black or brown or pale? All feel hungry and eat; all feel tired and sleep; all think, feel and react.I am always upset about people talking nationalism and culture. Which nation is bad? Which culture is worthless? Why should I feel proud of my culture being antique? What advantage do I get? Parochialism is the easiest way to fool people especially an important tool in the hands of politicians to meet their needs. I'm at a loss to find even literate people falling an easy prey to such frivolous claims on national spirit; antique culture; richness of language etc., I can not appreciate taking credit or feeling proud of something that doesn't involve any input from me. Apart from living here what is my input for the nation or culture ? Why should I consider my country,my religion, my culture and my language to be superior to others when everyone in this world equally has a right to do so ? I look forward to a future where everyone considers everyone else in the world as equal in every sense and do not discriminate on the basis of region; religion; language or skin color. Let us mutually respect others in entirety. Pride talk about culture, language and land could have been useful those days to unite groups of people and to take them forward evolutionarily . We have now reached a stage of probing possibilities with people willing to immigrate to other planets. To continue with outdated concepts of self pride based on anything and that too with things for which you are least responsible such as culture, language etc is retrograde. Only those who suffer from inferiority complex need to take refuge by claiming superiority in something or the other. Let us move from surreality to reality.

Resistance to change

In India and probably many other poorer countries, often there is a resistance to change and unwillingness to take risks. It could be due to a certain uncertainty and fear for new things. This is called neophobia. For instance when gas stove and cooking gas were introduced, people were scared of accepting it for quite sometime. This is true of everything new in the market. Even tubeless tyres took quite a long time to be accepted. I can go on with innumerable examples. But the point is, people in general are unwilling to experiment with new things until the usefulness is proved, for fear of wasting money. It's not mere poverty but often due to the concept of prudence and frugality inculcated from childhood. Some could even have neophobia.
When people resist change even in things they use, how can we expect them to accept major changes in policy governance etc. This is probably the reason for some politicians who offered"change" as the main plank in their campaigns during the bygone election in Tamil Nadu to have failed miserably. Faith, reassurance, confidence and proven virtues in the electorate's favor decide electoral victory. Elitist opinion is pessimistic, as according to them the claimants lack all the above virtues and choosing one or the other would be a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea or jumping from frying pan into the fire. The entire system of governance needs radical changes and the process of elections too has to change. Since political parties and the elected positions have become regular professions by themselves instead of being an avocation for people, why not make every one desirous of entering politics and contesting election to undergo special training program designed for the specific needs of politics? It's not enough to set up ombudsman bodies like"Lok Ayukta" . In the past in India, several commissions to enquire into alleged corruption and nepotism were appointed but nothing tangible resulted. Even when a court of law convicts some one, either the person escapes through managed appeal judgement or undergoes a notional punishment after which he/she  enjoys the ill-gotten wealth. Why can't the ill-gotten wealth be confiscated? There are some very influential and powerful people who have practiced scientific corruption and earned wealth that can take care of several generations of their families. Yet they are regarded next to God by the vulnerable sections of society who are happy with the few pieces of bones thrown to them,not from their pockets but out of taxpayers money when they ruled. How to change the politics, politicians and political system of this country which is chronically sick due to indiscipline; dishonesty and extreme selfishness. A miracle has to occur or we have to wait for the future generations to rise in revolt against the misdeeds of the earlier generations. Till then we have Hobson's choice during elections and change for the better would have to remain a dream.