Read, The Brothers Karamazov

 

Are indivduals in any part of the world, Free

     The world celebrated an anniversary of the end of fight for freedom, which happened in one of the largest country, not valuing, you guessed it, Freedom. Has it got to be celebrated, Yes. Period. Is it alright to just celebrate it and then go ahead with our daily routine, no? So, what are we supposed to? Well, dont ask me. I am out of answer as much as you are. 

     The human race has reached a situation where some portion of the people fight for the majority portion of the freedom of people. This fight for freedom is not what was warranted when, humans developed their brains and formed societies. The problem started brewing once societies started being formed. Along the formation, of societies morals were being framed. Rights and wrongs were being hardwired. Some societies thought they were better than the others...Ah, what was I talking about... What am I talking about now? Are they related?

    The thing is should we remember only major ones. Should we not find out and celebrate smaller struggles by individuals across the globe. The news agencies and the entire societies have started to incorporate a very bad idea that one person talking anything about issues believed right by a majority is wrong. This is the most deemed to be free countries, which again is confused with democracies. Democracy is not freedom. Freedom is not the same as democracy. 

    Freedom is not given by anybody to anybody. It is just there. If it has to be given and it has to be taken, then both sides are flawed. So, if a democratic setup tells that you a free to do that and this and then that and then IFTTT.... it is not freedom. It is bondage. Wherein your are given a certain degrees of freedom. 

    There are democracies with varying number of degrees of freedom. So, the country with the highest degrees of freedom is the ultimate? No. Freedom is and should be a given. Isn't it wrong then, that a free(er) parts of the world are not doing anything to improve the degrees of freedom of countries with a lesser number of freedoms. Yes, it is. But, are you allowed to express the same and are you capable of doing something on this issue. Are you given this freedom. Can a theoretically free individual free the group of people who are not having the same? It is impossible.

    Let us take the next scenario. Let us assume that the entire world of people are really free. Now let us assume a certain group of people want to create a society with lesser degree of freedom. Now, the world can act against it and make sure that they are again free. Good. Now, do these people really want to be free. Many people dont know the meaning of freedom. 

    The rich countries have sowed seeds in the minds of the people that Democracy is freedom. So, instead of fighting for freedom, people are fighting for democracy. So, what is freedom? How do people feel freedom? Is the lack of knowledge of freedom, freedom? Isn't the same be applicable to people who are slaves upto their last cell? Is anarchy the best form of freedom. Does anarchy give the individual that theoretical freedom? But, then again, you are branding individuals to a set of rules and conditions which fist spells out anarchy and then the individual has to figure out freedom.

Are you, the individual, Free?

The same post on the federated web  https://qua.name/wrrfhlepep

Covid 19 Non immune have the same rights of a human life

 All this herd immunity thing cannot be digested. So the world has decided that there will be casualties. So, a person dies in the present pandemic, it is because of weak immunity. That will become a count the next day. Now, why should a person die because of a lack of immunity to a mistake done by a state/company/individual. The person who is dead is in no way connected to the mistake done by the source. We have totally forgotten to question the source. Why because the source seems to be more powerful. 

Is a common man powerful enough to change this thought. No. Not in democracy, not in any other setup of modern governance. Let us take the example of sweden. One of the doctor in sweden's biggest hospital put out his thoughts on the way the country handled the pandemic. There were no lockdowns. All in all around 6K people have passed away in the past four months due to the pandemic. That is a very measly figure considering the yearly deaths of the country in question. Just because it is measly does it mean that those 6K people were so easily expendable. How was it decided that some people were expendable. 

The doctor is very happy with how it has turned out and he believes that all this occurred because of herd immunity. But what about the people who died and will continue to do so for lack of immunity. Who is responsible for their lives. Everybody who passed is a father, brother, sister, friend and most of all a human being. How any other human being is expendable is a big question. This is real war. It is fought silently by all the governments on its own people. 

Even in the times of the pandemic, while the doctors and scientists are struggling for funds, majority of the countries are on an arms race. Defense equipment still takes the major chunk of all the countries expenses. When will the health of the citizens take priority over borders. We are in a demo of the dooms day setup. When there is a real dooms day and all the 1% escape to safety, and all the 99% are washed away or zombied. The only difference is we are allowing a human activated virus, resulting from a human mistake, which could have been culled at the source, to simulate a dooms day. Even at the expense of the people's death, hospitals are making money, extravagant money, again enriching the 1%. Destroying the environment. 

All the items banned are on the main page of all the stores. Alcohol based sanitizers, banned at one time, now share the same space in bags as drinking water. Just before the pandemic there was a huge drive against plastic use. We are now choking the Planet with masks, PPE, and related things which will be a much bigger problem and would result in a bigger issue which the mask and PPE cant stop.

Why cant the economy of the worlds stop for a moment. It cant stop because we are in an economy of Just in time. The supply chain is just in time. It is not relaxed. Stop the arms race, stop all the cross border issues. Join hands with the doctors and the scientists. Just pause the economy for a few months. Dont tell me it cant be done. We have seen it done in all the countries, albeit for a varied amount of time. This calls for a collective effort from all the countries/individuals. All the laboratories/scientific establishments working in tandem sharing data in an open way to reduce re-invention of the wheel. 

All the laboratories/scientists/doctors belonging to the 1% should be allowed to work in a global way, without the intervention from the owners and under a universal governing body, again, made of doctors/scientists/engineers and all the professional people required in assisting and testing the output. Can the consumerist world pause itself so that all the 1% companies have nothing to sell. Buy local groceries. Support the local producers. So that the world when it gets back has an alternate setup for consumption. Well, dont the 1% know this can happen. They know it can happen. If the lockdown had extended for another 06 months throughout the world, humans would have setup an alternate setup for meeting the consumerist attitude of the individual & it would definitely be local. 

Humans are basically restless. This 06 months all the funds available for defense from all the countries should be diverted to identify test and release the requisite medicines. Well, medicines are required for that portion of people who dont have immunity. So, now the medicine is out and the non-immune portion of humanity also will survive. Husbands, wives, sons, daughters, friends, humans live. No human life is expendable. If a tea sellers life was long ago deemed as not important and expendable a country wouldn't have had one of the longest serving state head.

All of a sudden deaths of people around the world has become a mere count. A tech company head comments on medicines. A traditional dancer assures that vaccines if available will be provided to one and all. The thing is doctors and scientists are the only people talking sense. This is their job. They know their job. Let them be. Let them talk. For once, I request all the 1% to be quiet and allow the podium to the doctors and scientists. Let us give them the stage and the mic. This is their time to be in the spotlight. Turn the spotlights on them.

Let us save the Non-immune humanity not by treating them and torturing them on ventilators but by prevention. And, No, the logic of death of a few for the survival of the largesse is totally flawed. Since the largesse surviving might be the worst of the lot.

Endangered/Minority

That is the word I would use for all the minority of living beings. Why? Well there is not much of a problem if we have a problem with the number of chairs in a room. So, do the minority and the endangered lives mean the same? Yes. The minority are always endangered. Or the endangered species are always in a minority. So, if the minority are important, does that mean the majority or the non-endangered species not so important. Well, both are important. How do we know a group of people are endangered? By seeing who is not. So both are co-existing in all forms of societies. Now, you will ask me will they have to co-exist. Well, since they are co-existing we have the problem of minority and majority. What if all unique living beings asked for their own place under the sun. Maybe a different country for all the classifications we have made. The earth is not enough. The universe itself might not be enough considering the number of divisions and classifications we have made. Can a world exist which honors every trait in an individual. Can an individual exist in such a setup.


    Who is important? The endangered or the opposite. Whom should we protect more. Who are more vulnerable? The answer is very clear, we should talk about the minority. The minorities are to be protected more. They are to be brought up in the societal setup. Why should we do it. You are telling me that this will create a problem. If everybody is non-endangered then nobody will be. Correct. Cant we reach that situation. That is a theoretical situation, maybe, We dont know for sure. It is not a perfect science. As humans have continued with killing of non-human endangered species instead of protecting them, in fact going as far as eliminating even the last one, we really dont have much hope for the human minority. Every government has some sort of budget allocation for the betterment of the minority. But when it comes to the real issue of discrimination all the governments turn a blind eye. Some times the minorities themselves dont help the cause. There will always be people from that side participating in majority politics playing the minority card. But by doing this, this individual is doing more harm than all the majority joined together. He is weakening the minority further.

How do the minority, the endangered tell the world this is happening(as though the world dont know what is happening). Should they tell the world what is happening instead of the world tackling this issue. Are the minority confident on this majority societal system that their voices will be heard. I dont think that there are much examples in our society where the endangered have won a major victory. A minor victory here and there is what would have happened. That again, would be politics played by the majority. By giving the minority a little leeway, the majority has again stamped its supremacy. So whom do you fight against. Do the minority have the facility, the oomph in terms of financial, political, moral, intelligence to beat the majority setup. Should they do it. Should they resist the majority. What should be their demands. What if done by the majority and overlooked by the majority will bring better conditions and safety to the endangered.

Whenever there has been talk of safety, some portion of the individual freedom has been foregone. Now, if we see the plight of endangered animals. What is the best way to protect them. Track them. Put a tracker in the body of the animal and give it a serial number, the human tracks it. The animal, whether it likes to be tracked, we dont know. What I gave was just a small example when you ask protection from the majority. Equality of humans has been a myth. Instead of asking to reduce the power and funding to the police, which also can be asked so that the funding starts to flow towards health services which will be direly needed in the nearing apocalyptic world, the minority should ask for equal treatment. They should ask for disparity of treatment to be punished. The demand should be all encompassing. It should demand disparity of treatment by an individual or government should be punishable. I am not asking preferential treatment. I am asking a response at par with whatever response is given by anybody to the majority. Preferential treatment creates one more class in the endangered who come out premium endangered since they know the working of this preferential treatment. This is not going to solve the problem but complicate it.

All the living being have full rights to lead the life they like in their own style within the boundaries of the society. But when the tenets of the society is discriminating people based on many traits, it is time to change the society and its thinking. Societies have evolved and will evolve. If sufficient force is not applied then the society will continue its rot. A society has to continuously change and adapt. The time for change is, always. The society should always look for inclusiveness. But, the people in the society will always look for exclusivity. The society as a whole should fight for removing this exclusivity. Since majority of the societies are majority based. It is the responsibility of the majority to set things right for the minority and work towards the removal of minority traits. That is how equality can be achieved.

Privacy in the present world

Privacy: When people listen to this word they normally associate with privacy from their parents, siblings or their friends. So, when somebody tells they want some "privacy" they mean "me" time and thats it. This is the definition of many of the people. The big companies and the state are making use of this mentality of people to generalize privacy and to re-instate this definition of privacy. So what you get to maintain your privacy, Your phone unlocks only with your finger print, so none of your family can use it. If it was a code maybe your parents would ask for your code and you would be pressurized to give it when you are away. Now , you have the finger print scanner and when you are away the phone is a brick which nobody can access. You have got your privacy. Congratulations.

Now, while your phone is locked and seemingly a brick to your father and yourself is more live than you. It is sending out and receiving data continuously. it is after all a computer and computers as you know are not tired. The amount of horse power in the present devices is enormous and all this is put to use 24 hours a day. Not even a second is left. When you are not using your phone facebook is busy getting the text your entered into whatsapp before your shoot send. Because before you shoot send the text and all other information you want to share is UN-encrypted. So now facebook has that data which you wanted to send through your favorite encrypted free messaging system. Though the founders have departed, the juggernaut rolls on. Of course facebook knows to whom you sent the data. So, you are basically using facebook whole over again in the guise of encryption.

You will definitely ask me why take that example. Well that nearly covers majority of the users on the planet outside the apple ecosystem. Now let us come to the make believe elite system which use the apple ecosystem. I always believed that apple had strong business ethics, not moral ethics. Like their hardware and software is elite and unique to their Eco-system. They will sell their devices at a premium and what the user does with that is not their concern. This I think was happening with all their desktop and laptop offering before the iphone. With the iphone came the moral conundrum. Actually the iphone to start with did not create this issue. The issue was created by google with its android ecosystem. Here was a company which is going to make money by selling user data. By targeting users with ads related to their tastes. How do you do it? Get the user to accept a complicated user agreement before you can access the device. It did not stop at ads. It progressed to speech recognition, AI and so on.

Now the thing is data became important. The costliest commodity on the planet next to the rarest element on the planet. The same strategy which the printing companies did with their cartridges. Though the printers could be given free since the users had to buy a physical product, Here, the phones could not be given for free. They are complicated computers. In this case the users are f*&d all ways in all the holes. You buy a premium phone and you will be giving away more data. It is like having the cake and the icing too. Your phone is pinging data every mill-second. It is pinging data to all corners of the world.

You are now having an app ecosystem to bring you out of this mess. Well, these apps are all built out of user contributions. The phone makers can alter the operating system itself to bypass all these apps which try to stop these pingings. So, if your phone is connected to the public network with the present crop for smart phones, you are pinging data. Have you not been surprised to see a link or a post related to "masturbation" after watching porn on your phone. Your were asking what are they going to do with the data. Now, it has been answered. This is one of the simplest way intelligence is taken out of your data consumed an exported from your device. Just imaging the amount of data collected through out the world and then feed it to "Big data" to make it even bigger.

Privacy is the context  have been talking in the previous paragraphs. it is not what is described in the first para. The corporations have moved from text and binary data to voice and video. It is difficult to know whether the mic is activated through out the life of your phone or only switches on when you watch porn. And while doing so, it might the device might switch on the front facing camera also. Just see how embarrassing it might be. You might be talking about an ailment or your friends ailments or you might talk about buying something. You might do a search for a particular ailment a product. It is recorded against your id. the corporations can combine it with your data sets and come out with the perfect ad or will feed you more of what you talked. You watch a thriller in Netflix, you are offered an unknown number of the same genre. You will be shown links related to them, but your are their unsuspecting user and you will click through it. This relation is generated by the the data they have collected from the whole world. Though you feel UN-related this link will re-inforce whatever you were searching for.

All corporations now hire behavioral scientists, data researchers who help them with their strategies. So, how do we get out of it? Do we want to get out of it? Are we happy in our walled paradise? Do we value our private data? Do we thing we have nothing to hide? Do we think we dont have anything of value? Do we think commenting and up-voting of posts on social media yields nothing to anybody?Is convenience a better trade-off for individual privacy? Is an individual of no value? Is an individual only a data generator? Is an individual not a human? Will the individual stand up for his rights?

Vanilla Socialism is non-sense

             I came across a very simple definition of socialism. For a very long time it was very tiresome to understand this societal concept. It is not that I have become a specialist at it. It is just that I know it as a single line which tries to encompass the whole concept of it. "The entire ownership of the means of production is with the state". If this is the case what do individuals own in a pure socialist setup? Does the means of production also include the people. All the big socialist tryouts in the past have made it very clear that the state owns the people, their livelihood, their actions and their style of living. Yes, I understand that we are now looking at Dictatorship of the state. But, isnt socialism just that. Are all humans on the planet inherently self motivated and all work for the common good. Are all the individuals ready to take in the same salary and live in same sized houses, same rations, same clothes, same everything. By birth every individual is unique and always tries to be his own. Every individual wants his place under the sun in a unique way. It might be in a good or bad way, depending on how the society decides what is good and bad.

                  If everybody works the same amount and produces the same quantity and quality of goods, there is no question of state deciding it, it is already there and done. The world is so complicated. How is the state going to innovate if all its people go out and do the same job for their entire life. How is the state going to reward the extra-ordinary. Innovation, design and related activities are creative. How is the state going to ensure that creativity also is equal? But, all humans are not creative. The creativity among humans varies from near zero to a level where some people cannot sit quite for even a second. What is the motivation for this sort of creativity. Will the state take this ownership and create a creativity department. No, creativity is not a factory. What if some people dont accept this societal setup. Will they be forced to accept it or banished to an other planet. One more important question is what all will the state do. Since it owns all the means of production, that means all the activities have to be managed by the state. What will the constituents of the so called "state"? Will the state be questionable? Will there be "questioning" department? If there is one there definitely should be an answering department. How beautiful. You ask the question and you answer it. It cannot get better than this. Which people are the state. How will they be chosen? How big will the state be? Will they live in the same houses and lanes. If you want true socialism then the there should be vast expanses of houses with eerily the same design what so ever. For dinner the entire society will be eating the same food, irrespective of their position in the state or out of it.

                If such setup does exist, how do you ensure that it stays that way? Now, we are entering into dark waters where nobody wants in. Will you use fore to ensure that the society stays this way or do you depend on the human tendency that he is a "social" being and will accept this intrinsically. A person who works hard will not do so. A person who wants better food, better facility by hook or crook cannot do so. A creative idea when it comes into any person, he should be having that "socialist" yearning for disclosing it, otherwise it will stay locked and die with him. But then we are humans, not ants and bees. We are an evolved species. Creativity has flowered in toughest dictatorial setups for want of recognition and better living conditions. Yes, they do suppress creativity aimed at the common good, but it gives out routes for creativity in lanes which would not have opened in a more free setup. The lack of recognition and the redtape involved in the socialist setup will again inhibit creativity for the common good and support creativity for controlling strategies.

Any society if it tells itself as socialist, should come out with the percentage. Pure socialism is non-sense even for a textbook explanation, because we are talking about humans.

All systems of the world showing their kinks

             The world we live in boasts about so many "systems" being in place to better the human life. Every country, Every state, Every district, Every town, Every village, Every community, Every friends circle, Every individual have their own idea about the best system. There is no collective agreement to any sort of the "best" system. When we use the word system, the few things which come to our mind are political and economical systems which are in turn made up of theological, business, ethnicity, history and other smaller systems which make up the political and economic system. Whenever people talk about a system they will be indirectly talking about the political and economical systems. Why do all these exist? Yes, you will tell me that these exist to keep the 1% continuously maintain their 1% by keeping the other 99% exactly where they are by giving them the illusion that they are indeed growing in all walks of life.

              The point of discussion is do the 1% who run and maintain the systems, understood them like the back of their hand? No. They dont understand the beast they have given birth to. The beast dont care whether you are the 1% or the 99%. It is just that the time taken by the beast to make them surrender. All the systems in the world cannot clearly define what is exactly required for the world to self-sustain. All the systems in the world dont know how to manage a calamity. All the systems dont know that for the 1% to stay there require the other 99% to exist. If we are left with only the 1% then there will be nothing left.

            All the systems in the world look good when the going is good. If the going gets tough all the systems become questionable. Every kink in the systems start leaking out. Every system starts blaming the other and starts exposing itself. One aspect is very clear. All the systems are in-sensitive to particular traits which belong to living biological organisms. Just because the system has appointed few institutions as living beings under the legal system does not classify them as a living/breathing biological organism. All the political and economic setup of the world cannot compensate for the hardships of the 99% toiling away so that the systems always run in profits. When the going is good, the 99% rarely ask to what happened to the profits. When there is a situation, that is when questions will be raised as to what happened to the profits. This is the time the systems in the world should know how to act and how to prioritize. This is the time the 1% should act and ensure that the 99% continue existing. It is pathetic that the Masters cannot bear the hardships of the people offering their services ever for two months. There have been people working for the same setup for several years and suddenly they become a liability.

              You cannot sell masks for ever if it is certain that all the people buying them will gradually cease to exist. It is high time, the systems/governments/corporations running the world, to pool their resources and provide them to that part of the 99% which can save the remaining 99.999999% of the living world. This is time for them to maintain normalcy in the world by doing things which would put the 99% thoughts to normal. Invest in keeping the 99% safe and then devising means to take in their service/efforts. It is time to stop the traditional mind set and device work cultures/work environments which look/appear and "do" the job of ensuring the health of the person providing his services. This is time to instill confidence in the workforce of the world by a radical shift in the way which the workforce works. Re-design the work areas/procedures to make it fool proof so that nobody gets affected just because he went to work. Ensure nobody is affected because he chose to work.

            I request all the systems in the world to protect the workforce. The workforce is what keeps the world ticking. The workforce feeds all the families in the world. The workforce is what ensures that there is a 1% in this systemic setup.

Empathy and Apathy

India is not new to man made mistakes, Nor is any other country. Issues involving huge areas and a sizable population are better off being automated. So, what prompted me to write this piece? The recent tragedy wherein students lost their lives owing to release of water from a dam. State owned/delivered welfare activities have been over years have been prescribed as a panacea for "common" good. That is, the private sector, always looks up to profit and the entire setup is for profit optimization. The previous two sentences are in conflict. But we are not seeing the fine line between them.

The fine line are the activities of the government that can be decided as welfare activities. Which are the activities to be taken as a pure welfare activity? How do we decide on this classification. The classification cannot be based on the activity as an independent entity. It should be related to all the issues which are touched by this activity.

Let us take this small activity of monitoring the release of water through a dam. The activity though, very simple, has a huge impact on a large distance of land and affects the entire gamut of human activity. The people on the release side have to intimated well in advance. This can happen by using a simple kanban indicator linked to the electronics handling the opening of the dam gates. When there is a huge downpour nature itself gives an indication to the people in and around the area. If it is man made, then, men have to act god. All theists have drawn their weapon, Oh, Please wait. If man can stop the natural flow of events as depicted by natural causes(Gods ways for a theist), then he can continue the flow also.

Dams have to be constructed by the government. Yes, It is a welfare activity. Though, people in the vicinity of the dam might not agree. But operating them, well, should the state bother about that. That statement has puased me. By my observation, there is a sense of apathy with which people working in state owned enterprises. This is solely because of the monotonous nature of the job on hand. People preferring the jobs in state owned enterprises normally aim and are capable of doing mundane and monotonous jobs. They resist change and lack entreprenual spirit. If at all few have them, it will be killed in the course of time and they too become a brick in the wall.

So, why would I argue that a private interest would be better off running the dam? Or, can I succesfuly argue for privatization of dam management? Or, in general, can I succesfuly argue for identification of all activities in governing a country and yet dole out all the welfare to the last person in the country. It is high time that we hand out a certain portion of the activities undertaken by the government to independent individuals. I think our country is now in a position of producing educated elite for taking care of mundane tasks in a welfare activity.

Instead of treating the citizens like children and asking them to open factories for making soaps and detergents since it is a low cost and low risk engagement we should bring the common man into the fold of welfare activities and also regarding the security of our country. It is high time that all individuals should stop thinking that whenever a wrong happens, he should look up at the government. The individuals should forget that new laws framed by the government would automatically improve the conditions of the country. Normally, the citizens of our country dissect every decission of the government and imagine how it can improve the country. No laws or rules are going to create any magic. There is no "abracadabra" law.

So, instead of cribbing over the loss of young students, the common man has to wake up and sense opportunity here. To contribute to the good of the countrymen as well as his own private self. The specific dam issue in question can provide private employment for many type of industry. You have security, Electrical, Mechanical, Electronics, Civil maintenance, Event management, Tourism, Planned agriculture and the list can go on.

From all this, I should not be confused for lack of empathy for the loss of precious human lives, I empathize that we may have lost the entrepreneur who thought in similar lines, I empathize that we may have lost the next Sir M. Visweswariah, I empathize that we may have lost the next visionary. I am concerned more towards the apathy of state enterprises. Let this be the last time we empathize for the result of apapthy of state owned enterprises.

For the past years, India, our country with its past vast natural resources has done a lot for its citizens. Now, we, the citizens, Let us stand up and do for our country. Shall we.........