The connection between Egalitarianism and Vegetarianism.

Theme : No hipocrisy. Either accept the legality of genocide, or let animals have what is rightfully theirs.

Note: I actually wrote all of this in Jan 2008, it states a few reasons (other than the obvious ones), as to why I am vegetarian.

I think every person is unique. Everyone has a different set of skills, looks, abilities and talents which come naturally. Again there are some skills one accumulates over one's lifetime. Some people look better than others.

I need to read what Lawrence Summers and Dr James Watson have to say.

As far as statistics are concerned, I have stated my view about it before. What the bell curve about IQ might say is "Most Africans have a lower IQ than Europeans". Things we can deduce from that :-
1) There might be some Africans who have a higher IQ than Europeans
2) The IQ tests might include questions which are seemingly mundane for Europeans but completely new to Africans.
3) And the most obvious one which the title of the statistics anyway tells us.

example for 2 is a question from an IQ test I found on the net :-
"Some months have 30 days, some months have 31 days. How many months have 28 days?"

Most Africans might not be able to answer this. But if you ask this question :-
"Look at the sun and tell what time it is" or "Tell me whether there is a lion hiding behind that bush"...
An African will be able to answer better. A bell curve on physical abilities, or sports would probably find that :- "Most Africans are better at sports than the Europeans". Look at the graph above, no matter who you are, and which race you belong to, there seem to be people from other races ahead of you.

I am tired of using the words "probably" and "maybe" and "might".


Is the progress of civilization a good indicator of the ability of a race?

"Lucy" probably one of the first human beings lived in present day Ethiopia. It all started there. The oldest civilizations were in Iraq, India, China and Egypt. In those times the north-western races wanted to live on the products of these old civilizations. Civilization is a good measure of the abilities of the race (If we really need that information for some purpose). But then there are a few caveats there too. Often we have come across cases where todays successful civilizations chose to rob/kill/mooch from other civilizations (though it happens even today), and that has played an important part in their success/survival. Then there is the example of Russia and more recently China, who have experienced economic development at the expense of individual freedom.

Right, individuals are NOT equal. A comparison of ethnic groups depends on the attribute you are measuring, is it height? intelligence? fairness? I think that Indians(brown coloured) and Chinese(yellow coloured) have by and large busted the notion that intelligence and fairness have a co-relation. The Africans have busted the notion that fairness and physical abilities have a co-relation. But, I do not see why rights should be unequal. In fact (the fact that individuals are NOT equal) we should have equal minimum rights. That would be the only way to ensure that evolution takes its own course! That would be the only way to ensure meritocracy. Regarding gender equality, I think the denial of equal rights to women in Islamic countries is one of the main reason for their backwardness. The Islamic countries' backwardness that is.

The path out of this seeming dilemma is to define what are the rights :-
1) Right to life is basic.
2) Right to property (a product of your time and energy)
3) Right to freedom of speech (unless if it is a declaration of mal intent, or initiation of force)
4) Right to protect the above through fair and just means.

I could go on and on, but then no "right" can trample on these 4. Also the question will arise later, as to who has these rights and who does not.


"survival of fittest" is natural.

One animal killing another for food. The best killer survives. Mooching?
What got me thinking is that - why differentiate between savage humans and animals? And if you don't would you respect those humans' right to "be"? Another question is can you classify a whole "race" as sub-human based on their performance so far? - I think not, for reasons I have given before, so I think this clinches the issue.

A mosquito repellant. Why this kindness towards an insect which causes so many dreadful diseases... The mosquito simply keeps coming back. That is the only way it knows to live, to suck your blood. Why leave it alive if you have a choice?

what would you say to a hunter, or a fisherman. Don't they take the life of an animal (I do not care for what reason). And so they do not allow the animal to "BE". Even in the case of domestication the "will" of the animal is overcome first. I am not contesting that animals should have rights. What I want to find out is, where does one draw the line between an animal and a man? Is having 2 arms and 2 legs and standing upright enough? No. It is the faculty of reason and the ability to conceptualize and intelligence that makes a human a human. And so, who has rights and who does not.

About hitler.
What would you do if you belonged to a species that was superior to humans? In intelligence, physical ability all possible fields. To make it simple, if you have seen the movie X-men, what if that were true? Then humans would be to them (the X-men), what animals are to us. Right? Or better still, what if a more intelligent species of aliens came to earth?

For those who have not seen X-men. X-men are people who have superpowers. They are highly evolved and "superior" to humans.

Disclaimer : This post is strictly hypothetical and cannot be called racism as I compare 2 different species and not ethnic groups within the human species.

Regarding co-operation and friendship, I think that is the exact relationship that Humans and animals should share on earth. But it is on human terms and conditions. And most of the violations of "co-operation" are from the human side. Humans are a part of nature, as are animals and plants. Humans need to make sure that their actions are in harmony with the nature of nature. (corny?). Any distruction caused to nature is indirectly a distruction of humans.

Historically relations between ethnic groups also has been similar to this. Some races have tried to enslave others. But I daresay that the best scenario has been when there was an atmosphere of co-operation and friendship (as it is the case today). I am all for friendship.



case for vegetarianism

While each individual needs to make his/her choices on her own. I would like to present the strong case in favour of vegetarianism.

It boils down to the whole human-animal interaction issue. We think mooching off another man is immoral, why do the rules change when it comes to mooching from an animal? I don't think there is anything wrong with consuming dairy products as animals domesticated for dairy products are well fed and get medical care etc. In that way, I don't think becoming a vegan is an answer. Consumption of dairy products and eggs is infact keeping these animals alive and kicking, else the cow would have been extinct and the chicken would be just another dodo. But we need to make sure that they are kept in good health. I am sure most people who consume dairy products would readily pay more for a product which comes with a peta certificate or something. For those who like to think that plants and animals are same and as such, living things! The process of photosynthesis would help you to differentiate. Plants as such convert water, CO2 and sunlight to glucose, O2 and water vapour. Fungi converts dead matter to food. Plants are the food producers of the planet, and exist to provide food and fresh air. What do you think they make fruits with seeds in them for? What do you think happens to a tree which ventures too far away from its roots? I would say that these biological processes (along with the fact that animals have many more faculties, senses etc..) make plants fundamentally different from animals, and thus give the moral sanctions to animals to use them for personal purposes. Again, remember what I said about harmony with nature and do not go overboard when you clear them greeny forests. :) Animals and humans complete the cycle by consuming this food and taking care of the plants (nourishing them with good soil, water, fertilizers, even helping them to reproduce). And again, I cannot prove to those who believe that animals like plants exist as a part of nature's bounty to be used by man, that it is morally wrong to do so. I would say just check the length of your canines, and don't stop at animals, I don't know what would stop you from eating a fellow human. Thats all.

Unlike some baba in Ashram, I am not asking anyone to stop eating nonveg and drinking alcohol just because I think it is "bad". I am asking you to justify the apparent "duality/hypocrisy". With reasons as to how mooching from animals is different from mooching from other men. Are we to differentiate between animals based on their appearance alone?

Are we absolutely sure we are "superior" to animals?

Until the time we are sure. Let animals have their fundamental rights. The right to life, right to property (habitat)

I would rather...

There were so many small walls which made it look harder,
In a childish rush, I ran up to it,
I looked closely, I screamed bloody murder,
there was a flash, the day was starlit.

What I thought was a wall, turned out to be just that,
meekly I tried again, and scraped over,
the deep blue sea behind, swelled, right there I sat,
tasted the salty water, I continued to stutter.

The valley was nice, plush and green,
the mountains were better, behind the cloud cover,
the sun makes it harder, but the obvious things went unseen,
the rest of the walls, now somehow looked smaller.

Hop, skip and jump, one after the other,
bored to death, I went passed them without much ado,
I came down the mountain, I ventured further,
until I saw, what I always wanted to do.

With gay abandon, I jumped into the water,
The sand in my hair, the wind on my face,
I eventually found out, what would really matter,
I end this story, I have given up the race.

choice != compromise, but compromise = poison

In human relationships "compromise" is often said to be an agreement that no party is happy with.

In the UK, Ireland and Commonwealth countries the word "compromise" has a positive meaning (as a consent, an agreement where both parties win something); in the USA it may rather have negative connotations (as both parties lose something). In the former Soviet Union, the word was rather unknown.

It is hard to find the difference between what is a choice and what is a compromise. Period. But try we must ;). I guess choice is the bigger word, in the sense that it encompasses compromise. That is, often you have to choose between your objectives/principles and a compromise. So in the face of making a decision, one must identify the options which are against his/her objectives/principles and rule them out first. There is always a choice other than the compromise (else recheck your principles, they might be wrong :) - as the USSR soon found out). But all credit to the USSR for they at least know what is wrong now.

This post is inspired by the movie "Rock on". Don't choose a compromise over your principles, however small and tiny-winy it might look. Would you taste poison just because the quantity does not matter?

Choice is the power every human has (in case you are stumped by my choice of saying "every human" instead of "each of us" in my blogs ... you might as well stop reading my posts). The architect of the matrix calls it an anomaly, because 1% of the human race chooses reality over his dreamland. "Causality is the only reality" - Merovingian, and the final cause, the purpose, is within us.

The human network

It is human to communicate. Period. If one is looking out for the best for himself, he can do it best by exchanging something of value with someone else. How can one not communicate in such a scenario. And yet it seems to screw my happiness? Am I the proverbial ostrich living in denial? Someone said today that when I get the .... I forget friends! Someone says that I am ignoring them! Damn. Yes maybe I am. But then would I be writing this blog if I did not really care?

Google giving me a tough time at work. A company like google has minted money out of interaction. Cisco is teasing us with their human network commercials. Nortel had to counter it with some strange cryptic ad, which does not really register, and is far from eye catching.

Why do I hate the mobile? Why do I set status messages on my gtalk but cringe when someone pings me? Why do I feel guilty when I am not working? I thought these things would pass. Anyways.. I wanna be aggressive now. Take things head on. And for that communication is key. And people will just have to get used to my me time.

The absurd question.

An ant or a bee does not have a choice. It does what it is built to do. To be a good samaritan, to sacrifice! And yet, their community, the bee hive, the ant hill is almost always prosperous, with enough for everyone to eat and all that. Man has a choice. He can sacrifice! he can be a good samaritan, do all that is necessary for the good of others, he can submit his will to the will of the collective and become another ant or a bee. On the other hand he can do what is best for himself. He can pursue the best. He can keep him self at the centre of his attention.

The question is, which one is the better option for humans? I think the question is absurd. The moment you ask that question to yourself you know that you are looking out for yourself. You have already taken the second option.

To elaborate : since man is as he is.. an animal with the power to reason and conceptualize, there are bound to be differences in what different men think is best for the group if at all he agrees to put the group before himself. BUT WAIT.. I think I have committed an error in my reasoning here.. Actually given the same dataset (though this might be impossible, given that our "euclidean" perceptions differ from person to person) and the same decision making deterministic algorithm (reasoning skills, here again some people have better skills than others), the result will always be the same (might not be, for reasons look at the text in the brackets). So if the reasoning is right and the information is available for all, all men will make the same decision eventually. So does that mean that the first option is a valid one? If putting a group above oneself is pragmatic, then yes.

Now coming to the 2nd option. Is it possible for us to put ourselves above everything else? forgetting others completely? For example your kidney might not be working, if you are selfish you will probably pull out someone elses kidney and install it in yourself. BUT, then again a rational person will not? Is it because he abhors sacrifice. Either his or someone else's? you bet. This morality is crucial. That you will not sacrifice another for your gain. And only then is selfishness viable.