Spell of stupidity

 

Against stupidity we have no defense. Neither protests nor force can touch it. Reasoning is of no use. Facts that contradict personal prejudices can simply be disbelieved — indeed, the fool can counter by criticizing them, and if they are undeniable, they can just be pushed aside as trivial exceptions. So the fool, as distinct from the scoundrel, is completely self-satisfied. In fact, they can easily become dangerous, as it does not take much to make them aggressive. For that reason, greater caution is called for than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.

In conversation with [the foolish person], one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with a person, but with slogans, catchwords and the like that have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil.

These were incisive lines written by Deitrich Bonhoeffer, a German pastor, from prison before he was executed by Nazis. His views on nature of stupidity matters not only as an insight to the world he lived in but also the spreading sickness that is incapable to evolve to the immense possibilities of contemporary. Bonhoeffer lost his life because of stupidity that encouraged worst in humans. Millions of people were massacred for fantastical ideas so stupid that you would laugh if not for immense tragedy. A situation so implausible that one would’ve dismissed it as impossible in what was essentially an advanced society. Banality of evil was made common place by sadist stupidity that found large audience hence more power. A shifting ground that keeps everyone entertained before you realize it has started to engulf all that is valued. Unlike Cipolla (also elaborated on stupidity from limited economist frame of opportunities of gain and loss) who defines stupid person as “causes problems for others without any clear benefit for himself”. This ‘clear benefit for himself’ is root problem of modern times. We have well passed narrow lanes of neoliberal anchored staid management theories; indeed, attention economy of stupidity is thriving and hugely beneficial if you touch the lowest base of short attention. Bonhoeffer’s insight therefore matters significantly in the perilous times where stupidity is not only monetized for personalized attention but is having significant impact on democracy. Social media is increasingly pushing large number of populations all across the world into complacency, and ironically, disconnect. It is consolidating stupidest and vilest through conspiracy theories and utter nonsense to work dopamine outrage. Best possibilities of latest technologies are getting muted for nasty, it is tapping on worst of human emotions and insecurities as stupidity gets consolidated and used by the manipulators.

Bonhoeffer argues that people are not born stupid nor has it to do with intelligence -intelligent people can be stupid, there were many scientists who supported Nazi (even incisive philosopher, Heidegger), we also have many examples from contemporary world. Bonhoeffer see stupidity as moral defect and not intellectual -not surprising from a pastor, and that stupid person can only be liberated, not argued or reasoned. No doubt Bonhoeffer is insightful but as a theologian placed in limited frame of religion he is quite expectedly limited in his solution. This is not to belittle Bonhoeffer, he steadfastly stood for decency, civility, and kindness, and was fervently against narrow mindedness and oppression in trying times. The attempt here is to understand the issue. Idea of liberation is limited in christian theology and really cannot be universalized nor does it resonate to the realities of contemporary world. I am reminded of Elias Canetti’s understanding of crowd. A person finds liberation in crowd can be extended to liberation in collective stupidity, it binds them and gives self-worth of shared by being part of the crowd. It doesn’t matter how spacious or fantastical the claim is as long as it binds them into unrelenting unit. Indeed, religion is also such a construct. Bonhoeffer was earnest and deeply conscientious during the period under Nazi when even religious heads were looking for easy options so as to not antagonize the powerful and peril their position and life. He passionately criticized inaction of church and accused it as a site for ‘cheap grace’ – “it is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of his Son”. Though he sincerely dealt the situation it cannot be denied that he protested within the fantastical illusion that is religion -that has only increased problems in contemporary world as an active breeding ground for variety of stupid claims. It is also not at all surprising that the movie on him Bonhoeffer is being appropriated by far right christian conservatives in USA (for this very reason the release is postponed). They are calling, defining time of historic US election, as resistance against evil state and appropriating his legacy into christian nationalism. The movie is unabashedly faith-based story -a preacher spreading the word of god, and promo of Bonhoeffer carrying gun (overplaying the role of assassin) to engage in violence to “battle against tyranny” with lines like “my country was invaded from within” wherein Bonhoeffer was much nuanced representation of religion, ‘a voice of love, grace, justice and courage’.  These are the perils of limited frame of engagement of crucial issue. Collective stupidity of religion -simplistic version of life, is seen as liberation from responsibility of complex reality and existential challenges. We have well passed this anachronistic frame, and as religion loses significance the theological construct of moral shifts to humanism arbitrated ethics. Stupidity therefore is not a moral lack but a significant ethical lack with serious social consequence. Neoliberal capitalism is another of collective stupidity that fails to see its consequences nor able to critically scrutinize itself. Stupidity is afterall lack of common sense.  

We all act stupid at some point in our life, we do carry that aspect of stupidity in varying degree and try to improve through self-evaluation and exposure to better understanding. Life as existential absurdity does see stupidity as respite. It is the basis of wit and essential aspect of survival. Most stupidity are childish and purpose to liberate from stress, essentially harmless, unless one is conned, breaks law, or importantly, finds deviant collective to consolidate as normal and not a defect. Stupidity could also be a channel for latent violence against complacent systems that nurture status quo and opportunist beneficiaries. There is a space for stupidity of ‘flat earth society’ but it is a problem if presented as a normal choice. They must be ridiculed as much as religion should be (and this I keep repeating, religion cannot be taken seriously in contemporary reckoning for solutions, it is a problem, more it is authenticated more you inflate the problem. Religious morals have serious alignment issue with humanistic ethics. The attempt to make it as defining identity is sinister, nor is it adding to diversity). Stupidity is not a choice but an ethical flaw. 

Clips of stupid acts are fun to watch. It becomes a problem when we are cunningly addicted to monetize and we slowly lose the ability to critically engage. We are being made stupid by constantly watching stupid. Our threshold of tolerating stupidity is reduced so that we start to slowly entertain fantastical notions. Our scaffolds of critically thinking are continually eroded as we fall prey to short attention dopamine crave. It is feeding our worst emotions (social media must have caution similar to what they have on cigarette cover. Like for instance: this is a 5min video of cat eating food or a 3min video of two people fighting on street, an essential summary with duration so that it puts context as also value of time. Or else regular warning of time elapsed. It gives people option to choose rather than being led by bigtech. A short summary is like a list of ingredients on a packet. It must be made mandatory so that people are cautious before being pulled to watch). These addictions to social media as also attention seeking stupidity that it is nurturing must be dealt with regulation. We have entered unchartered path of atomized isolated alienated individuals virtually connecting into collective to further stupidity. This is having serious ramification and legitimizing worst kind of people into responsible positions. Stupidity is sinister it has led to mass killings, it degrades the world. Stupidity creates herd out of human. It is the product of unthinking mind, lacking critical thinking faculties. Increasing complexities of discourse -varying views in deluge of information and technology, is alienating common people, essentially a failure of society to peg egalitarian values and education to nurture critical thinking and empathy, are incapable to comprehend, relate, or deal, with emerging reality hence seek simple relatable narrations, palatable views to create their own narration further simplifying the complex truth to assuage their insecurities and alienation. Demystifying issues into simple facts and opinions based on empathy and critical thinking will help. Even if there is a failure of communication or breakdown of society, foundation of empathy and critical thinking will find suitable response. It will be wary of views that questions basic human sensibility and actions that undermine humanity.

Thinking and understanding different views and assimilating facts to decipher takes time. Market media has nurtured worldview as attention feeding snippets and caricaturized crucial issues into entertainment. This is now extended by social media. There is a need for culture of slowing down. Neoliberal economics evaluates life as usable resource tagged with price and fast consuming pattern as growth. Fast food MNCs have created infrastructure of hygiene and efficiency but the culture of fast food doesn’t value life. What is needed is food that is made slowly with nutritive ingredient and sustainable process that includes traditional knowledge of the local and preferably served in an environment of inclusive leisure and connection with surrounding -the local ambience creates association with memory of place that will nurture into care. Care connects to values of concern for place, hence environment that assimilates web of life. Such robust grassroot association by its very nature will not encourage stupidity. It is an urgent vigorous connection of care that doesn’t tolerate superficialities. Stupidity can be addressed by awareness of responsibility. A deep sense of sympathy in existential condition, and ability to separate human from their stupidity. There are no stupid people but people who hold some views that are stupid. There is no stupid person, it is not a congenital defect. it is an ethical falling that has a personal and social context. So, we need to separate the person from stupidity. We need to appeal to shared humanity and concerns. Logic or reason has limitations, indeed could backfire as stupidity will find its own logic to be self-satisfied. Personally, I have zero tolerance for stupidity and stupidity that occupies public space as alternative, a primitive society is overwhelmed with stupidity. I as a common person can keep quiet or walk away but a political leader or a social reformer doesn’t have that luxury. They will have to engage. Surely, they cannot call the electorate deplorables or garbage and alienate (particularly in extremely polarized US). They will have to engage with stupidity with all earnestness without losing their bearing, or else seek some other occupation. Also understand likes of Trumps are not accident, he is an extreme spectrum of neoliberal nurtured useful idiots to control the system, and yes Democrats too are in this spectrum so are most political parties across the world. To deal with stupidity there must also be earnestness to address factors that degrade democratic institutions.

New technologies are presenting newer meanings for assertion of free will and the alienation it creates must be understood. The resurgence of religion, rallying to revive the mythical past, are attempts by limited minds and flawed humans to construct and control their reality. At one level it is deeply painful to see this unravelling wherein they could use the possibilities of amazing advancements for better but on the other it is scary. There must be therefore institutional mechanism to create awareness of responsibility. It is complacency and greed that is nurturing stupidity to thrive for gain. Stupidity is seen as distraction. As institutions lose credibility and trust evil seize the opportunity to gain credence. Stupidity facilitates evil. Hence it is important that complacency is called out. Feudal and elitist status quo nurture complacency and distraction as it helps control power and resources and perpetuate exploitation under the garb of democracy. Systems that nurture stupidity sedate indelible aspect of being a human: to use faculty of mind, in such eventuality free will presents scary scenario hence will go back to comforts of stupidity immune to immense evolving understanding of world. Stupidity is herd’s weapon to repeat history and suffer without gaining any insight. Original intent of religion has withered while the egalitarian attempts of religious doesn’t pass the basic scrutiny. The dilapidated framework is therefore carried forward in the garb of faith in all its glitter immune to changed reality therefore, intendedly or unintendedly, nurtures stupidity as the need to hold it together –the crowd needs rallying point and increasingly it is stupidity that is filling the gap as acceptable surrogate. Personal salvation through mystified faith has unraveled into juvenile claims incapable to factor changed reality hence cult of stupidity that claims authority from fantastical world of make belief. Stupidity can be engaged by retrieving “individuality and spontaneity” (totalitarianism works by transforming a person into a superfluous entity through the destruction of individuality and spontaneity- Arendt). Individuality is what defines a human and his or her spontaneous connection with reality is freedom. We must resist any attempt to negate our individuality and curtail our spontaneity and gaiety towards life. It is a lively barrier from turning into a ‘mindless tool’.  Unless institutions are strengthened with democratic principles and individual responsibility nurtured with egalitarian ideals, we will see complacency that feed stupidity which facilitates evil. Awareness of complexities needs framework of care and concern. Complexities that are not complicating but deeper awareness and assertion of simple values and not allowing it into complacency of simplistic narration. Every attempt must be made to retrieve humanity in every human.                      

I leave with these lines from poem by Bonhoeffer, a beacon of religious response in the best tradition of humanism in 20th century.  

Death, lay down your ponderous chains and earthen enclosures
walls that deceive our souls and fetter our mortal bodies,
that we might at last behold what here we are hindered from seeing.      

Need reparative justice not reparation

 

World few centuries back was quite a different place. It was substantially brutal, controlled by ruthless power that arbitrated and decided life of people tempered by religion and systems of heuristic morals in varying degrees of righteousness. Power transacted nature of existence. It was an unstable chaotic world that could turn fatal any moment for no reason, and the constant endeavor was to maintain stability and control. People naturally acquiesced and aligned to nearest power for safety and survival. Every region in the world was controlled by systems and institutions that sought expansion to extend control hence more resources and increased chance of survival. Expansion was basic logic of survival, it was natural order of things and those not competent to face this brutal reality were vanquished, eliminated or controlled. With advancement of technology the control was sought to be extended through this new mean. West with superior power took to control the world. Colonialism exploited the world for resources and power. System of brutality and exploitation of people and nature shifted to bigger forces from smaller players in the region. Technology improvised and sophisticated demands of greed and luxury increased to unsustainable. Could they have steered technology for better purpose? Quite unlikely, technology is determined to maximize the system. Technology will find all its potential and opportunities to gain for the system in whatever ways possible. It is the system that decides. If the system is extractive (as is the case of colonialism) then it will go to whatever possible extend to wantonly exploit. As egalitarian values consolidate into inclusive system the nature of technology align to better deal. Systems have significant say in what aspects of technology be highlighted and nurtured. Inclusive system will not ban technology but regulate on emerging basis without suppressing the possibility of technology that is essential representation of varied voices in modern world. Steering is forced shifting -an exhibition of control, hence not in response to emerging situation or heuristically evaluated decision. Inclusive society will regulate technology as an earnest measure using mechanism of subsidies, taxation and laws that protects its citizen (human rights, discrimination, privacy so on). Indeed, an egalitarian society will naturally align to technologies that doesn’t hinder evolved values.

Colonialism is accepted fact of history that shaped much of the world and discourse until 20^th century. This surely cannot be allowed to influence the emerging world and challenges of 21^st century. Colonial exploitation was past reality doesn’t necessarily mean reparation is present outcome. This is too spacious an argument that doesn’t pass critical scrutiny. The reality of the past shouldn’t be used to evaluate the present, even the semantics of past is problematic. Reparation for what and to whom? Where do you draw reference of exploitation and where do you demarcate line of history? Does it address complexities of historical injustice? Bigger narration of exploitation shouldn’t undermine smaller exploitations that thrived before the advent of colonialism. Was colonial exploited regions egalitarian? Not at all, as mentioned, world was brutal place. To attribute West for past exploitation -indeed being socially efficient and technologically advanced shouldn’t go against them, any other society with same power would be equally, if not more, devastating. Indeed, extending the same logic much of the world will need reparation from, say, marauding islamic army while Indians need to be paid for centuries of brutalities through caste cannibalism, overwhelming mediocrity and nonexistent morals. Also, who will pay and who should be paid is equally important. If Britain decides to pay reparation, then the cost will essentially percolate to common people -as it is the corrupt neoliberal value system has inept public service. People must stand up against this and strongly protest any attempt at so-called historical injustice that will perpetuate contemporary injustice. Also, are these countries with colonial past democratic with essential humanitarian value system, clearly reparation will fill the coffer of corrupt and accentuate disparities. Also, unlike TRC arbitrated monetary reparation to specific victims and families in S.Africa -that is a recent history and reconciliation of racially divided population was need of the hour, colonial history has passed few generations. Reparation also has a sinister narration of normalizing british feudal system as patronizing benign. What is needed is systemic change not short-term fix and semantic ruse to extend the discourse to nowhere. Subsidies and investment on quality education and nutrition has an impact to rectify injustice while inculcating dignity to younger generation. Richer countries must increase grants for higher education in poorer societies -taking care not to further local inequalities and regressive values, most early migrants to West are byproduct of regressive values severely reducing space for reparative justice for blacks -who faced horrendous exploitations through slavery.

Past exploitative consequences must be factored in framing international accord, like say, climate justice -historical pollution is an important parameter in deciding -even in case of biodiversity -colonial exploitations severely degraded forests and land for mining coal and other resources. Subsidized sustainable technology transfer and infrastructure for quality education are mechanism to factor in the exploitation of past. Lack of vibrant democratic institutions in poorer societies also lead to neocolonial exploitation (like for precious minerals in Africa, people of DRC have even taken corporates to international court), this can replicate to outer space and deep sea mining unless effective laws are enforced. What is needed is inclusive democratic systems vibrant to factor in fast evolving world. International institutions and discourse must reflect these for better possibility and safer world. What this essentially means is that feudal institutions, exploitative dehumanizing value systems that nurtured horrors of colonialism, doesn’t have any place in contemporary world and is indeed an affront on humanity. Dismantling colonial value system and feudal structures is beginning of reparative justice. Reparative justice as a transformative inclusive justice that nurtures institutions and empowers indivduals.               

Reevaluating Kipling

 

I have had quite churning last few days. I read ‘If’ by Rudyard Kipling again. It is a poem that touched me quite deeply when I was trying to find my footing in nasty noisy Delhi horror -was really ambling the edge, few steps into abyss, and when you are young these kind of ‘inspiring’ poems gives meaning. Surely, I owe Kipling gratitude hence the urge to reevaluate the mainstream narration. It is important to engage, understand, and not to shun based on staid narrations or powerful interests that have frozen contemporary into past narrations. So I thought to spend time to critically analyze Kipling, not on his entire oeuvre (quite incompetent to do that, nor have I read all his work) but narration that attempt to undermine. I maybe wrong but my views matter, atleast to me. What is clear is that Kipling was brilliant writer as also incisive and sensitive as can be judged by Jungle Book. "Kipling, the supposed expert writer on India, showed a better understanding of the mind of the animals in the jungle than of the men in an Indian home or the marketplace" commented RK Narayan. There is no reference of Kipling claiming that he is an expert writer on India nor is it attributed anywhere. And yes, understanding minds of animals (ofcourse anthropomorphized, nevertheless a story that delighted generations of young readers) is an appreciable attribute and a personal choice. It also questions on what was RK Narayan’s understanding of men (women were yet to be discovered -thanks LeGuin!) in an Indian home or marketplace? His fictions were well written and one of them (The English Teacher) searingly personal that left deep imprint on me. Narayan, like Kipling, was also a brilliant writer and exceedingly funny who created endearing characters, nostalgic reminder of innocent world gone by that you want to clasp and not let go. But his fiction had basic flaw, he gives a fantastically naïve version of Indian society sanitized of apparent glaring blemish that is everyday reality of common people. It is a simplified world of simplistic people with excessive emotions. These nice stories tickled the sensibilities of elite narration on an afternoon siesta. It hardly showcased grittiness and heartbreaking reality of what is essentially a primitive society. Well, it is his choice to place fiction the way he wants to but to claim an understanding of Indian society, or attributing a reflection of Indian reality, doesn’t pass basic scrutiny (indeed most Indian writers lack sincerity and romanticize the bleak, those who show sensitivity come out as excessively patronizing and insipid, after my earlier reading -as I was exploring as a beginner, I rarely indulge Indian writers, they mostly lack vigor, there were rare exceptions like say NirmalVerma -also liked him as a person, Bashir, Mistry so on). Narayan’s nonfiction musings could have balanced this lack instead he comes out as a self-absorbed colossal bore and irresponsibly inane.

Colonial Britain was much advanced having consolidated ideas of science and philosophy into streamlined thinking and institutions. Britain was at the center of industrial revolution and was essentially the engine of human progress (powerful monarchy created the conditions is undeniable). It is therefore natural for anyone placed within the society to feel superior when encountering a world which was seriously wanting and primitive in all apparency. And when you see the other of different skin color it is but natural to see the pattern and attribute to race hence racism. Writers, of the caliber and sensibilities of Kipling, are meant to be different. They cannot herd people into discrimination or dismiss whole society based on what they may see on daily basis as the only reality. They are supposed to do their work and search for redeeming qualities in the morass of neglect and find individuals to claim humanity. They have to break pattern of complacency in classifying and negating people into horrible discriminations. So how did Kipling fare? Well, his heart was in the right place, and surely was a victim of circumstance. You cannot blame him for ‘white man’s burden’ since he genuinely believed it as a benign responsibility (benign and not racist considering his nuanced sensibilities). How this got detached into wider narration, and to contemporary interpretation, is definitely his fault, as a writer he could have anticipated this pattern -surely, he must have observed blatant racism around him. He was privy to better version of humanity but he failed. Also, as a incisive writer he could have eviscerated Indian society into all its worth with the kind of empathy that was evident in Jungle Book. He chose not to. That reminds me of profoundly insightful Swedish writer Harry Martinson, who spent few days in Mumbai in early 19th century while his ship was docked -he was stoker labour at the engine. His heightened sensibilities and complexities of existential experiences he faced equipped him to effortlessly spot redeeming humanity in the beauty of ordinary people trapped in absolute rot of depraved society (for more you may visit https://depalan.blogspot.com/2023/12/on-meditative-stillness.html). Kipling chose not to and that is where he compromised.

The youngsters in british university were right to insist on Angelou’s poem. It is urgent and values the time in which we live in, importantly it reflects these youngster’s deeply held values and inspirations. Kipling’s poem is not bad but simply not suited. He is also perceived as racist in enlightened interpretation of contemporary cannot be denied.                  

 

Inirida: the flower that never dies

...meanwhile 23 targets of the Kunming-Montreal COP15 Biodiversity is not on track...

 

I bear the tide

You may write me down in history

With your bitter, twisted lies,

You may trod me in the very dirt

But still, like dust, 

I’ll rise…

Out of the huts of history’s shame

I rise 

Up from a past that’s rooted in pain

I rise

I’m a black ocean, leaping and wide,

Welling and swelling I bear in the tide… 

Wrote indomitable precious Maya Angelou in ‘Still I Rise’. These lines were painted over Rudyard Kipling’s poem by conscientious youngsters in one of the UK university. They argue that “Kipling stands for the opposite of liberation, empowerment and human rights –the things that we students stand for”. They add this act as “a statement on the reclamation of history by those who have been oppressed by the likes of Kipling for so many centuries, and continue to be to this day”. This is what right kind of education and awareness does to young. They consolidate values that stand for what is right, unblemished by cynicism and manipulation of the outside world. Insular, unaware, cynical neoliberal goal oriented youth is death of humanity. Maya Angelou was one of the most significant voices of protest and memory of oppression. I am deeply moved by her writing. I feel she wasn’t adequately recognized by the world outside US despite the fact that she remains immensely popular in articulating voices of subjugated masses and protesting people across the world. Unlike Kipling, who chose to be the voice of colonial power and exploitation, authenticated racism ‘white man’s burden’ -the extractive system (surely it cannot be inclusive), adequately rewarded him (he is also the youngest Nobel laureate in Literature! Incidentally prodigious Chekov was very much alive. No writer has taken me in as much as Chekov). He was born in India (so was one of the greatest writer George Orwell -who’s significance surges each day) at Malabar hills -not to be mistaken for Malabar region in Kerala -that would make Kipling a Keralite (!!), the name traces from spice traders who settled from malabar (Malabar hill in Mumbai -one of the costliest locations in India even has Cochin street, Calicut street so on). Kipling was very much influenced by India, clearly as an extractive abstraction since his writing had many racist references eulogizing british colonial empire, and to justify it in the context of times he lived in estimates him as of low intelligence and exonerate his lack of basic humanity least from an immensely talented writer.    

So, I was reading britishery of british media. Jingo imperialism marches on lacking basic humanity or universal concern, insular in entitlement, continuing arrogance of theatre of medieval absurdity wriggling into modernity. It so happened that british ‘royals’ are visiting (touring is the word used) Australia, and continuing with the anachronistic colonial entitlements they also are head of state. Incidentally British monarchy is head of state of 15 countries, and if you go through the list, except Australia, Canada and New Zealand, all the remaining 12 countries are insignificantly small or too poverty ridden and weak to assert itself. So what is it about Australia, Canada and New Zealand? Well, these are white dominated countries, the same white people who were part of colonial britishers who decided to settle in the land after appropriating resources and decimating original inhabitant into insignificance. They did it in USA too but white americans were enterprisingly independent and self-respecting to seek degrading monarchy. They revolted, and so began one of the most resourceful experimentations with idea of democracy, after French revolution, that catalyzed humanity in significant ways.

To put it in context, imagine if colonizing britishers decimated most of Indians and left us insignificantly less in number and weak, and so the powerful white people with exploitative control and brutal majority decides to continue to have british monarchy as our head of state in India. Imagine that! And now imagine that the same horror perpetrating system (ofcourse nurtured on the foundation of racist exceptionalism) is maintained with same pomp and gala (as if nothing has happened in last few centuries, some kind of bad dream that could be wished away with sway of narration control!) and we are asked to receive the hereditary entitled as head of state on occasional tour. This is what has happened to aboriginal people (semblance of pride through first nation people), indigenous, natives as also sane people who reject these feudal anachronistic theatrics in Australia, Canada and NewZealand. There is a reason why likes of VS Naipaul -a brilliant writer, someone whom I read with great relish and significantly impacted my ideas of writing, chose not to eviscerate monarchy, which he could have easily. Associating and aligning with powerful narration controllers comes with benefits. He cleverly chose to work feudal as stabilizing force, a precursor to consolidating culture and science so on into systems, and if truly competent, appropriating the best from across the world for critical inquiry -as science got consolidated in Britain in an inquisitive inclusive value system of logic and critical thinking ofcourse within the framework of racist and gender discrimination. That doesn’t explain continuation of these extractive systems and degrading values in contemporary world. Silence on these matters is how you trace the control of powerful narrations.  

And so it continues. Linda Thorpe, an indigenous leader, protested at the presence of british monarch in Australia’s parliament. If you know the heartbreaking horror of british history (headed by the monarch) in the region you will empathize with her. But instead, what you see is classic example of britishery. It needs to be recorded to consolidate the idea of britishery (the way they consolidated thuggery, pariah so on with brute force into language). It is quite a sophisticated sophistry, there are two strains of narration going on here, one is how they describe Linda Thorpe -crude unsophisticated ‘new-caught sullen peoples, half devil and half child’, and second is the ‘royals’ -nuanced, ‘nostalgia’(of what?), indeed almost ephemeral apparition in ‘warm bubble’ of kindness unblemished by humanly concerns.                                                                                                                             

Take a look at this pic of news ‘reporting’. They couldn’t get photographs of Ms. Thorpe in snarling sinister angle -that creates revulsions among readers, these are usual tricks neoliberal media use to construct narration in the garb of news. So while ‘royals’ ‘entered’ Thorpe had ‘positioned’, her ‘outburst’ it is assumed ‘created sympathy for the royals’ as she was ‘not being polite to the guests’ (the attempt to ‘decency’ implicit in wording of ‘guest’ must be noted, factually ‘royal’ here is not a ‘guest’ but ‘head of state’ hence head of the parliament). There was a comment on her sartorial choice as also sarcasm over “indigenous sovereignty’, general jokes and banter to keep the ‘royals’ amused by parliamentarians presenting as agreeable plebs, one said ‘People have had haircuts, people have shined shoes, suits have been pressed. And that’s just the republican’. They all laughed, kind of quaint sea sparkling gallant of saved civilization.  

In recent times there are documented incidents of racism by british ‘royals’ -put this in context to life of most people in 21^st century who live in much evolved value system, as also elderly people in all possible luxury carrying such mindset, it is not accidental, they 'don't drop from the sky'. These are crucial bearings of feudal values that nurture extractive primitive institutions and devalues humans. They will favour the powerful or contrive narration of benefits. Mr. Charles even supports fatwa by mullahs of Iran on Rushdie (as quoted by Martin Amis). Now juxtapose this with 'disrespectful' Ms. Thorpe. Such is the disconnect. It is natural for primitive feudal institutions to align with oppressor over liberty and freedom. They fancy stability and control over human rights as it threatens their legitimacy. They authenticate and normalize feudal oppressive forces from across the world, and yes also take expensive gifts from equally dubious -surely to influence narrations undermining democratic institutions. Therefore, media can easily be ‘sexed up’ and manipulated when needed. General degradation of Britain and absolute arrogance of its leaders can be traced to these feudal systems. Regressive institutions will create regressive ecosystem, is there a surprise?             

To be fair I don’t use past-history, to evaluate present. Present can be understood with insight of past, the relevance stops there. There are no lessons since the present is not past, it has no parallels unless ofcourse people are herds who have just replicated through time. History repeats when people are herds. Vibrant living humans evolve with contemporary knowledge and understanding, they become better. They are not the same to repeat. History is primed to repeat if you maintain the feudal system from past, a regressive infrastructure, like a virus, activates when conditions are conducive. History, as an understanding and evolving involvement, is lost in morass of revivalism as it galvanizes primal fear and repeats horrors of exceptionalism and supremacist ideas into modern institutions and discourse incapacitated to factor the possibilities of present. The reason why Britain continues to nurture feudal extractive systems that degrades democratic institutions and nurture inegalitarian value system is because they are being cushioned by luxury of colonial extravagance. Their patronizing is from the position of plenty or atleast the arrogance of its memory of exceptionalism -feudal hangover. The extractive feudal ecosystem will eventually set the rot in as it is too compromised to deal with modern values. When reality strikes, they will eventually realize the need to reform and dismantle restrictive institutions with inclusive egalitarian reflecting essentials of democracy and equality.      

*full disclosure: Before I started reading too much and entered murky world of racism, colonialism so on I was quite naïve fellow and really liked 'If' by Kipling (it is quite a nice poem if you don't bring in the context of poet, views and so on) so much so that I got it framed and gifted it to one of the organisation I was part timing for. They put it at the reception. I also liked 'Jungle Book' -didn't read but saw the movie/cartoon serial.         

 

Promethean liberation

 Can we steer the technology is an interesting idea that I accidentally stumbled upon. I was not aware of this aspect of technology. I was doing mandatory peripheral reading of Nobel prize in Economics. Peripheral since I am not too keen on economics ((unlike Physics – quite fascinated about this field since Star Trek and Cosmos, as also Medicine -the only adult book available at home during childhood was Materia Medica that I used to flip through regularly, also gutting insects and studying their entrails. Literature, since I too dabbled in it and realize how difficult it is to express in words (i am reading Han Kang's Human Act -the state brutality is searingly counterbalanced with whispering absences of victims. Amazing creative control) as also new ideas and thoughts through nonfiction and subtleties of poetry so on, though I don’t find some of the choices interesting but mostly they are tremendous and fascinating and I make it a point to read them)) but mandatory as I am inquisitive to know about their contribution. It could be interesting and sometimes new insights that one can relate to. Offhand I recall being introduced to fresh take on ‘tragedy of commons’ (Elinor Ostrom -whom I happen to listen in person at ATREE Bangalore), nudge (Richard Thaler), satisficing (Herbert Simon), asymmetry of information (Stiglitz). While some economists as writers of really interesting books like Gunnar Myrdal, Daniel Kahneman, and to lesser extent regrettable Amartya Sen.

So here I was cursorily going through and very soon latched on to really fascinating, indeed exceedingly relevant, in context to AI. I was watching talks by Daron Acemoglu (as also James Robinson -a well-travelled researcher with lots of insights from different regions of the world, the extractive and inclusive institutions playing role in failure and success of societies) and was riveted to progress of technology from a new perspective. Technology leads to efficiency which increases productivity and benefits percolating to workers. With decades of studies and some insightful examples they argue that although productivity increased it didn’t really benefit the workers (windmills converted peasants into forced laborers, cotton gin made enslaved black people’s life harsher etc). While ‘productivity bandwagon’ (progress hinged on technology) increased wages over the decades it also accentuated disparities instead of ‘shared prosperity’. Workers weren’t getting the share of productivity gains. The result of shift towards centralizing profit (they don’t mention it but we all know the Reagan era consolidation of neoliberal hubris that eventually ensnared the world). Adam Smith’s free market as benign means to a decent society was weaponized into neoliberal free market gargantuan greed. “Social responsibility of business is to increase its profit”, pontificated Milton Freedman, and so workers were dispensable commodity and indeed seen as hindrance for profit maximization. With state aiding and siding with neoliberal forces labour unions lost their power and relevance, were viciously dealt and outlawed by corporates. Invisible hand morphed into clenched fist that threaten against any role of the state. With that they controlled the narration of capitalism as insatiable predatory market. Much of what is being pushed aside, and violently so in recent times, as socialism is infact the core of Adam smith’s conception of capitalism. State has a crucial role to regulate, ensure justice and provide essential services. Regulatory role of state is becoming critical as neoliberal controlled unfettered market greed has vandalized societies, alienated individuals, and destroyed nature.

Automation replaces worker with efficient reliable technology as has happened in most of manufacturing processes, also there is significant difference between automated tool and AI tool -that works on realtime feedback learning loop. Very soon private public interface will be AI automated. State may refuse to use the technology but you cannot prevent private players. Take the example of ubiquitous humanless ATM, when was the last time you went to crowded bank and wasted time and resources to fill up a form to collect money? Ofcourse this is a benign example that is decades old. World has changed much with AI in the last few years, AI automated interface is inevitable and has already begun with payment through smart phone so on as it consolidates towards multimodal interface. If humanless learning of AlphaZero can revolutionize chess imagine the possibilities. You cannot prevent AI taking jobs of, say, a Radiologists as it is efficient. Radiologist will have much reduced job of complementing AI (possibly overseeing since human lives are concerned, possibilities of hallucination) hence more time for meaningful upgradation. You can unionize for your rights but you cannot prevent AI automation. You may call it techno-determinism but it is using available means for increasing efficiency, or simply not wanting to deal with messy humans who can easily be replaced. How will you prevent this choice? Organisation have right to save money and streamline process, it is a logical option and not as tyrant as maximizing profit at the expense of environment or public health. It is not violating any rights nor is it taking away jobs that is essentially meaningful that needs human ingenuity. Is the humanity ready to strip the layers of hubris and face the existential meaning or do we need more psychiatrists and police force?

Human being is not a resource to be utilized, nor are they cheap labour to create market advantage. Human beings are individuals. Anything that evaluate less than this reality is dehumanizing, whatever maybe the construct or intention. The flaw in the argument is in constructing solution that evaluates human being as economic entity. An entity that needs to be a cog to find meaning in life or is enthusiastic to be labour in a meaningless occupation. A social animal dictated and motivated by social matrix of status and power. These conceptions of primitive societies cannot be defining characteristics of human in modern world. Human must be dealt in entire possibility of his or her being. AI is asking us to reevaluate definitions we have taken for granted. What is the meaning of job? The economic definition of job/work/task (or what they refer around here: "duty" -which I found especially obnoxious) falls short of fulfilling the requirements of humans as individuals. Artificial intelligence is taking away artificial jobs, jobs that are constructed to be kept occupied in an alienating circumstances and dehumanizing value systems. The semantics of economy cannot really contain the reality of being a human. Words will therefore have to find the approximate meaning of this fast changing reality. Words like development, progress, growth so on will have to contain the entirety of human experience and aspiration. Words need to mean what it was really conceived to mean and expand into newer approximation of better possibilities and not appropriated by powerful controllers to reduce the experience and create narrations to perpetuate extractive systems.

Unlike past, where speed and impact of technology was limited, who controls AI is important since its power is far reaching and possibly cataclysmic if not effectively regulated. Such powerful technology cannot be decided by neoliberal narration nor estimated through economic pointers. What direction the AI innovation takes will be influenced by institutions and ecosystems as also rogue states. You cannot control the direction of technology, it will innovate for the opportunistic needs and immediate benefits. Powerful forces will try to dictate but at the end of the day it will have to be used by people or used on people, for traction of profit or control, or else it loses significance. So there is inevitability of technology once it is invented and the potential for use is identified. Nuclear technology went in for all possibilities from benign to sinister eventhough it was monopolized by state unlike AI -many corporate use billion-dollar GPU run Foundational models that provide platform for all kinds of applications. Authoritarian countries like China is using full force of state machinery to seek tech dominance through AI, Quantum and Genetic engineering by whatever means (authoritarian ecosystem doesn't nurture innovation, it just copies. Interestingly ancient China was way ahead in innovation that the state found threatening its stability and order. Song dynasty pushed inwardness and order over free thinking taking China into darkness, the communist dug it further. Great wall of China is a metaphor of Chinese insularity and downgrading). Neoliberal ecosystems and authoritarian states will bring worst out of technology that really doesn’t mean it can be banned. Technology once it finds traction cannot be banned. Institutions must be modified to create ecosystem of egalitarian needs and universal benefits of AI. State must effectively take up the role of regulator with awareness of changing context and technological innovations. Human rights, privacy concerns -liberty, creative control -freedom, data access -equality, so on are potent delimitating and effective tools to streamline AI and align to ethics. Catastrophic possibilities of AI must be strictly regulated with international treaty like for instance the threat of AI automated weapons -the superior inaccessible reasoning makes it extremely tricky to control. Progress of technology is inevitable you cannot ban it; you can regulate it and streamline to international treaties and rule of law.

There is a compelling argument on redirecting technology. A call against blind tech-optimism, as also urgent need to include diverse voices in the debate than confined it to narrow field of tech experts since technology has societal, economical and political implications, and I may add cultural implication too (also some of these Tech heads are clearly showing signs of megalomania, essentially nutcases with enormous power). Ofcourse caution and vigilance is needed against exaggerated claims. It must be understood that humanity’s progress is very much hinged on technological progress. Technology is exposing people to various experiences, ideas, cultures and thinking, and with proper regulation against fake, misinformation and disinformation as also vigilance against corporate recommender algorithm of attention greed into dark regions can be curtailed. It cannot be denied that social media did increase transparency and consolidated democratization of society (fiercely disagree with Acemoglu on this, BigTech mischief like Cambridge Analytica can be dealt with effective regulation and data privacy) by severely undermining legacy institutions and empowering common people by providing them a tool to resist, connect and express. There are two issues here. One, converting these voices and embedding into progressive institutions is a weak link. We saw how Occupy Wall Street movement and Tahrir square protests orchestrated through social media fizzling out, indeed backfired in later case. It was not failure of technology but lack of vibrancy in the institutions that were controlled by feudal regressive interests. Second, fast spreading technology and techno optimism led to slackness in regulations hence neoliberal nurtured corporate undermined democratic institutions and individual privacy. 

Social mobilization and government policy initiatives to shift from fossil fuel technology to renewable energy technology is quite successful model to emulate. International treaties, subsidies, regulations and pressure from civil society can play progressive role in directing technology. But it is not really changing direction of technology and surely is not applicable to AI nor can AI be redirected -it can be regulated through transparency of foundational model data so on but then what with synthetic data -what pattern it is iterating in the loop? Technology will find as many paths as there are possibilities and what aspect of technology is nurtured too depends on myriad factors. Shifting technology from fossil fuel to sustainable is based on scientific consensus of irretrievable damage on climate. Also, it is shifting of alternative -they are meant to perform same task. Indeed the shift is slow due to slack efficiency in progress of sustainable -especially battery technology, energy density so on -ofcourse things are changing fast. There is no parallel nor alternative to AI. It is a genie that is out of the box, and all possible alternative will be explored for monetization, for control, for superiority. It will expose humanity in every possible way.       

AI is not ‘new technology’, as in incremental addition to the past, this is a paradigm shifting technology hence cannot be fitted and streamlined into past narrations and extrapolated. There are exaggerations in AI but there isn’t any doubt that this is paradigm shifting at two levels. One, in the very idea and scope of technology. AI automation is not staid instruction based fixed mechanized tool but a dynamic, thinking (within the narrow framework), partner in the task with ambiguous evolving goals. This artificial intelligence, in limited frame of assigned task, is much superior to human in its assimilation and reasoning. It’s a breathtaking leap and must be acknowledged in all its gravity. Second, AI automation raises the important question of the very definition of work. These two compelling reasons makes it disconnect from past. So the claim that this is just an extension of continuing struggle between ‘technology and prosperity’ for thousands of years is profoundly troubling estimation. Implication on society maybe tenuously similar but nor the technology nor the seismic shift in understanding of job/work is same as also human evolve in modern understandings exposed to contemporary humanistic concerns and awareness. Ossified ideas of role of human and what keeps him or her occupied miss the holistic aspects of what modernity presents and how humanity has evolved in globalized world. We need to even question regressive system appropriated semantics -understanding of words like prosperity and its exaggerated influence on society. Wellbeing is a comprehensive understanding (ofcourse Kahneman places it on memory!) and to hinge it on jobs and status is a regressive valuation of society and fixed motivational frame assigned to humans. Herd need to be kept occupied or else they slip into dire is the patronizing reasoning that emerge from feudal extractive ecosystem. Humans are free souls and they will find their reasons if systems and institutions are sensitive to seek their potential as unique individuals. It is elitist to assume workers will find meaning in meaningless jobs. This may threaten the status quo of control hence these elaborate ruse.        

There is a realistic evaluation of something really profound in this technological leap. How humanity utilizes these depends on the ecosystems on which it is nurtured and regulated so as to contain the threat to humanity. The ecosystem that enhances human capacity through technology is a way forward. Meanwhile it needs to be kept in mind superior technology cannot be undermined for the need of human employment, it can only synergize, and AI presents unique unprecedented challenges that has no parallel. AI challenges us to redefine society so as to enhance egalitarian values so that technology synergize into development. It asks us to rethink ideas of job, how we spent our time and what we value. AI presents mirror on humanity and asks uncomfortable question on what it is to be human. Buried in institutions (which helped us to evolve from extractive to inclusive), jargons, and much hubris of centuries, it is time to extricate and evaluate the human. Surely neoliberal capitalism is woefully incapable to undertake this responsibility, nor will it be allowed to usurp these concerns into its fold and vitiate crucial issue with meaningless jargons and word play to please the status quo. Trapped, as it is, in ossified institutions and meanings entombed to an age which has no similarities to the contemporary. History creates awareness, ofcourse limited to the context of time and space, to extrapolate that into present is to miss the complexity of history and evolved reality of contemporary. It is to trap human into lowest estimation as herd. History is not about knowing but understanding. Understanding the limitations. 

Institutions are subjective construct that helped to stabilize societies and surely cannot reckon existential realities. AI is the Prometheus humans have conceived to think deeper into nature of things. AI is a promethean technology liberation for humanity and a challenge to powerful narrations. To work is to be a creator, an artisan. Job is chiseling of skill to represent one’s unique presence and voice of diversity in a synchrony of humanity. Clearly economist’s estimation of human is limited so is their assumption of safety nets like UBI and understanding of human motivation. ‘Shared prosperity’ needs to update with contemporary reality. Patriarchal egoistic valuation of work as meaningless hardwork (referencing physical machoism relic of hunter gatherer mismatch) compensation as ‘breadwinner for the family’ doesn’t fit into contemporary society. There are meaningful ways to spent precious time nor is there any need to be bothered about fragile male ego defining jobs that economists have taken seriously -essentially to prevent the collapse of crucial façade of outdated theories and complacency to factor in changed reality. Shared prosperity means sharing the prosperity. UBI and safety nets are very much concerns of justice within the ambit of Adam Smith conception before these were vandalized by Reagan-Thatcher plot. Socialist concerns of capitalism therefore must be retrieved from neoliberal degradation of capitalism. When the idea and definition of growth is questioned then neoliberal degrowth is possible. What is not inevitable is destructive march of neoliberal capitalism. It is not the direction of technology that matters -as pointed out it cannot be controlled but regulated, it the ecosystem that nurture these that matters. Hence extractive crony capitalistic neoliberal ecosystem and authoritarian regime will produce worst possibilities of technology. So the attention need to be on the ecosystem (egalitarian institution, democratic ideals, socialist capitalist state as dispenser of crucial services and infrastructure of equity and freedom, value education so on) and not on technology. State has crucial role in “sharing prosperity” through safety nets and subsidized services. State has a vital responsibility in the AI augmented inevitable world. Neoliberal value system cannot be allowed to undermine state, democratic institutions and principles.                        

You cannot assume Sisyphus to be happy. You have to nurture systems and institutions evolved to the contemporary reality and semantics that approximates the dynamic. Prometheus will have to share the burden of existential absurdity.  

    

 

Nurturing extractive systems

 

Imagine the kind of degradation that express such views and then britishery of the media that conceives these cringe headlines (the marketing intention of these are to imprint on herd while they may not read the details, it’s about attracting attention and take away value system). Such sickness, and these very colonial minded patronize the ‘third world’ with their angst industry, with thyselves in the central role as arbitrators and dispensers. After depleting resources and severely infecting fledgling democracies with feudal values they select genuflecting degraded feudals from outside Europe to shower their largesse. They also select few as representing poorer societies, or those they assume need their guidance, the burden they carry seep out as angst. Meanwhile the sleek representors study the needs and nuances of their benefactors and act accordingly, and usurp benefits that comes from hallowed position of representing diversity and gain gravitas to guide us in the ‘third world’. These are to represent the other world, the exotic, and worst references they are (caste cannibal’s hypocritical sleaze and monster mullah’s barbarian values) the better for their positioning. The scale of difference will have to be stretched for assurance of deal. The problem is that, thanks to technology, this quaint world of debauchery and hedonist orgy of constructed ideas of diversity that is dumped on people is being breached. People are not usable for grander narrations. That likes of Trump is even having a fighting chance is clearly a failure of democracy and serious indictment of power hungry elite who controlled the narration. It’s an opportunist mix of arrogance and complacency. Even if Harris wins US democracy is already compromised. 

Countries like Britain have not only degraded the world with their colonial excess (which ofcourse I am not terribly concerned since these were done century back, in the time frame when brutal power mattered and that nincompoop and inbred mediocres were incapable to respond shows their lack, what matters is systems that exist now). Colonial structures and administrative mechanism were spinoff benefits of transfer of power as it provided stability on which democratic institution could be built. This however couldn’t work since the feudal british nurtured their replicants leading to wanton corruption, crony capitalism and nepotistic consolidation. Feudal values created deference to authority and crave for power. Britishery infected values of fledgling democracies muting their possibilities. Meanwhile the arrogance of west morphed into self-flagellating angst. Self here is cleverly extended to common people on whom this burden is pushed. West will not be allowed to control narration, nor with its selected minions as representors. It is not about people but systems that is being nurtured (to take the example from pic here, these two are probably nice people but that is not the point at all and we aren’t bothered). Feudal values create extractive systems. It nurture exploitative systems in whatever form it arise and extinguishes possibilities of inclusive values (except under the theatrics of feudal patronage or orchestrated largesse of feudals controlling state machinery). It undermines democracy and degrade humanity. It is a dead end for ethics. Abyss of hopelessness.       

                                    

Evening birding

Today is World Migratory Day (second Saturday of October -this year’s focus is ‘Protect insects to protect birds’) and so decided to go for evening walk along the nearby wetland extending to paddy field. It was overcast sky, it rained quite heavily in the morning. Birds were quite active. Mostly resident species as migratory season is about to begin. Spotted early migrant Common Sandpiper (Actitis hypoleucos) and its characteristic nervous oscillating tail as he busied himself along the waterbody.  

Following birds were spotted: 

Painted Stork (Mycteria leucocephala) 

Asian openbill Stork (Anastomus oscitans) 

Black-headed Ibis (Threskiornis melanocephalus) 

Purple Heron (Ardea purpurea) 

Oriental Darter (Anhinga melanogaster) 

Blue-tailed Bee eater (Merops philippinus) 

Red-wattled Lapwing (Vanellus indicus) 

Spotted Munia (Lonchura punctulata)

Red-backed Kite (Haliastur indus) -‘Brahminy’ is an offensive reference and must be expunged 

Yellow-billed Babbler (Argya affinis) 

Purple-rumped Sunbird (Leptocoma zeylonica) 

Indian Pond heron (Ardeola grayii) 

Black Drango (Dicrurus macrocercus) 

Barn Swallows (Hirundo rustica) 

As also little cormorants, common crows, common mynas, egrets (cattle, great, intermediate, little). Calls of Peacocks, White-cheeked Barbets and Tailorbirds (or is it Prinia?)

Hibakusha poems: expressing the inexpressible

 

I was aware of hibakusha -survivors of atomic bombing by US on Japan in 1945, watched documentaries and videos of this horrific atrocity and read extensively, recently (thanks to technology) I have done virtual visits to Hiroshima peace memorial and park around it. I read that night lighting of the surviving dome in eerie green and orange inside conveys appropriate emotions of dread and horror. I wasn’t aware of hibakusha poems -poems by survivors, and so today evening I was reading. These experiences are too traumatic, and it takes extraordinary human fortitude to even begin articulating what one likes to forget as a nightmare and move away with any semblance of life. This is what trauma does it leaves unfathomable silence. I was reading how trauma get carried epigenetically to next generation. The brutality is not confined to memories of individual or society but traces through the genes, through bodies, into future generations. There are many communities around the world reeling in indescribable trauma carrying the dread of past in their everyday life expressed in small details which they aren’t even aware. Indeed, much of humanity is continuing trauma of surviving the past as hunter gatherers, the reason why most humans are effortlessly innovative and independent while carrying empathy and generosity. What makes some societies exceptionally cruel or tolerant to cruelty cannot really be brushed under the euphemism of relativism. We live in globalized world hence the narrations and sensitivities (indeed sensibilities) of 20^th century has limited significance, essentially anachronistic nuisance in most case nurtured by sinister forces for control. Truth needs to be spoken clearly with logic and evidence. Some regions of world are exceptionally violent and unsettled, apart from controlling systems that nurture these, effective outlets of traumas of communities is an issue that cannot be negated.

Hibakusha poems broke the silence through stillness of haiku and tanka while they detached into meditative universality of pain. Soon, as the life start to flow and vigor returned, they became aware of the responsibility of unique experience. This unique voice that has witnessed the horrors of atomic bombs vaporizing happy thriving lives into nothing in an instant and are now forced to witness the ignominy of forgetfulness of humanity -of some arrogant humans, as they dabble in nuclear bombs with horrifying carelessness incapacitated to understand the devastating consequences. Hibakusha free verse poems are visceral in its simplicity and overwhelming in its impact. Truth is always in sincere, and trauma carries the urgency of earnest description. Language is stripped bared to its basic necessity so as to keep the experience palpable and immediate. You feel as if you are there as a witness as each line grip you into immense suffering. This urgency of trauma maybe the reason why many survivors live longer (i have seen these with holocaust survivors too) probably the prolonged life as a persistent reminder to a witness to human stupidity, to temper their tall claims.      

Wittgenstein (the philosophical moorings of AI is undeniably in approximation of meaning, bravo Wittgenstein!) was onto something about limits of language (“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”) but it is ingenuity of humans to cross the confines of logic and describe the indescribable.

This copied from https://www.pbs.org/newshour/features/hiroshima-poems/

Let Us Be Midwives! An untold story of the atomic bombing

by Sadako Kurihara, translated by Richard Minear

Night in the basement of a concrete structure now in ruins.
Victims of the atomic bomb jammed the room;
It was dark—not even a single candle.
The smell of fresh blood, the stench of death,
The closeness of sweaty people, the moans.
From out of all that, lo and behold, a voice:
"The baby’s coming!"
In that hellish basement,
At that very moment, a young woman had gone into labour.
In the dark, without a single match, what to do?
People forgot their own pains, worried about her.
And then: "I'm a midwife. I’ll help with the birth."
The speaker, seriously injured herself, had been moaning only moments before.
And so new life was born in the dark of that pit of hell.
And so the midwife died before dawn, still bathed in blood.
Let us be midwives!
Let us be midwives!
Even if we lay down our own lives to do so.

Sadako Kurihara (1913 – 2005) was a poet, writer and peace activist who survived the Hiroshima bombing.

                             

Living Planet Index

 

Living Planet Index (LPI) tracks the average trend rather than increases or declines in the total number of animals. The global LPI 2024 shows a decrease of 73%. Imagine that! Common observation, like the birds that we used to see so often have become rare, is an indication of cumulative staggering loss.

The report https://www.livingplanetindex.org/ also elaborates on five tipping points of global significance that we are nearing. 1). Amazon rainforest drying off which will have devastating consequences for people, biodiversity and the global climate. Tipping point will reach if just 20–25% of the Amazon rainforest is destroyed -and as much as 17% has been deforested already. Read that again 17% of amazon forest is already destroyed, and so within a decade or so we could tip into no return scenario. 2). Coral reef die off due to coral bleaching have become frequent. Coral reefs will not be able to function as ecosystem (known as the rainforest of oceans). For instance, Great Barrier Reef have faced mass coral bleaching events in 1998, 2002, 2016, 2017, 2020, 2022 and 2024, as you can see the frequency and intensity have increased (I have seen videos of desolated coral reef and divers virtually crying for the loss…the more aware you become devastating it is. I too sometimes go into deep depression when I go for walk and don’t see much biodiversity that I used to). 3). Melting ice sheets, two massive ice sheets -in Greenland and the West Antarctic, are at risk of passing a tipping point where melting becomes irreversible disrupting ocean circulation and cause sea levels to rise several metres. 4). Collapse of Atlantic Ocean Circulation would devastate marine ecosystems, disrupt other ocean currents and dramatically change global weather patterns. 5). Permafrost thaw as a result of global warming will release more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere further exacerbating the impacts of climate crisis..

Apart from other suggestion the report call for nature-based solutions. One of the most significant sustainable solutions that I have come across few years back was biomimicry (biomimetic solution). It was a life changing experience for me. Having spent lots of time in nature, and trying to work out a career in the field -quite difficult for an outsider in a primitive insecure society, I quite accidentally read about biomimicry (I wouldn’t say accidental since I was watching nature quite closely and so was naturally aligning to understanding) and got into depth of it. Created it as a subject for college students (again it's arduous in this amazingly mediocre ego driven small minded society), it really has so much potential considering that India has such amazing biodiversity unlike West.

Systemic changes can only come from powerful controllers (dubious narration of GDP so on as development) as also more enlightened concerned people -this can only happen with value education as also people not trapped in the rigmarole of daily survival as also society stuck in greed of money and power lacking collective values or concerns. Future of world is in the hands of few enlightened spaces across the world -who nurture some wonderful people (like the one who produce such reports, who explore all across the world to study these). They bring awareness for better world. And thanks to technology common people across the world are able to access these and become aware -trapped as we are in daily vicissitudes of life in increasingly bleak surroundings, these reading does change our mind and receptive for collective action.  

*pic is that of Hoopoe -a spectacular looking little bird, that used to be so common when I was kid. I recall spending lots of time watching these birds -they spent most of their time on ground digging and foraging. These birds have become so rare that I haven't really seen them in years (last rare sighting was probably in Mysore -recall it quite clearly inside open area at Mysore zoo -such a pleasant surprise). Sometimes I have dreams about these birds. These vanishings create such devastation.            

Climate breakdown

 First they denied it, then they call it a hoax, then they ridiculed, and then, when the climate disasters became persistent, they call it conspiracy. Very soon they will abandon vulnerable population as people die in large numbers, property lost and regions become impossible to inhabit. They will very likely call it god's wrath and assign some opportunist reason, incapacitated to take responsibility. Climate migrants will increase and with food security threatened societies will be put in serious pressure. 

Wake up people. Use your mental faculties, become aware, read, ask questions, think, look around, get all the facts of the issue, find pattern, use your sense, understand that life on earth is not going to be normal as before. We are in serious bother. No charade or make believe will work. We are bare. Reality can only be dealt with sincerity. Only collective action can save us.   

*in the latest climate breakdown event US is facing series of dangerous hurricanes, next one is Milton.