It's been on my mind for a couple of weeks now, but I never got down to writing about it. Not that climate change is anything new to write about. However, I was prompted by a study published in the journal Nature that was carried out by some German scientists. Their conclusive contention was that global warming, i.e., the rise of the temperature of our world, has not really happened at all in the last 10 years, and will not happen for another 10. Maybe they are right. Other detractors also say that temperature change on a global scale is anyway a cyclical phenomenon and there isn't really anything we humans can do to make any significant impact on it.
What are these people trying to say, or do? If they do not spend ALL their time indoors (and even then perhaps), it is quite impossible to have not noticed the changes in weather conditions, irrespective of the part of the world they live in. Seasons change later, or sooner, than they used to, they or colder or warmer than they were, rains and hail come when they want and increasingly not when they used to, and there seems to be a definite spurt in the events of extreme climatic occurrences. I mean, what are they looking for, for it to rain frogs and lizards?
Combined with that, of course, we are seeing severe food shortages in parts of the world, and food prices shooting up in many others. And let us not even start with the cost of oil products. $135 a barrel of crude says it all. Growing crops for biofuels is not a good solution because well, there is only so much arable land, and food is already on way to become a luxury. Renewable sources of energy have yet to come of age in a way big enough to replace even half of the current oil usage.
As a species, I suppose here is yet another example of paying a price for our short sightedness, stupidity, selfishness and avarice. Of course, we won't learn. And most of those who will pay the real price won't be the ones who caused the real damage to start with. Perhaps, nothing much will change. Considering the world has already coined terms like eco-terrorism, there is only so far these environmentalists can hope to go before it really is too late. Especially with articles like the one I mentioned above being published in reputed journals. I wonder who paid for this particular piece of 'research', which after all, will be a bunch of statistics. And statistics, as any sensible person knows, do not usually reflect an honest picture.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Monday, May 12, 2008
Here and now
How far should one go in the here and now to ensure (insofar as such things can be ensured) that the future is rosy (or rosier, rather)? Or is it wiser to have a rosy here and now (insofar as however rosy you can make it) and think about the future when it comes to here and now?
If one thinks of heaven and hell and such afterlife concepts, my personal answer does not require much thought. I am all for here and now, and if there do exist such places as god's and satan's abodes, I will consider them whence I have crossed the bridge between life and death. Also, even the idea of heaven and hell perhaps does exist in all mythologies and religions, but does not necessarily share the same relationship with death. Hinduism and Buddhism (which I anyway regard an off-shoot of Hinduism, and even more so, a refined rip-off from Jainism) talk about reincarnation and such, something that takes away the idea of eternal suffering in the lakes of fire in hell as satan's minions shove hot pokers up your backside (as in Christianity), or perpetual bliss cavorting carnally with the hoors in jannat (as in Islam, and it makes me wonder what it prescribes for women who go there).
Hinduism and Buddhism have their prescriptions of bad things to follow bad actions in a human life time, and they are not necessarily pleasant, but they at least remove the idea of eternity (which seems pretty ludicrous anyway), and also of association with guilt (this is strictly a crime of Christianity, referring to its favourite son as the sacrificial lamb of god. If any other religions use it as well, I do not know of it.). Also, in Hinduism, for instance, most of what you suffer for your bad actions happens to you in this earthly realm itself, though not necessarily in this life time.
And what about within the lifetime? You know, the idea of karma coming to bite you in the butt when you least expect it. As for me, I ALWAYS expect it, as a rule. It's like, if it weren't for bad luck, I would have had no luck at all, so screw karma. But hey, that's just me. In general, should we allow that fear to rob us of our small pleasures that we may get out of doing not entirely malign things? Or to prevent us from doing what we feel like doing because it feels right at this moment, even though it may upset some other people (which frankly, is their problem, not ours)? I mean, if the intent is simply to cause someone harm, then there could be grounds to argue against your proposed course of action, but if that is an unavoidable side effect of something that is seemingly good for you, should you not do it? Should it stop us from playing harmless pranks (that some morons always take too seriously)? Or from taking risks?
None of this negates the concept of planning simple things like saving this month so that you can take a holiday the next. And if you conflate such things with what I was saying above, then go away and don't bother coming back. Material things accumulate or deplete tangibly, and hence this discussion won't be required, because the results are visibly self evident. You behave thriftily and you have a pocketful to spend later (or if you are a miser, then a horde to look upon and foolishly smile about). You spend more than you earn and you find yourself in trouble (and if you do it regularly, you deserve to be begging naked on the streets). Unless of course, if you get robbed or are a robber yourself.
My stance is evident. Hedonism, here and now. Makes life simpler to live by drastically reducing the concept of morality. And intent, though useless entirely for most inter-personal relationship issues, is my bench mark for deciding right from wrong. About the only thing I mind is having lost the almost innate malice I harboured once (even if I didn't act on it always)...
If one thinks of heaven and hell and such afterlife concepts, my personal answer does not require much thought. I am all for here and now, and if there do exist such places as god's and satan's abodes, I will consider them whence I have crossed the bridge between life and death. Also, even the idea of heaven and hell perhaps does exist in all mythologies and religions, but does not necessarily share the same relationship with death. Hinduism and Buddhism (which I anyway regard an off-shoot of Hinduism, and even more so, a refined rip-off from Jainism) talk about reincarnation and such, something that takes away the idea of eternal suffering in the lakes of fire in hell as satan's minions shove hot pokers up your backside (as in Christianity), or perpetual bliss cavorting carnally with the hoors in jannat (as in Islam, and it makes me wonder what it prescribes for women who go there).
Hinduism and Buddhism have their prescriptions of bad things to follow bad actions in a human life time, and they are not necessarily pleasant, but they at least remove the idea of eternity (which seems pretty ludicrous anyway), and also of association with guilt (this is strictly a crime of Christianity, referring to its favourite son as the sacrificial lamb of god. If any other religions use it as well, I do not know of it.). Also, in Hinduism, for instance, most of what you suffer for your bad actions happens to you in this earthly realm itself, though not necessarily in this life time.
And what about within the lifetime? You know, the idea of karma coming to bite you in the butt when you least expect it. As for me, I ALWAYS expect it, as a rule. It's like, if it weren't for bad luck, I would have had no luck at all, so screw karma. But hey, that's just me. In general, should we allow that fear to rob us of our small pleasures that we may get out of doing not entirely malign things? Or to prevent us from doing what we feel like doing because it feels right at this moment, even though it may upset some other people (which frankly, is their problem, not ours)? I mean, if the intent is simply to cause someone harm, then there could be grounds to argue against your proposed course of action, but if that is an unavoidable side effect of something that is seemingly good for you, should you not do it? Should it stop us from playing harmless pranks (that some morons always take too seriously)? Or from taking risks?
None of this negates the concept of planning simple things like saving this month so that you can take a holiday the next. And if you conflate such things with what I was saying above, then go away and don't bother coming back. Material things accumulate or deplete tangibly, and hence this discussion won't be required, because the results are visibly self evident. You behave thriftily and you have a pocketful to spend later (or if you are a miser, then a horde to look upon and foolishly smile about). You spend more than you earn and you find yourself in trouble (and if you do it regularly, you deserve to be begging naked on the streets). Unless of course, if you get robbed or are a robber yourself.
My stance is evident. Hedonism, here and now. Makes life simpler to live by drastically reducing the concept of morality. And intent, though useless entirely for most inter-personal relationship issues, is my bench mark for deciding right from wrong. About the only thing I mind is having lost the almost innate malice I harboured once (even if I didn't act on it always)...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
