Jaishanker Nair

Someone is shy

Jaishanker hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Jaishanker Nair
Posted about 1 year ago
Evolutionary Mistakes, Human Predicament and Reverse Approach to Global Challenges
I have not taken the concept 'mind' literally. 'Mind', like my first usage 'evolutionary error' is perhaps not the most suited word to describe something (presently unknown) that determines processes occurring on this planet. It tends to get immediately connected to psychology and the like. Coming back to the original point, evolution is not a random process (read it has purpose). The something that we today do not know, has memory. For example, consider the case of position of our eyes. Would it not have been better (to ward off attacks, or have more prospects of finding food) if we had one eye each in the front and back? "The something" had experimented this in lower forms of life. After realizing its merits or otherwise, decided to keep both eyes in one side. Isn't it a form of memory? Such crazy questions are needed to take our understanding forward than meekly accepting so called forcefully established scientific knowledge. So my point that evolution has purpose remains.
Noface
Jaishanker Nair
Posted about 1 year ago
Evolutionary Mistakes, Human Predicament and Reverse Approach to Global Challenges
It is difficult to comprehend your assumption that intelligent humans escaped the clutch of random natural selection. Yes humans have shown that they can. But the fight is still on. Look outside to see struggling millions in developing, underdeveloped and least developed countries. This is where the second evolutionary deviation comes to play. The miniscule proportion of people, with more access to resources, deprives the rest. Hence, if access to resouce can be administred .... (please read a recently posted reply)
Noface
Jaishanker Nair
Posted about 1 year ago
Evolutionary Mistakes, Human Predicament and Reverse Approach to Global Challenges
Please do not limit the meaning of rich to be fiscally/monetarily rich. Money is a good surrogate to indicate the amount of resource consumed by an individual. People with more money are more likely to have an unsustainable way of life (wrt resource consumption). Eradicating richness implies restricting resource consumption. Again please do not read between lines to see it as some sort of Governmental or administrative control on resource consumption. This is a change that should be inculcated and not be coercive. It requires social engineering, a second renaissance. Unlike our inability to rectify the previously listed first evolutionary deviation, the second, which deals with money can be redone.
Noface
Jaishanker Nair
Posted about 1 year ago
Evolutionary Mistakes, Human Predicament and Reverse Approach to Global Challenges
We, as a species, are "Living" according to our Nature.......... . Our nature is stupidity. There is a difference between bacteria in a dish and humans. A bacteria at the center of the dish does not immediately consume resource at the periphery. It allows multiple generations to reach out to the resource available at the edge. Where as our consumption is global. We reach out to all nooks and corners of this planet to exhaust. The motive for reaching out is 'money'. Pl see the replies given to George QT.
Noface
Jaishanker Nair
Posted about 1 year ago
Evolutionary Mistakes, Human Predicament and Reverse Approach to Global Challenges
There are two things, that I would like to draw attention to: 1. The word money used here as a surrogate for resource consumption. However resource consumption is not 'felt', where as money flow is. A redefinition of 'money' is what is needed. A rule of diminishing return, after a set limit of accumulated 'money', would in effect remove the 'motive' for further accumulation (read further exploitation of resources). Bio mimicry researchers observe how social animals gather resources, but very few ever bother to realize, that none of these animals accumulate more than what they want! Size of colonies are also based on number of inhabitants. Beyond this new colonies are formed. The spatial geometry of honey combs in a region is jaw-dropping. Just was thinking, what would have happened, if these organisms devised something like 'money'. 2. Physicists talk about something called mind theory. Perhaps, it could be what is controlling every thing. Going by physical principles, any object tries to attain equilibrium with its environment. This is what planet Earth is also doing. The blanket of atmosphere impeded Earths' energy exchange and necessitates cycling of entropy. If we see that life evolved to facilitate this entropy cycle, then there is an objective: get an ideal entropy pump. Human actions have jeopardized this grand design. So what we are talking is science and just science.
Noface
Jaishanker Nair
Posted about 1 year ago
Evolutionary Mistakes, Human Predicament and Reverse Approach to Global Challenges
I am re-posting it because, apparently many of you would have missed the clarification that was provided yesterday. Overwhelming majority of scientific studies and publications articulate the view that evolution has no goals. Closing arguments in these studies are never universally convincing. Hence why do we need to believe it? Nothing in the world happens without a purpose. It would be difficult (with our present, limited understanding) to prove this statement beyond doubts. However, from a physical perspective; living organisms can be considered as entropy pumps. There is a constant effort to distribute entropy equally among the three spheres (atmo, hydro and litho) on the planet. Life or living organisms could have emerged to facilitate the entropy transfer. Those organisms, who could manage their thermal regimes better, dominate (natural selection) and established themselves far and wide (species distribution). Left to itself, nature can best be termed an eternal pump. Evolution has an objective - create an ideal entropy pump. Perhaps the phrase ‘evolutionary mistake’ can be rephrased ‘evolutionary deviation’ (deviation from what would have been a better course). The better course is to be decided by a hypothetical state of environment of the planet today, if a different trajectory of evolutionary development had occurred. By eradicating richness, I meant, eradicating money (which is disproportionately stacked with 20%). Imagine if there were nothing called money, what would be the motive for the scale of planetary excavations that we witness today? The counter argument that is flashed is, without motive, we would not have reached where we are today. This statement is made under the false premise that we are better off today? Is that truly so?
Noface
Jaishanker Nair
Posted about 1 year ago
Evolutionary Mistakes, Human Predicament and Reverse Approach to Global Challenges
Overwhelming majority of scientific studies and publications articulate the view that evolution has no goals. Closing arguments in these studies are never universally convincing. Hence why do we need to believe it? Nothing in the world happens without a purpose. It would be difficult (with our present, limited understanding) to prove this statement beyond doubts. However, from a physical perspective; living organisms can be considered as entropy pumps. There is a constant effort to distribute entropy equally among the three spheres (atmo, hydro and litho) on the planet. Life or living organisms could have emerged to facilitate the entropy transfer. Those organisms, who could manage their thermal regimes better, dominate (natural selection) and established themselves far and wide (species distribution). Left to itself, nature can best be termed an eternal pump. Evolution has an objective - create an ideal entropy pump. Perhaps the phrase ‘evolutionary mistake’ can be rephrased ‘evolutionary deviation’ (deviation from what would have been a better course). The better course is to be decided by a hypothetical state of environment of the planet today, if a different trajectory of evolutionary development had occurred. By eradicating richness, I meant, eradicating money (which is disproportionately stacked with 20%). Imagine if there were nothing called money, what would be the motive for the scale of planetary excavations that we witness today? The counter argument that is flashed is, without motive, we would not have reached where we are today. This statement is made under the false premise that we are better off today? Is that truly so?