March on! Fellow Robots and Cyborgs!

Well said. Let`s Indeed march on. The Brave new world is made-up of a bunch of cowards who are very afraid of being human. This programmed life is so pervasive. From one robot to another; let`s be virtual!`.

Nice poem, but I disagree with the content completely. Falls into the popular, and wrong stereotype that knowledge and technology is always at the expense of ``humanity``. That need not be so, and definitely is not so, as even a cursory reflection on modern history will reveal. Humans will always be human, whether they are in the caves, in ancient mesopotamia, in the roman times, in medieval baghdad, in ming china, in renaissance italy, in industrial england, in communist russia, in nazi germany, in booming america, in today`s world of computer and genetic technology and in tomorrow`s world, whatever it may be. humans will be humans, and the very presence of these verses is another proof of that.

plus, everyone assumes this, but no one really knows what they are talking about: what does it mean to be human? is being human an absolute quality set in stone that one must conform to? or is being human exactly what we have seen in the world for thousands of years, yearning, development, conflict, introspection ... ??

Re W:

With due respect to your questions regarding humanity, I think what the writer wants to say is that the power equation has remained the same as in the time aristocracies i.e., heavily tilted towards a few. Except that political power is now with technocrats. Industrialization was supposed to bring more equality and a more humanitarian vision but really the political power game remained the same. I took it to mean a slant on our value systems and political systems; not just on our life style.

Re W:

With due respect to your questions regarding humanity, I think what the writer wants to say is that the power equation has remained the same as in the time aristocracies i.e., heavily tilted towards a few. Except that political power is now with technocrats. Industrialization was supposed to bring more equality and a more humanitarian vision but really the political power game remained the same. I took it to mean a slant on our value systems and political systems; not just on our life style.

``An India aspiring to a developed status must have a technology vision.  ...We have to recognize that technology is the tool that brings faster economic growth and needed inputs for national security. ...Therefore, the need of the hour is `arm India with technology`.`` -Abdul Kalam ``

and without this technology, Udayakumar would be hard pressed to express his views through the internet. how bloody hypocritical and convenient ?

Re: The Author

Please don`t blame science and technology for the lack of spiritualism. You cannot shove spiritualism down everybody`s throats. It is something very personal. People are either spiritual or they are not. Technology has nothing to do with it.

Re: Rishi, Reply 6

Well said. The author completely overlooks the enormous benefits technology has brought to the general populace. Pooh-poohing the tool by using the tool! As Wasiq said (Reply 3), the author is confused as to what makes human a human (or he perhaps knows it, except that the poem has no reason for being if he admits that).

Re: Saima Shah, Reply 5

Based on your interpretation of what the author says, what is so original about political power being in the hands of a chosen few? This has been going on from time immemorial. I do not see how technology is responsible for it. Technology has produced different power-brokers. So what! Furthermore, what makes you think that people in this ``Brave new world`` are ``cowards`` who are ``afraid of being human.`` Any concrete evidence?

Re: Shahbaz, Reply 2

What the hell are you talking about.

Why is it so fashionable to lash out at science

nowadays? Is it because it is the most noticeable

and easily blameable victim for all of man`s

evils? Sure, blame it all on the bogeyman and

everything will be much better.

Quite apart from that, I think the author is

better off writing prose. With all due

apologies, bad ideas and bad poetry are too much

to handle together.

Why are we in the scientific community quick to take offense at a perceived attack on science. Do I sense a strong irrational attachment to science just like any other dogma or dare I say religion?

The way I read the poem, it seems to attack the the `cold & impersonal` aspects of technolgy and how we use it as opposed to `all` of science as a body of knowledge. We sure can argue with that proposition, but we definitely can all relate to the fact that science cannot be the ONLY thing central to our modern life. Though the author`s refrain is nothing new, I believe in the ultimate humanness of humanity as others have suggested below.

Re: Godot

I don`t think poetry/philosophy is about concrete evidence but about concrete perception. Science is about evidence. To still defend why I think modern man is a coward is a reference to A.Huxley`s book, Brave New World (which I perceived the poet to be referring to also). TO wax a bit more, the word `brave` denotes that in the New World humans would have defeated their old fears i.e, poverty, hunger, death etc. The Brave world would have made people freer than before. That did not happen in the book, because another kind of fear replaced the old fears. The lack of power supposedly necessary for peace destroyed the creative spirit of the common people, and replaced another form of dogma in place of religion.

In my humble opionion:), the promise of the industrial age and I believe there was a lot expected from this century (for evidence, one may read anything printed in the 1940`s, 1950`s,1960`s), that because of industrialization everyone`s quality of life will improve. The LDC`s also rode on the bandwagon of science and technology. However, s and t are meaningless tools without cultural and political `development`.

Apart from the above, I do also think (contentiously) that S &T have become or are becoming an end in themselves a little like dogmatic religion. Why should we not question the life-style or the political equations that the industrial age has brought?

Re: Udayakumar

I find myself at a crossroads when thinking about this issue. The question really is whether S&T`s pro`s outweigh its con`s. There are several aspects to this debate. There`s the question of whether or not majority of us are better off today because of S&T. Another point is about the implications of technological apartheid, i.e., whether majority of the people on this planet will ever have access to the information highway, better health-care, proper nutrition, automobiles, television, video games, CD-Players, air travel, education, etc etc, and numerous other benefits that we consider ourselves entitled to just because we happened to be priviliged enough to have been born in better families and/or were endowed with better brains?

Then there`s the question of rapid environmental destruction. The privilged minority of this world, in its hunger for more and more, is rapidly cutting down the rain forests, polluting the air and the waters, carelessly depleting the limited natural resources, piling up nuclear and hazardous waste in every corner of the globe and all the while claiming that what`s good for the industrial world is good for the rest of the world.

One the other hand, being the beneficiary of almost every advancement in S&T by virtue of being a resident of the foremost industrial country in the world, I`d be called hypocritical if I say anything against the very economic system that has given me everything that I have today. Things, about which we don`t give a second thought. Things, like TV, VCR, Sattelite dish, cable, computer, internet, cell phone, microwave, refrigerator, cars, washer & dryer and other electrical and gas appliances. And the basics, like electricity, running water-hot & cold, working sewage system, asphalt streets, the best health-care, education, proper nutritious food and everything that money can buy. I should be thankful for everything that I have, and I am.

But does that entitle me to claim, that, what is good for me must be good for everyone else too? That, I should lose sight of the bitter truth because I don`t have to look? No, not really.

You see, the majority of the world is poor and impoverished. Capitalist countries accumulated the initial capital needed for industrialization by colonizing the rest of the world. Now that the majority of the countries have been free for forty or fifty years, they don`t or will ever have anybody to colonize. Whether or not they`d want to is another matter. Let`s face it, they were on the wrong side of history at the wrong time.

There`s no other way to develop in a capitalist-only world then to have a lot of capital at a cheap price, something very very scarce in today`s world. And that in combination with capable, sincere, and honest leaders running the show. Not the impotent puppets, corrupt monarchs and oligarchs, ignorant bureacrats, illiterate feudals and self-serving dictators that currently rule the majority of the third world, most of the time with the explicit and implicit backing of the developed countries.

These countries are now trapped in the vicicous cycle of poverty that they cannot climb out of. On top of that, the capitalist countries are not done manipulating their former colonies for natural, human and capital resources.

The last bit of this story is the impact of an industrial society on individual and family. There are about 90+ million households in the U.S. today. More than half of them are comprised of singles living alone. Imagine the loneliness and psychological implications of not having anyone to share your thoughts, your opinion with. No one to tell how was your day and what are your plans for tommorow and the day after. And yet, every household needs all the essentials necessary to live your life. Every new household translates into a new customer for the utilities companies, the cable company. You need appliances, furniture, pots and pans, grocery and every other necessity and luxury which is supposed to be part of a comfortable life here.

But, even after seeing all the negative effects of development, do I still want the underdeveloped countries to become developed and industrialized? Yes, I do.

For, who am I do deny anyone what I would not forego myself? Who am I to shout about environmental destruction when I am, by just being part of this society, a gross polluter myself? Who gave me the right to cry about depleting natural resources when I do not hesitate to fill up my car and drive to Las Vegas so that I can show my friend from Detroit the wonederful oasis in the desert?

What we need (here goes the idealist again) is the equitable distribution of wealth and resources. But that would mean I`d have to give up certain things. Am I willing to give up my quality of life so that some child in Lyari can learn to read and write, some sick old lady in Gilgit can get proper treatment at a hospital and a jobless youth in Makran can buy a fishing boat? I`d like to say yes, but honestly, I don`t know.

Rehan.

Enjoyed the poem, but you do overstate the case against science and technology a little bit. If humans hadn`t been spurred on by circumstances and genius to innovate and transform, we would still be arrested in pre-paleolithic times, using fire to ward off animals and keeping warm, losing more than half the children that were born to us. Isn`t technology the main reason that Malthus was proven wrong?

I don`t think knowledge leads us away from spirituality. In fact, the deeper that one gets into a scientific problem, for example, the workings of a tiny bacteria, the more one is filled with a sense of wonder. How does the damn thing do what it does?

Power has always been concentrated in the hands of the few - we`ve always had a system of the mighty rule, and don`t want to share. However, one could argue that evidence shows that almost every region in the world is better off compared to 100 years ago. Trends in mortality and improved life expectancy worldwide certainly support this view. Also, with rare exceptions, wealth seems to be concentrated in fewer hands than it was a hundred years ago. The middle class is much larger, there is less hunger, less disease, fewer wars.

Having said that, human development does depend on a lot more than just science and technology. Issues of environmental preservation and equity are just as important. And if we continue our present emphasis on economic growth through more and more technology without paying attention to its ecological implications and issues of equity between the developed and the yet to develop, we are surely on a path to self-destruction, may be not a 100 years from now, but certainly a 1000 years from now. If capitalism and consumerism is here to stay (and looks like it is), and Western population growth rates stagnate (which looks like they will), then the only markets to sell to to have continued growth will be outside ones - and if the outside world is not in a position to consume, than capitalism is no longer sustainable. One hopes that the industrialized countries will see that sooner, rather than later.

Ironically, if anything will save us - it will be technological know-how. Safer, higher-yield agricultural practices, more sharing of information, more education, more technology invested in environmentally-friendly manufacturing processes, invested in leading healthier lives, lower birth rates, more empowerment of women (do not underestimate the effect of technology on behavior change).

That is what we should be looking towards, looking forward to, try to achieve - a more just and humane world through the power of technology. To me it seemed you were implying we should be doing it the other way around - looking back towards good times that have already passed us buy- the good old days, when we didn`t have technology, rather than looking towards technology to get us out of this mess.

Anita

Re: Shahbaz

I would really like to know what tilts the wind mills of your mind ? You are, I am happy to inform you, turning into quite a resident provecteur of this chowk. Lately, I have followed your posts with a sense of mirth, but have always wondered, reading them, just what offened you in a previous life. I am not sure who said it, but a respondent on the chowk suggested that you tone down your outbursts of melodrama, because it tends to distract one from the intent of your message. I think you should take that bit of wisdom seriously. If you cry wolf once too many times, it will be just a cry that no one will listen to...

However, getting back to your post, what are you talking about?

Shahbaz, we are all a group of tribes with different colored flags and a piece of territory that we call nation-state. We have evolved from a primitive tribal structure and we will continue to stay in a complex tribal motif no matter how far we might advance intellectually, culturally, scientifically and emotionally.

You are correct to say that Einstein can not be held accountable for his theories resulting in the destruction of Hiroshima. In the same breath, neither can Prophet Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him), Jesus and Moses can be held responsible for the inflicting misery. They can not be found guility by association for what they followers did in their names. I am not religious scholar and there are far better qualified people than me who can answer this more comprehensivily, but I still think that their intent, of what they were trying to preach,was maligned by their disciples for selfish reasons. The fact that we, as their followers, did not understand the lessons they were seeking to impart to us does not suggest that they failed in their tasks.

The reason that Hitler is blamed for the Holocaust has nothing to with his spirituality as a devout Roman Catholic. Hitler was a life long vegetarian with a fondness for pasteries and animals. His favorite pet was a German Alastian named Blonde. Later, he had the same dog posioned to test the cynide pill that he would take to end his own life; to see if it was quick and painless. Hitler is blamed for the Holocaust, because of his utter contempt of human suffering and the efficent manner in which he made it possible over so vast a scale that it defied comphrehension. Hitler is blamed for the Holocuast, because we, as humans, have a tendency to afix blame on others for our own shortcomings. We, as a society, could have stopped the Holocaust and Hitler, but we did not. Though he is the prime candiate for the blame and rightly deserves to be held responsible, in reality we are merely shifting the blame of our own complicity in the murder of all the victims of the Shoa (the Yiddish word for the Holocaust) and of the Second World War.

As to the rest, they should be held responsible, because what they were, and are, advocating was not a sense of spirituality, but a sense of loyality to a self-styled personal notions of messanic worship.

RE: Shahbaz

Even though i would actually concur with Ferozk on his opinions on your mails/letters, i would be a liar if i state that i do not enjoy your replies. You do speak the truth most of the times however much you coat it with hilarity or nonsensical sense.

About your reply on the spiritual heads, i do concur that anyone who is vested with power to destroy another would some how or the other do exactly that..... and that is the pity !

would have loved to read the part of your message that was chopped off

can you email it to me.........

Rishi

Re: Shahbaz

Everyone has a right to their own opinion. However, I was caught by your comment:

(``Then I give the judgment that the men should be killed, the property divided, and the women and children be taken captives.`` the pedophile referring to the tribe banu qurayza) to executions of ``hypocrites`` etc. bears testimony to the violent, blood stained hands of the prophet.

If you REALLY have read the reference that this comes from, then you would not have quoted this in the first place.

Do you know why what you are saying is historically wrong?

While you`re at it, you might as well tell us WHERE you read this from. :)

Re: Shahbaz

I was not not aware that your posts were edited by the chowk staff. That would explain the misunderstandings, I guess on my part, because your posts seemed to be rather disjointed.

Just out of curiousity, when you mentioned the Prophet (PBUH) role in the massacres of the Jews, could you tell me where you found that reference from ? I do not doubt the veracity of your claims, but only their interpretations. I just want to read that quote, passage etc. for myself and judge it accordingly. Do not take this the wrong way, but it seems that you have an axe to grind against authority in general and I was wondering, did you put your own spin on that fact when you posted it ? Being in the business of ``spin`` myself, I know things can be taken out of context and their intent twisted.

Thanks....

Re: Shahbaz

Thanks for the reply.

The question is not whether I, or some other person, is not aware of the ``unrosy`` side of Islam. To a priori assume that everyone is ignorant is highly naive.

The question is whether you have done your homework in this issue. Reading a book by Ibn Warraq does not necessarily imply that. My question to you is whether you feel that you have convinced yourself completely about your interpretation.

And coming back to your original quotation, it was a regrettable statement on your part, because it does not mention the all important fact that in that case the members of the tribe themselves chose a Jewish arbiter whom they knew would try them according to Mosaic law (which implied a death sentence to males and enslavement of others). Despite the original appeal of Muhammed, the tribes-people chose to be tried according to their own law.

Maybe you should have also taken the time to examine why the scenario arose in the first place, and what context did it have in the broader struggle for survival for Muhammed and his followers.

Maybe it is also possible that just as there are people who will consider Islam to be purely rosy, there are also people who are too tied up in their biases to treat Islam fairly. Maybe the truth lies closer to somewhere in the middle.

Maybe we should talk again on this issue after you have thought about this.

best regards
Wasiq