When single celled life forms existed, the ones which possessed the chemical composition/properties that allowed them to do things like assimilate (consume other organic material) and move(by some sort of a chemical reaction or by other physical properties) which helped them move away from harmful conditions(heat) or enhanced chances of stumbling on organic material(food), had MORE LIFE TIME compared to others which weren’t able to do these things.
So did reproduction. the same mass(cell)-split into two(baby cells) had more chances of stumbling across food and if one of the (baby)cell was disintegrated under harmful conditions, the other was able to stay in optimum condition for a longer time , hence increasing the overall survival time of the mass. Hence organism which had the property of reproduction too had more life time. more life time over a longer period equates to increase in population of that species and survival.
These 3 properties (eat , move, reproduce) are the fundamental properties of life forms and every other features are derived from these.
Everything we do –we do it just to survive (preserve our MASS or FORM) – there is an irony here though. Sometimes we have to change our FORM to preserve our mass (since our form defines who we are, we are changing ourselves to preserve ourselves). For eg. Fishes which were prone to falling into land had to develop (over a period of time by giving birth to babies with) amphibian properties (mutation) to increase their life time in that terrain giving rise to frogs (evolution)[im just giving u rough, amateurish examples].
As life forms advance, during reproduction (the phase which allows for mutation) they don’t just pass on our genes for physical properties but also intellectual capabilities. And for humans it means that we are also trying to preserve not only skin colour but our language/ culture-morals (which suit our environment) and ideas and intellect.
That’s the reason people love their mother tongue and others possessing similar values. I mean u can understand motherly love but why do you like ur brother with whom u have to share ur resources – its because you and him are much similar forms (physically and intellectually).As in no one would share their wifes love(unless ur into swinging) happily with someone else.
Sometimes we have to change our FORM to preserve our mass: which means sometimes you have to change your personality,IDEAS,RELIGION,MORALS,learn other LANGUAGE for you to be more successful in this world and be accepted and become rich which into is going to help in surviving. This means that if you have to change yourself a lot – you are struggling with survival with your current FORM. But the more you have to change yourself, the more ironic your existence becomes.
This change can be because of environmental conditions for primitive forms[imagine the frog eg] or because of competition. It is bad when its because of competition, because in advanced life forms, your rivals are always trying to create a condition in which you have to adopt their properties to survive thus converting you into them. Eg- case of english linguistic and cultural imperialism. Even in my own country of India I am not respected if I don’t talk in English/look fair with sharp features or act like a westerner (with that attitude and arrogance and other qualities inherent in westerners) because English is associated with education/western-advanced societies which had RULED us (they have assumed technological advancement is the only for of intellectual advancement indicator).
So everyone is trying to impose their FORM (PROPRTIES,LANGUAGE,RELIGION,CULTURE/IDENTITY/MORALS) on others just so that their existence becomes less ironic or the fittest. Now that English is the language of the technology and education – its hard for a non-native speaker like me in so many ways. FOBs (fresh of the boat immigrants) are always funny aren’t they? They look so naïve (in the local system) and generally, can hardly crack jokes or put forth a witty sentence ( in the local language).
Watson(behaviourism school of psychology) said that “thought is sub-vocal speech”. Now my education being in english which I am not very articulate in, it hinders my creativity as in form thoughts- The words in english don’t appear in my mind easily( which actually makes it harder for me to construct technical/intellectual/logical ideas. And because the condition of my education system and society in which TV pograms and official language is English too – I don’t use TAMIL- my mother tongue to construct intellectual ideas in my mind.
So today, if you are not an native English speaking westerner – u will find it hard to live. I am in Australia on a study visa – its very hard for me to find a job or being a socially apt. so the Military, economic, cultural and linguistic imperialism imposed by the Europeans has worked for them. And here, history teaches a bad lesson which is- impose imperialsm and you will have a good future. Indians who had given up imperialsm a long time ago are now the laughing stock of the world- u realise that I have become a racist now.
ALTRUISM/MORALITY: two hungry primitive humans with an apple in the middle. They are selfish and fight for it they incur more damage than the strength the fruit would have given them. So over a period of time they evolve to understand that sharing is a much better option. So sharing is just – beginning of altruism in humans. This is also known as the dove-hawk theory in game theoretical modelling of animal behaviour.
Morality or good is the set of behaviour and rules that is going to increase the overall survival of the society, ethnicity , species ,family ,kingdom.
An implication of the dove-hawk theory is that, in a given biological environment – the population of doves is quite steady as they don’t fight. But for hawks it varies a lot like a sine wave. The hawks also have a tendency of over –consuming resources. When the population of hawks hits the bottom of the wave– they have to realise to stop fighting or they might go into extinction, or they might just go into extinction just due to other external/environment factors. But the steady population ofdoves is less prone to extinction because of these factors. Indians realising it abandoned imperialism thousands of years ago for the overall good of mankind. However history is telling us that go on imperialistic mode to get an advantage(current European advantage). Most of the civilisations have done that thoughout history and its quite understandable. And its quite understandable that intellectually better civilizations would conquer over primitive states. But Indians were not backward compared to Europeans- infact far more advanced in terms of ideas /morality /science and intellectually. I know that this now sounds like a racist ranting but there might be point to it. We are disadvantaged now, so atleast let us rant.
I now hope to get to the core of what makes me confused- the idea of a just system.
I actually don’t know if multiculturalism is a good thing or not.
Sydney is quite multi-cultural. But what is the ultimate aim of it?
As long as there are different set of rules /moralities/attitudes/ intellectual abilites within a region there will be problems and quarrels between the sects.
If I settle down in Sydney and marry a girl and have kids do I still to preserve my tamil heritage ? it will be hard for kids, ive seen my cousins they are not particulary proud of tamil heritage. They are just becoming another English/western person with brown skin and with inter-marriage will eventually loose all traces of my tamil heritage.
So when the gates of immigration are closed, we will be integrated and become western eventually.
I don’t believe in a equal fusion of all cultures into one single culture in the future, and even if it becomes that way , will develop differences from other countries over time and it goes around in cycles. After all we were all from Africa and the original changes to us came from our environments.
So globalisation in essence is another form of cultural imperialism- not a fusion but one culture taking over the world.
Compared to the Europeans,Lebanese- Indians are generall physically weaker,darker and posses less attractive features. These sort of inequalities are intrinsic because of the difference in environment. So how would it be fair for the Indians in a multi-ethnic system when we are obviously disadvantaged in such a way. Its like taking a dove and putting it in hawk territory. Even an environment with half and half population favours the hawk population.
I don’t particularly like being here in Sydney. First it was exotic to explore other cultures, but the ultimate reason im here is because India is poor. India was made poor. my preferred situation would be that no country is poor and bad for its people to emigrate other countries . Indians in India, Chinese in china and Europeans in Europe – its fair for every one as no one possesses any advantage over the others in the society.
But my preferred situation is also not ideal. As people from one region will always treasure something in someone else’s land and they will try and use their strengths to impose forms of imperialism or acquire it by unfair methods- that is competition and no matter how fair one tries to make the competition, at the end there are winners and loosers in the competiton. And competition in unavoidable – it is also a fundamental property of life forms.
So does your just system advocate globalistaion(in he sense of immigration and fusion) large scale immigration and multi cultural societies with differences and issues?
How does your just system try to address the issue of competition when competition is unavoidable? Isnt every one trying to secure maximum resources and wealth as possible from rivals and the means of doing it is coercion and imposing hawkish and aggressive policies?
I mean how peaceful can we get and how can we get there? Can we ever reduce of inequalities (inter country and intra country)?
So I consider a system more just – if that system is retainable for a very long time. To be able to do that the people must be quite satisfied with that system and there is no need for any revolution or too many changes every now and then. Which means, that system is peaceful helps in steady survival of the people for a longer time.
If we consider slavery ,it is not a just system but still people could be severely oppressed and the system could survive for a long time too. So hence my definition of the just system with those 2 criteria is not enough. Could you please define the criteria you think your just system should satisfy in a world that’s shrinking? And why do you think that the current world order is not a fair system?
Life forms change(physically/character wise)to develop corresponding properties. A good change/property is what allows them to survive longer which are inturn retained in the existing organism. But change/property can be useless or bad as well – which can contribute to reduction in life time. Eg. Of a useless property is the vestigial organs found in animals, eg .for a bad property is the grinding of the teeth of horse.
So my definition of a good system is one that can help its people survive longer with minimum changes/revolution to the system itself. Its just like developing standards for a software or any application in general – a better standard is the one that accounts for minimum discrepancies and the one that does not require frequent changes or upgrading.
So my impression, that a bad system will eventually fail according to the law of nature, might not always be the case, unless the individual agents are given freedom to bring about change if they feel is required- talking about a system that could be flexible and evolve versus one that is more rigid- imagine if any rebellion had been suppressed very hardly, there would still be apartheid and slavery.
So if longlife/survival is not the only fundamental criteria for good (not just for a social system but any system) what else is?
This is the reason why I am confused – thinking about what a just and possible system could be and how it can be achieved