Suprabhat/ Good morning/ Bonjour/ Guten Morgen/ Bom dia/ Ni Hao/ Sabalkher/ Sabah el Kheer
Dear friends, these are greeting in some of the dominant cultures in the world. They all would mean the same thing. All cultures have their own expressions for all human values or emotions or ideas. Culture is a distinct way of life how a particular community lives or choose to live. The settings might be different but the content would be the same. Similarly, we call jal (pani)/ water/ eau/ das wasser/ aqua/ shouei/ maji/ maa (Anyone can find out that in Google). So whether you are sipping Evian or Bisleri or directly from a mountain stream the content is the same.
CLASH OF CULTURES
I remember once in BBC a Nobel laureate in literature was asked what role literature played at times when people are more concerned with the solving or scientific puzzles/ problems and which the other sciences such as Physics/Biology/ Economics can do. If I remember the laureate then it was Le Clezio who simply remarked that most of the political problems the world was witnessing are simply a clash of cultures. Whether it was during the first millennium of the Hundred Years War or in recent history during Cold War period or now the trouble brewing in the Middle East. The problem appears to be when there is a clash of values a midst the major set of cultural values where significant and irreconcilable differences exist.
MINOR CULTURES ENDANGERED
There could be more than 6800 languages around the world out of which less than a tenth might be actively used. Language, being the main cultural symbol of any particular community apart from other features such as food or clothing, showcases the status of a culture. In the Great War between cultures, the victim would be these smaller ones who are gradually retreating back in submission simply because of the problems of sustenance. Increasingly the ‘democratic majority’ of the population, whether they are in India or in Brazil, in China or in America, have short-sightedly prescribed to the view that smaller cultures can be sacrificed for the good of the dominant majority. In India, Arundhati Roy and Medha Patkar’s views on such have been rubbished away by self-serving crowd of urban intellectuals (who usually see only one side of the problem) and espouses the idea that environment and human rights of small tribal communities needs to be sacrificed so that they can mine all the mineral resources these people sits upon. Ecology or environment is damned. The immediate need of the hour is to mimic the standard set by the developed world in terms of infrastructures. Little do they realize that the present lifestyle of the ‘developed’ is not sustainable if more of our 6 billion plus population follow that culture.
Not all models need to be unsustainable. There are scientists around the world who have been warning us about the impending ecological imbalance which puts humanity at a great risk in the near future. Sceptics rubbish every honest attempt by environmental whistle-blowers simply because of their fear of having to compromise with their lifestyle. The recent disasters in Uttrakhand and Kashmir are simply small symptoms of the price we have to pay for tampering with the ecology indiscriminately not only here but around the world. Matters of development is an evolution issue and requires consideration of all things concerned – including the little butterflies or frogs trying to survive in the sub-tropical rainforests. We have no right to commit a mass destruction of the habitats of these flora and fauna in the first place and also to forcibly uproot indigenous peoples from the land they help to conserve by being a part of its internal ecology.
I acknowledge Down To Earth magazine which I first came into touch during the early 1990s and which changed my views of our existence. What I say or think may not be the gospel truth but I am sure there would be logic in the deliberations of those scientists who have been studying about such developments since a long time. Now a considerable store of information is available but not disseminated to the common people simply because of the fact that it might interfere with the greater agenda. All in all, we shall witness the death of several cultures along with the death of rare species of plants and animals. What would be left are the rodents and cockroaches which can live in any environment. The beauty of diversity would be gone forever. Any youth reading this small impromptu write-up will be a witness of the times to come. Be prepared my friends. But I hope I am wrong as I too have children who will be there to witness this march towards a frightful future.
If there is dimension present in every human being like adaptation of religion of some kind the natural question is from where it came into human being is very logical. Some say its genetic other says it’s natural. Both phenomena have some attachment to this belief.
Did religion confer such benefits on our distant ancestors that genes favoring it spread by natural selection? There are scientists who believe the answer is yes—enough of them, in fact, to give rise to headlines like this one, in a Canadian newspaper: “Search continues for ‘God gene.’”
Expect to see that headline again, for the search is unlikely to reach a successful conclusion. And that isn’t just because, obviously, no one gene could undestand something as complex as religion. Things don’t look good even for the more nuanced version of the “God gene” idea—that a whole bunch of genes were preserved by natural selection because they inclined people toward religion.
Oddly, this verdict—that religion isn’t in any straightforward sense “in the genes”—emerges from evolutionary psychology, a field that has been known to emphasize genetic influences on thought and emotion. Though some evolutionary psychologists think religion is a direct product of natural selection, many—and probably most—don’t.
This doesn’t mean religion isn’t in any sense “natural,” and it doesn’t mean religion isn’t in some sense “in the genes.” Everything people do is in some sense in the genes. (Try doing something without using any genes.) What’s more, we can trace religion to specific parts of human nature that are emphatically in the genes. It’s just that those parts of human nature seem to have evolved for some reason other than to sustain religion.
The American psychologist William James, in his 1902 classic The Varieties of Religious Experience, captured the basic idea without referring to evolution: “There is religious fear, religious love, religious awe, religious joy, and so forth. But religious love is only man’s natural emotion of love directed to a religious object; religious fear is only the ordinary fear of commerce, so to speak, the common quaking of the human breast, in so far as the notion of divine retribution may arouse it; religious awe is the same organic thrill which we feel in a forest at twilight, or in a mountain gorge; only this time it comes over us at the thought of our supernatural relations.”
In some way they have connected religion with evolutionary process and that become optimistic in logical explanation. When human started development of consciousness there are people more developed and there are people less developed. Here the exploitation started in the form of superiority.
If you want to put James’s basic point in the language of evolutionary biology, you have to drag in the concept of an “adaptation.” An adaptation is a trait whose underlying genes spread through the gene pool designing their trait. Love, for example, seems to be an adaptation. It was just an imagination against hate. Love of offspring, by inspiring neurturance of those offspring, can help genes get into future generations as a result; genes underlying parental love seem to have spread same design of their conclusiveness to love. You can similarly make arguments that awe and joy and fear—the other sentiments James cites—were, in themselves, adaptations. Fearing a big aggressive animal or a big aggressive human being can create a change at genetic level. It can save your skin and thus save the genes underlying the fear. But that doesn’t mean religion is a creation of fear. All emotion cannot create and function that can be described as religion. It can be love, awe, joy, and fear and thus involve the genes underlying these things.
Start of our Solar System
Milky Way Galaxy that is still full of gases as looks from here. Sun is just a big Star in its orbit like so many other enormous stars.. Thousands of hydrogen bombs are exploding on its surface that makes big space filled with gases. Earth is just a sub-planet in its orbit. Although our life totally depend on Sun but other sub-planet also affect our life as well. Even some other planets are coming into existence as seen by Hubble Space Telescope recently in the Orion Nebula surrounded by gases. There is possibility that this may collided with some other big planet one day.
Out all these star and planets life developed on Earth about few billion years when earth started cooling from fire globe. The fireball became a soup of rock. Ultimately from the humidity of earth became the dense clouds. That followed by heavy rain and microscopic living cell. Later stage is conflicted by different theory of development of Mammals, Plants, Flatworm, Jelly fish and Algae.
In last thousand years living organism keeps on changing in different type of organism. Hard shells organism also came in to existence. About few hundred years ago the first mammal came in to existence. Dinosaurs were on this earth about 65 million year ago. This was starting era of animal kingdom. Suddenly they disappear from this planet. Here is also scientist not agree on one point. Somehow the seed of living being was still survived. Homo sapiens evolved six hundred thousand year ago. We feel ashamed of our ancestors the Apes that somehow existed in Africa. Homo sapiens migrated all over the world from Africa.