Key reasons for knee jerk, negative reactions to anything new
1. People genuinely are afraid that something new will cause problems - neophobia
2. Negative scary items are more newsworthy and eyecatching than something that praises
3. For some there is no better joy than to say "I told you so!" No one ever questions how many things they "told you" but did not come out true. One correct prediction is all that counts
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Negatives of a positive
About a couple of days ago the first cricket test match between India and Sri Lanka started. These two neighbors have played each other before. What's unique about the current series is that it is the first where ICC is trying out referral system for umpiring decisions.
The concept is simple. Any player from either side can question an umpire's decision. The decision is then reviewed based on the slow motion video and hawk-eye trajectory estimation. 22 cameras are placed in precise locations to give best possible angle as well as multiple angles. The third umpire sitting in front of state of art screens decides whether the decision was correct or not. Of course, no one should do this ad infinitum - hence there is a reasonable limit of 3 referral per team per innings. The idea is that the worst of three decisions will be reviewed in more detail. Of course there is no guarantee of the decisions being better, but it will mean that some of the borderline decisions will be reviewed for much longer time than the split second that a typical umpire gets to officiate.
There has been a dire need to technological assistance to make more accurate decisions, more often. A human umpire, with all his wisdom and experience, is still limited by the human equipment - the eye and the brain. They do excellent job and are accurate most of the time. Still, when the decisions can be easily controversial leading to various results like spectators burning effigies of umpires. Blaming umpiring errors for loss in a series is very common.
There has been immense progress in the technology with super slow motion, hawk-eye, sneakometers, and hot spot. Sure, none of these are fail safe, but they clearly provide extra information to those whose job it is to decide who is out or not.
Some progress has been made in this direction already. For examples, most close run out decisions are referred to the third umpire by the umpire on the ground. We have seen some impressive results where the batsmen are millimeters in or out of the line. All these decisions would have gone in favor of the batsmen - due to the benefit of the doubt. Batsmen, in turn have improved their running between the wickets and technique of planting the bat first.
With all these improvements, clearly for better, people still find arguments to somehow convert a positive into a negative. They look at the half filled glass, watch some water being poured into it, and still say "oh, but what about the remaining 10%? That emptiness is going to cause a big problem!" They forget that it was empty to begin with.
Take example of Ian Chappell, a former cricketer of note. He has opposed the referrals, points out, the system would bring justice for some but not for all. "If three referrals are deemed fruitless," Chappell wrote, "under the recommendations of the proposal a team would then have no further opportunity to ask for assistance from the third umpire. Consequently, the biggest howler ever perpetrated could then enter the score book unhindered. This would be classic ." What Mr. Chappell forgets is that these decisions which will go unchallenged after the third referral would have gone unchallenged any way.
There are others who remind us that "technology is neither foolproof nor 100% conclusive. Two catches, or non-catches, in the recently-concluded Headingley Test highlighted the problem. Both AB de Villiers and Michael Vaughan claimed catches that were referred to the television umpire. In the first instance, the ball was conclusively grounded. In Vaughan's case, two camera angles presented different pictures and the batsman was given the benefit of the doubt. The next day, Nasser Hussain demonstrated with the help of the Sky television crew how the camera could lie."(from cricinfo article http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/slvind/content/current/story/362176.html)
All this is valid, all it says is that all experts who judge borderline decisions are fallible - be them umpires, or be them technology or a combination. The referral system is going to simply improve the chances of some potential wrong decisions may be reversed.
Indian cricket team of the 70s was once called "capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory", and sometimes the description seemed apt. In the same vein, I find some thinkers "capable of snatching negative from the jaws of positive"
The concept is simple. Any player from either side can question an umpire's decision. The decision is then reviewed based on the slow motion video and hawk-eye trajectory estimation. 22 cameras are placed in precise locations to give best possible angle as well as multiple angles. The third umpire sitting in front of state of art screens decides whether the decision was correct or not. Of course, no one should do this ad infinitum - hence there is a reasonable limit of 3 referral per team per innings. The idea is that the worst of three decisions will be reviewed in more detail. Of course there is no guarantee of the decisions being better, but it will mean that some of the borderline decisions will be reviewed for much longer time than the split second that a typical umpire gets to officiate.
There has been a dire need to technological assistance to make more accurate decisions, more often. A human umpire, with all his wisdom and experience, is still limited by the human equipment - the eye and the brain. They do excellent job and are accurate most of the time. Still, when the decisions can be easily controversial leading to various results like spectators burning effigies of umpires. Blaming umpiring errors for loss in a series is very common.
There has been immense progress in the technology with super slow motion, hawk-eye, sneakometers, and hot spot. Sure, none of these are fail safe, but they clearly provide extra information to those whose job it is to decide who is out or not.
Some progress has been made in this direction already. For examples, most close run out decisions are referred to the third umpire by the umpire on the ground. We have seen some impressive results where the batsmen are millimeters in or out of the line. All these decisions would have gone in favor of the batsmen - due to the benefit of the doubt. Batsmen, in turn have improved their running between the wickets and technique of planting the bat first.
With all these improvements, clearly for better, people still find arguments to somehow convert a positive into a negative. They look at the half filled glass, watch some water being poured into it, and still say "oh, but what about the remaining 10%? That emptiness is going to cause a big problem!" They forget that it was empty to begin with.
Take example of Ian Chappell, a former cricketer of note. He has opposed the referrals, points out, the system would bring justice for some but not for all. "If three referrals are deemed fruitless," Chappell wrote, "under the recommendations of the proposal a team would then have no further opportunity to ask for assistance from the third umpire. Consequently, the biggest howler ever perpetrated could then enter the score book unhindered. This would be classic ." What Mr. Chappell forgets is that these decisions which will go unchallenged after the third referral would have gone unchallenged any way.
There are others who remind us that "technology is neither foolproof nor 100% conclusive. Two catches, or non-catches, in the recently-concluded Headingley Test highlighted the problem. Both AB de Villiers and Michael Vaughan claimed catches that were referred to the television umpire. In the first instance, the ball was conclusively grounded. In Vaughan's case, two camera angles presented different pictures and the batsman was given the benefit of the doubt. The next day, Nasser Hussain demonstrated with the help of the Sky television crew how the camera could lie."(from cricinfo article http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/slvind/content/current/story/362176.html)
All this is valid, all it says is that all experts who judge borderline decisions are fallible - be them umpires, or be them technology or a combination. The referral system is going to simply improve the chances of some potential wrong decisions may be reversed.
Indian cricket team of the 70s was once called "capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory", and sometimes the description seemed apt. In the same vein, I find some thinkers "capable of snatching negative from the jaws of positive"
Monday, July 21, 2008
Re a drop of golden sun
Encient Egyptians worshipped the Sun god, commonly named as Ra. It is also believed that the original prouonciation might be Rei, hence the alternative spelling suggested is Re (wikipedia). The original meaning is not clear. It could have been a name for the Sun. It could also probably mean "creative". In India, the Sun was one of the chief Deity in the Vedic times.
In the past three thousand years or so, the Sun lost its place to other deities. However, we are about to rectify the mistake. The Sun will soon take the revered position. I am not saying that there will be cults or religions that will accept him as a new God. But even in deeper sense we will start worshipping him, not by singing him hymns or asking him for salvation, but truely depending on the Sun for our existence.
Don't get me wrong, we already do. We owe our existence to the Sun. If the Sun weren't there, we would not be on this earth. Morever, we depend on the whole cycle of nature that generates food and livelihood for us - the cycle that is powered by the sun. And our societies are powered by oil or coal, that was generated and stored in the Earth's crust because of the bounty from the Sun.
Things are going to change. And change for the better. Instead of the stored energy like the stale frozen food, we will harvest the sun directly for a cleaner source of energy.
Think about this. The total energy consumption of the world including oil, coal, hydroelectric is sizable at 15 Terra watts. (Terra watts is thousand Giga watts, and Giga is thousand mega and so on. ) This is huge - because it means per person it is ~2.3 kilo watt. But it is puny compared to what the Sun delivers to the Earth - whopping 85,000 Terra watts. Compare the current usage of 15 to the available 85,000! It's like using 0.02 percent of what is available. Imagine you are getting $2,000 a month, and spending it alll. But what if someone told you that you are throwing away you could earn $10,000,000 a month!
Of course all of that 85,000 is not usable, a lot goes in the seas to warm the planet and maintaining the ecosystem. But 0.02% will hardly be missed.
If you look at the humanity as an organism, we are right now in the egg stage, about to break out into the open. The egg contains essetial proteins and nutrients, so that the bird can grow and build itself. The stored nutrients are essential for the growth. But when those supplies dwindles, the bird breaks the egg, comes outside into the open world to find food on its own and breathe fresh air. Right now we are cracking the egg open. The egg is about to hatch. Outside there is free air, open world that has no bounds.
In the past three thousand years or so, the Sun lost its place to other deities. However, we are about to rectify the mistake. The Sun will soon take the revered position. I am not saying that there will be cults or religions that will accept him as a new God. But even in deeper sense we will start worshipping him, not by singing him hymns or asking him for salvation, but truely depending on the Sun for our existence.
Don't get me wrong, we already do. We owe our existence to the Sun. If the Sun weren't there, we would not be on this earth. Morever, we depend on the whole cycle of nature that generates food and livelihood for us - the cycle that is powered by the sun. And our societies are powered by oil or coal, that was generated and stored in the Earth's crust because of the bounty from the Sun.
Things are going to change. And change for the better. Instead of the stored energy like the stale frozen food, we will harvest the sun directly for a cleaner source of energy.
Think about this. The total energy consumption of the world including oil, coal, hydroelectric is sizable at 15 Terra watts. (Terra watts is thousand Giga watts, and Giga is thousand mega and so on. ) This is huge - because it means per person it is ~2.3 kilo watt. But it is puny compared to what the Sun delivers to the Earth - whopping 85,000 Terra watts. Compare the current usage of 15 to the available 85,000! It's like using 0.02 percent of what is available. Imagine you are getting $2,000 a month, and spending it alll. But what if someone told you that you are throwing away you could earn $10,000,000 a month!
Of course all of that 85,000 is not usable, a lot goes in the seas to warm the planet and maintaining the ecosystem. But 0.02% will hardly be missed.
If you look at the humanity as an organism, we are right now in the egg stage, about to break out into the open. The egg contains essetial proteins and nutrients, so that the bird can grow and build itself. The stored nutrients are essential for the growth. But when those supplies dwindles, the bird breaks the egg, comes outside into the open world to find food on its own and breathe fresh air. Right now we are cracking the egg open. The egg is about to hatch. Outside there is free air, open world that has no bounds.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Indian rice prices have dropped since 1950
Recently I had a heated discussion with some friends - most of them settled in the US with excellent IT careers. The topic was about how everything has suddenly become expensive in India. I tried to point out that ever since independence, the average life span has gone up from about 35 years to 69 years, infant mortality has gone down from 25% to 7% of live births, literacy and level of education has improved, and poverty levels have gone down from 75% to about 25%, even cell phones have permeated to about 20% of population. All this points to the fact that life has improved. But the counter argument was if you don't have money, what good is long life, or even cell phones? If you don't have enough to feed yourself, increasing life is increasing agony.
This was a bit surprising to me because about 3 years ago, when I have made a point about improving life due to improved economic conditions, everyone has said, what good is money if you don't have access to things that improve lives. This time it was the economic argument. Looks like it is a shifting target. Nevertheless, the question of whether basic things are getting more expensive or not is a valid question, and needs to be answered once and for all.
It has been about 60 odd years since independence. If we take that point as a reference point, we should be able to ask, for a typical man (50th percentile) have the necessities become more expensive compared to the money you earned. This is fairly straightforward calculation, though it is a bit tedious. So I am sticking with single example - the price of rice.
In 1950, the planning commission data shows that the size of the economy (GDP) of India was about 90 billion rupees. With a population of 360 million, that translates to about Rs. 250 per capita. Now, the per capita income is around Rs 37,000. So the income has gone up by a factor of 150. How have the rice prices done? Well, by a very rough estimates, the rice prices have gone up from about Rs 0.25 a kg to about Rs 13 a kg. This means rice prices have gone up by a factor of 65. So for the comman man, the rice prices have actually decreased by a factor of more than 2. No wonder the rice consumption per capita has gone up from about 40kg to about 80 kg (wikipedia). Indian production of rice has outpaced the the population by roughly 1% over the 60 years, every year. And this nicely reflects in the corresponding drop in prices. The drop is even substantial if you consider that every person is entitled to have some basic supply on their ration card at much lower prices (~Rs 5/kg? need to confirm).
I also came across the cosumer personal expenditure survey performed by NSSO, national sample survey organization. The findings are humbling, and yet eye opening. They found the distribution of all families that spend X amount of money on personal expenditure - food, clothing, shoes, transport, restaurants, tea etc. This does not include rent, investments, feeding livestock etc. What turns out is that most people - around the bottom 80% spend almost a fixed amount per month per person on food - very clost to Rs200. This seems paltry (and it is by the rest of the world standard), but it means about Rs 1000 for a family of 5 (two of these 5 are under 15). This buys you at least 15kg of rice, 10kg of wheat, 10 kg of pulses, 5 kg of vegetables, some oil, 5 kg of sugar, a dozen eggs, fuel, spices and cooking supplies. This does not sound extravagent, but it allows you to survive. The lowest 20% are a little worse off and need to use the lower grade supplies available on ration card.
This is by no means a wonderful situation. I am not making a point that everything is hunky-dory. All I am saying is that it is lot better than what it used to be. In 1950, it was dire - about 75% people were below poverty line - meaning they could not afford even the subsitance material mentioned above.
This was a bit surprising to me because about 3 years ago, when I have made a point about improving life due to improved economic conditions, everyone has said, what good is money if you don't have access to things that improve lives. This time it was the economic argument. Looks like it is a shifting target. Nevertheless, the question of whether basic things are getting more expensive or not is a valid question, and needs to be answered once and for all.
It has been about 60 odd years since independence. If we take that point as a reference point, we should be able to ask, for a typical man (50th percentile) have the necessities become more expensive compared to the money you earned. This is fairly straightforward calculation, though it is a bit tedious. So I am sticking with single example - the price of rice.
In 1950, the planning commission data shows that the size of the economy (GDP) of India was about 90 billion rupees. With a population of 360 million, that translates to about Rs. 250 per capita. Now, the per capita income is around Rs 37,000. So the income has gone up by a factor of 150. How have the rice prices done? Well, by a very rough estimates, the rice prices have gone up from about Rs 0.25 a kg to about Rs 13 a kg. This means rice prices have gone up by a factor of 65. So for the comman man, the rice prices have actually decreased by a factor of more than 2. No wonder the rice consumption per capita has gone up from about 40kg to about 80 kg (wikipedia). Indian production of rice has outpaced the the population by roughly 1% over the 60 years, every year. And this nicely reflects in the corresponding drop in prices. The drop is even substantial if you consider that every person is entitled to have some basic supply on their ration card at much lower prices (~Rs 5/kg? need to confirm).
I also came across the cosumer personal expenditure survey performed by NSSO, national sample survey organization. The findings are humbling, and yet eye opening. They found the distribution of all families that spend X amount of money on personal expenditure - food, clothing, shoes, transport, restaurants, tea etc. This does not include rent, investments, feeding livestock etc. What turns out is that most people - around the bottom 80% spend almost a fixed amount per month per person on food - very clost to Rs200. This seems paltry (and it is by the rest of the world standard), but it means about Rs 1000 for a family of 5 (two of these 5 are under 15). This buys you at least 15kg of rice, 10kg of wheat, 10 kg of pulses, 5 kg of vegetables, some oil, 5 kg of sugar, a dozen eggs, fuel, spices and cooking supplies. This does not sound extravagent, but it allows you to survive. The lowest 20% are a little worse off and need to use the lower grade supplies available on ration card.
This is by no means a wonderful situation. I am not making a point that everything is hunky-dory. All I am saying is that it is lot better than what it used to be. In 1950, it was dire - about 75% people were below poverty line - meaning they could not afford even the subsitance material mentioned above.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Cultural Invasion or union?
One of the complaints that everyone has is that the West is encroaching the other cultures, and eroding the existing values. Examples often sited are McDonalds and Hollywood flicks. This supposedly covers food, entertainment and fashion sense; not to mention the sexual values. I really don't understand the argument that teenagers learn promiscuity because they see it on screens - wonder how our cousins the chimpanzees are promiscuous without the advantage of hollywood!
Anyway, there is a grain of truth in those complains, but only a small grain. True, McDonald's and other institutions have slowly captured the low end food market across the world. True, that Hollywood movies are setting standards (!) for entertainment.
What I am surprised at is how the cultural encroachments of one culture over the other are treated differently based on whether it is happening right now or whether it happened hundreds of years ago. When Alexander attacked Afghanistan and India, he left rulers in the areas he conqured. Two thousand years ago the local art changed. Greek symbols and styles made their way into different designs, architecture, art. I distinctly reading about it as cultural union, creating a new style "Gandhara style".
In posterity, we have the luxury of looking back, and applying the standards of beuty of our age to proclaim that Gandhara style was actually a good thing. But for the artisans who worked with the traditional designs it must have been a horrible time. You have a new foriegn government, that has its own idea of what is aesthetically pleasing (because they are used to the Greek culture) and funds the new architecture. The upper class, wanting to be in good books with the rulers, starts emulating them, and demanding newer design. Since the locals don't know how to produce them, they import cutting down on the local artisan's business. The culture trickles down to lower strata who want emulate the upper classes and demand diminishes further. A lot of local artisan die out, and the money is diverted to the Greek artisans. Only those who adopt survive. But any learning takes time. And the intervening times are tough.
Isn't that exactly what is happening right now in terms of food habits and movies? Pizzas, Burgers and Fried Chicken is new to many developing countries, and is thriving because the change in the taste of people due to need to emulate. This happens all the time. Then why do we consider what happened 2300 years ago as good thing vs what is happening today?
All cultures evolve, and the change is unbearable to some part of the population that is used to the good old ways. The key difference between 21st century and 3rd century BC is that we are living in the current one and somebody else lived in the 3rd century. Someone else suffered. We tend to look back on our ancestry and remember the good parts. We look at ourselves, and highlight the bad parts. Maybe 40th century anthropologists will dig up the records and say, gee, the global cultural unification took place, and look at us now - everyone is trying to assert their individuality by owning a restaurant that is designed to serve only themselves and their diverse little tastes. Things were so good back then!
We are kind of fickle that way.
Anyway, there is a grain of truth in those complains, but only a small grain. True, McDonald's and other institutions have slowly captured the low end food market across the world. True, that Hollywood movies are setting standards (!) for entertainment.
What I am surprised at is how the cultural encroachments of one culture over the other are treated differently based on whether it is happening right now or whether it happened hundreds of years ago. When Alexander attacked Afghanistan and India, he left rulers in the areas he conqured. Two thousand years ago the local art changed. Greek symbols and styles made their way into different designs, architecture, art. I distinctly reading about it as cultural union, creating a new style "Gandhara style".
In posterity, we have the luxury of looking back, and applying the standards of beuty of our age to proclaim that Gandhara style was actually a good thing. But for the artisans who worked with the traditional designs it must have been a horrible time. You have a new foriegn government, that has its own idea of what is aesthetically pleasing (because they are used to the Greek culture) and funds the new architecture. The upper class, wanting to be in good books with the rulers, starts emulating them, and demanding newer design. Since the locals don't know how to produce them, they import cutting down on the local artisan's business. The culture trickles down to lower strata who want emulate the upper classes and demand diminishes further. A lot of local artisan die out, and the money is diverted to the Greek artisans. Only those who adopt survive. But any learning takes time. And the intervening times are tough.
Isn't that exactly what is happening right now in terms of food habits and movies? Pizzas, Burgers and Fried Chicken is new to many developing countries, and is thriving because the change in the taste of people due to need to emulate. This happens all the time. Then why do we consider what happened 2300 years ago as good thing vs what is happening today?
All cultures evolve, and the change is unbearable to some part of the population that is used to the good old ways. The key difference between 21st century and 3rd century BC is that we are living in the current one and somebody else lived in the 3rd century. Someone else suffered. We tend to look back on our ancestry and remember the good parts. We look at ourselves, and highlight the bad parts. Maybe 40th century anthropologists will dig up the records and say, gee, the global cultural unification took place, and look at us now - everyone is trying to assert their individuality by owning a restaurant that is designed to serve only themselves and their diverse little tastes. Things were so good back then!
We are kind of fickle that way.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Old is fool's gold
I just read an article in today's (6/21/2008) Mercury News, Drive section by Richard Russel. The title of the article is "Now and Then". He compares how today's cars are superior to the automotive industry output 30 years ago. He compares a 1975 corvette and the same model sold in 2008. The comparison is eyeopening.
[need a table here]
You can see that whether you look at any aspect of the car, 2008 beats its grandfather hands down. It is faster, more powerful, more fuel efficient, and less polluting. Any engineering feat requires that we make a compromise. If we want to build a faster car, the milage might suffer. This is true for today's car. But the crucial point is that when you compare it to the cars a generation ago, we see that we have miraculously managed to improve each facet. And it is even cheaper - lot more people are affording cars like the 1975 corvette, than they used to 30 years ago. Heck, even a run of the mill 2008 honda accord is sportier than the 1975 corvette. (need to confirm, and quote sales figures for 2008 honda accord vs 1975 corvette)
Now you will say wait a minute, I am not comparing apples to apples. I am comparing a top of the line sports car of 75 to a family box of 2008. The numbers are obviously greater for the family sedan, than a sports car. But that's the whole point - in 1975, you paid a pretty penny to get 270 horsepower engine that gave you certain acceleration, speed and agility. Now that power comes standard on some of the higher end accords. The bar has been raised. The price has dropped down. More people are getting what only a select few got in terms of performance.
Of course you can't buy the mystic and glamor that the old corvette brought you in 1975. To get the same glamor, you might have to buy 2008 corvette - and that one has a comparable price. But glamor is such a funny thing. Glamor or bragging rights by definition have a small supply, and hence will command higher and higher price. I will be entirely happy if glamor keeps getting expensive. I consider it as a welfare tax on rich people that the rich people charge each other.
It is easy to misconstrue the above example. You might think that I am saying progress is only for rich people. After all, only rich people can afford corvettes. Even the honda accords are not that cheap - they cost about 5 times the world's per capita income. Even examples of computers becoming cheaper does not go down well with a poor farm worker in China.
True, that cars are expensive enough so that only the rich at this moment can afford them. But when we focus on objects, we loose track of the bigger picture. We need to think comfortable transport, with great flexibility - rather than a car. That is improving all the time over the last 100 years. Just before the advent of railways - 95% of the world population did not travel beyond 10 miles. Not that they did not need to, or did not want to, but because it was so darn hard! Travelling was fraught with danger.
The transporation machinary has been growing and becoming more comfortable too. And yes, the number of cars is increasing. With the advent of Tata Nano, (and the competition it has spurred) the huge population between 40th and 60th percentile earners can suddenly afford cars. We are at the beginning of S curve for the cars to become widespread. And if you have concerns about pollution, look at the corvetter comparisons. Modern cars simply don't pollute. Period.
There are some who complain about the carbon footprints and greenhouse effect. To them I can only say this is such a low item on the engineering problems humanity faces, it is below the cut line right now. When most other problems are solved, humanity will solve this problem too. (Unless everyone realizes that we don't have any control over it - but that's another article!)
Yes, I envision that the world of 9 billion minds will have something like 2 to 3 billion cars. Those all put together will cause less pollution than the 200 million or so that we have right now. In fact, they will probably run on electricity that is generated using wind, sun and nuclear power - hence they will have a smaller carbon footprint too. How will this happen, and why do I believe in it? Read in an article to be written soon.
Friday, June 20, 2008
The Do's of life (incomplete)
It is interesting to see how the attitudes of humanity are shaped by religions and parental attitudes. All religions tell you how to live. "Love thy neighbor" is certainly a positive message given by most religions. It gets converted to "don't ever get pally with non-neighbors, who incidentally are defined as people of different religion". Message for trust and friendship gets converted into fear and distrust. This probably comes from a general low self esteem, and fear of failure.
The question is what is the alternative? The biggest "do" for life in my opinion is "Love thyself". This is somehow missing from most of the religions. Religions regulate public life, interaction with others from the society. As far the interaction with self is concerned, it is very negative. In fact messages like "you are born a sinner" "your fate is determined by what (bad things) you did in the last life" are pretty common. The low self esteem helps the religion to make everyone fall in line, submit to the higher authority, walk the straight and narrow.
But everyone really liking themself is the key to developing any healthy society. It is the next step to the freedom of mind, once the body is freed from the strife of ill health, and drudgery of work.
This process has started, though it's still in its infancy. Just like thousand years ago only a handful percentage of people enjoyed long life and less than 50 hours a week of work, today only a few percentage of people enjoy the excellent mental health. There is some weak correlation between the financial strength and mental well being. (need data here).
The question is what is the alternative? The biggest "do" for life in my opinion is "Love thyself". This is somehow missing from most of the religions. Religions regulate public life, interaction with others from the society. As far the interaction with self is concerned, it is very negative. In fact messages like "you are born a sinner" "your fate is determined by what (bad things) you did in the last life" are pretty common. The low self esteem helps the religion to make everyone fall in line, submit to the higher authority, walk the straight and narrow.
But everyone really liking themself is the key to developing any healthy society. It is the next step to the freedom of mind, once the body is freed from the strife of ill health, and drudgery of work.
This process has started, though it's still in its infancy. Just like thousand years ago only a handful percentage of people enjoyed long life and less than 50 hours a week of work, today only a few percentage of people enjoy the excellent mental health. There is some weak correlation between the financial strength and mental well being. (need data here).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)