Why do we eat chickens?

This has been a question that has been bothering me for a long time. Why do people eat chicken or for that matter beef, pork, egg, fish… since the list is endless, let’s just say any living matter and I am including plant life in this.

I confess that I am a “Non-Vegetarian”, basically a person who eats meat. But since plants are also life forms, shouldn’t we call the cells of the plants as meat too??

Now, coming to those self-righteous “Vegetarians” (Not all Vegetarians are like these, but some are. I am only referring to them and not all Vegetarians.) who go around saying that eating meat is a bad thing and that all “Non-Vegetarians” are “Killers”, let me tell you something. Plants i.e. vegetables are also life forms. Get your science right, before opening your traps.

So, coming back to the topic, we kill and eat (most of the time) life forms and no one says anything (most of the time) about this. But kill a human and the whole crowd descends on you with a ruckus about, how is wrong to hurt any life form and the whole thing.

Now, (I am borrowing heavily from the book “The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins.) what is the difference between a human life form and say that of a Chicken? Leaving out the biological differences, you will see that there is no difference at all. Both are lives. Both have flesh and bones. And, please don’t give me the argument about humans being more evolved than other species because it still does not make a difference in the sense that a life is still a life no matter how complex the life form maybe.

I always found it disgusting that we accept the use of guinea pigs, monkey, mice and any other species to test medicines, vaccines… but raise a hue when humans are used in trials. In fact, the laws are such that as long as no humans are harmed during the testing phase of any drug, you can kill as many guinea pigs, mice and monkeys as you want with impunity.

What about single cells organisms like bacteria, virus, amoeba, plankton…these too are life forms. But do we ever consider them in our normal day to day lives as life forms? No, I didn’t for a very long time.

We have all squashed/killed mosquitoes, insects, cockroaches… I have, I accept with all my heart. But do we ever pause and think that these too are life forms? No, we mostly don’t. My question is why? Is that we think that we are somehow superior to all other life forms on Earth?

The answer is surprisingly simple. As Richard Dawkins in the “The Selfish Gene” says, we accept these things as part of life because they (all life forms except humans) are all a different species from us.

The following link gives the various taxonomic ranks in biology.

As you will realize, all species come under the same category sooner or later. My point is “In which category do you draw the line and say, those not in the same category as humans are different? Because, all you have to do is move one category up and viola, some species not previously in the same category as humans will be present in the same category.

The question that immediately pops up is: Then what about the whole survival of the fittest thing? What about the laws of nature, where some species are the hunted and others are the hunters. Am I speaking against nature? No, I am not. Nature is best left un-tampered, a fact that we have yet to understand and accept.

Then, what you may ask is the entire purpose of this post? To stop eating vegetables or meat? Is to say stop killing insects, cockroaches, let them multiply in numbers and take over your houses? Stop using animals in laboratories? Stop using medicines to cure our diseases because they kill bacteria and viruses?

The answer is a definite No. What am I them proposing? It is simple. Give consideration to other life forms. Don’t apply double standards to other species.

Oppose the indiscriminate use of animals in laboratories. Animals, Plants of a species other than Homo sapiens sapien are also life forms.

Stop saying you are killers to “Non-Vegetarians”, because even “Vegetarians” too are killers.

Try avoiding medicines if you can. I know. I know, the body’s defense mechanism will anyways kill the foreign element, but at least it will be a natural death. (Funny isn’t it? To think about the death of bacteria, viruses as due to natural and unnatural causes. I am too good, am I not?)

If you can’t avoid taking medicines, then what happens? Well, that too bad for the bacteria or virus or whatever. It’s the survival of the fittest.

And oh, does it mean that I am proposing that people stop eating chickens, fish…etc. No, that’s a personal choice for each individual to take. Even though I have given an impassioned plea for the acceptance of all animals and plants as equals to humans, I continue to eat them.

What about the legal angle of my argument? I guess, it will take a long time to make a shift in the minds of the people to make them respect other life forms. This cannot be done through any law and must be from within the individual.

I end by saying, treat animals and plants kindly/humanely or who know maybe the incidents depicted in the film “The Happening” could happen one day.

Drifters

This is my first post after joining the B-school and most of you were expecting a post on a very different topic I know, some were even predicting a change in the mood of the blog. Yeah! Yeah! I can hear you guys saying, it’s just been two weeks, let’s wait and watch, but you people should know better than that.

Now, you might wonder, why is the topic titled as drifters and the why in the hell are you talking about something else. The point is “Precisely that!!”

See, I am aimlessly drifting; I am going everywhere but no where. Of course, as you all know I am slightly insane and prone to ramble and rant.

The definition of drifter as given in dictionary.com is that of a person who moves from place to place or job to job without any aim.

But what about the people who are “highly successful” individuals but do not have a aim in their life. People who stay in one place are successful in their personal and professional life but do not have a purpose to their life.

Most people, I at least according tome fall into this second category of successful but purposeless people. I accept that I too belong to this category (Of course I am not as highly successful as some of the people in this category.)

The reasons may be various, one of this maybe because there is simple no time to think of these things. As the saying goes “In today’s world, we have run fast just to stay in the same place”.

Another reason could be that people don’t want to answer that question because they are afraid of the answer. After all aren’t most of us thought from our childhood that success is about getting high marks in the examinations and that sports, arts come secondary? These are so ingrained into us, that by the time we grow up and realize what we have missed it is too late and we have been conditioned in the “conventional” way that to think otherwise becomes a pain to us. And so, most people choose the easy way out.

So, what am I trying to convey through this post? The answer is that is most of us drifters in one way or the other. Just that we don’t realize it.

By the way, no one here suspects me yet to be the lunatic that I am. I have been keeping my insane side in control. But I am staring to lose it.

GOD

God, as generally defined is a superpower that controls everything. God judges rights and wrongs and punishes us accordingly. Oh, by the way I forgot to mention that god also allows us free will.

I as an Atheist do not believe in god. Let me first explain what an Atheist is. An atheist is a person, who through the empirical evidence available to them, through logical reasoning independently arrives at the conclusion that a superpower as described by the many religions of the worlds is not possible.

Why do I think that god does not exist? Simple take two of the powers that are ascribed to god. The age old question to which no answer been given is “Can gods create a rock so big that gods cannot lift it?” No one has been able to successfully as of yet to answer this question. (The question was originally raised, I believe some time during the middle ages in Europe.)

Another argument is if god is omniscience, then god cannot be omnipotent. The reasoning goes some thing like this: Suppose god changes god’s mind over some issue, then god cannot be omnipotent as god would have already known that god’s mind is going to change. But if you say god does not or cannot change god’s mind over any issue then it means the omnipotent power is lost.

One more logical inconsistency with god as generally defined is that, if god is all good then why is there so much evil around? Why is there hunger, poverty, disease? Don’t tell me that all these are there as punishment. Because if god truly created us all, god would not wish us to suffer, at least everyone I know wouldn’t want anything they created to suffer one bit. Another answer given is that, we remember god only when there is suffering. So, god wants to be worshiped even at the cost of pain to its creation?

And they say that god will punish you if you don’t worship god, follow god’s guidelines. So in what way is the god you define any different from an autocrat?

Lets us come to the question of how god allows us free will yet controls all our actions and oh yeah god punishes us if we do “evil” by choosing the wrong choice of actions among all the choice that were presented to us in the first place by god.

How can you control everything that a person does yet give them free will? On yeah that’s because god can do thing that are incomprehensible to the human mind. Please………..

And, I forgot the icing… Take any book on god and you are most likely to see god referred to as a “He” and never as a “She” or “It”. This is true when we speak, we generally use the word he except when of course referring to a goddess or some gods that have an animal form.

How is it that you people decided that god was a male is something that escapes me. And also how is it that most representations of god are in a human likeness? You say god cannot be seen, only felt and yet all your representations of god are in human likeness and especially a likeness to male human.

And I could go on and on…But I will stop here and provide you a link to a George Carlin video on Religion that is damn funny.

And I would suggest reading "A God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. Because it is a good read and is a beautiful book on religion and god and written in such logical manner that i coule never achieve.

End Versus Means

Does the End justify the Means or does it not. This is a question that has been with humanity as far long as humanity has existed.

I used to think that the End does and must justify the Means. Think about if after all, if the end result does a whole lot of good for a lot of people, then what is wrong if a few have to suffer?

This was the reasoning I held for a long time, but then, when I started thinking along the lines of morals, integrity I came across a dilemma. The dilemma is this: Say you use dubious means to achieve a highly honorable goal. Now, since you used dubious means, aren’t you morally unworthy of that goal? What if the means you used are contradictory of the goal that you wish to achieve?

Also, how do you define which is an honorable goal, and more importantly where do you draw the line on the means that you use to achieve the goal?

The above question along with the following quote which I came across

“He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster” by Friedrich Nietzsche begs the question of people who claim that the end does justify the means.

Scores and scores of cops, soldiers, and intelligence agents around the world have to make the choice everyday in their line of duty on end vs. means debate.

Now let’s take the other side of the debate that the End does not justify the Means. Of what use would a goal be, if it were not achieved? It would be another failure and would only lead to disillusionment for all those involved with the goal/idea. What use would an idea be, if it were to never see the light of the day and was destroyed by a unscrupulous few?

Of course one may argue that one retains their integrity, morality. That the people involved do not behave in a contradictory manner from their held conventions and thus they are “whole” in the intellectual sense. But this may be labeled, by some, as an excuse for them not being strong enough to stomach what is necessary to be done to achieve their goal/idea. After all many a country’s independence was won through violent means.

So, where does this leave us?

Does the End justify the Means or not? Well, that is a choice that every individual has to make their own choice on this.

I have made my choice and that is that the End does not justify the Means.

I leave you with a quote from the nadirs of my mind:

“A person who truly believes that the End justifies the Means will always claim that the End does not justify the Means.”

Student Vs Professor

An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with God, The Almighty. He asks one of his new students to stand and.....

Prof: So you believe in God?
Student: Absolutely, sir.
Prof: Is God good?
Student: Sure.
Prof: Is God all-powerful?
Student: Yes.
Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm? (Student is silent.)
Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?
Student: Yes.
Prof: Is Satan good?
Student: No.
Prof: Where does Satan come from?
Student: From...God...
Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student: Yes.
Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything. Correct?
Student: Yes.
Prof: So who created evil? (Student does not answer.)
Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?
Student: Yes, sir.
Prof: So, who created them? (Student has no answer.)
Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God?
Student: No, sir.
Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?
Student: No, sir.
Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?
Student: No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.
Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student: Yes.
Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student: Nothing. I only have my faith.
Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.
Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Prof: Yes.
Student: And is there such a thing as cold?
Prof: Yes.
Student: No sir. There isn't. (The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)
Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it. (There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)
Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?
Student: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light....But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?
Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?
Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?
Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?
Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.
Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir? (The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument is going.)
Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher? (The class is in uproar.) Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain? (The class breaks out into laughter.) Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir? (The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable.)
Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.
Student: That is it sir... The link between man & god is FAITH. That is all that keeps things moving & alive. And the student sits down.

To whomsoever it may concern,

This is a reply to the above dialogue between a Student and a Professor, which implicitly sates that it “proves” the existence of god. I was deeply hurt that a dialogue that has no logic in it has been going around the internet for so long a time.

The excerpts from the dialogue are in blue and the reply’s are in black.

Student: ... But we don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that.
Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that.
There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat
we cannot measure cold. Heat is energy.

There is something called Cold. Cold is the name given to low temperatures or low energy (heat energy) levels, which is vastly different from " absence of heat ". Absolute temperature (0 K –273.15 °C/ –459.67 °F) cannot be achieved, as it requires a perfect system without any imperfections. A system without any imperfections is not found in nature and neither can it be created except in theory. We do measure cold. Low temperature is cold.

Student: Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.

Wrong. Cold is not absence of heat, but the name given to low energy (heat energy) levels as stated in my previous response.

Student: You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light....But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?

Accepted, darkness is the absence of light as perceived by humans. You see darkness is a human term. Many animals use sound, infra-red, vibrations, chemical signature for navigation and other purposes. So what would be darkness to a human may not be so for some other animal. Also, what’s the point the student is trying to get at here? Is it that the professor is wrong? Well it in no way affects the authenticity of the professor’s statements about god. Why? The reason is the first sentence of the discussion. “An atheist professor of philosophy…..”, as you can very well see the professor is qualified on the subject of philosophy and it nowhere mentions his qualifications in the field of physics. It would therefore not be incorrect to make a premise that the professor’s knowledge in physics is that of a layman as the fields of philosophy and physics differ from each other widely. The Student has made a logically incorrect premise that an expertise in one subject means an expertise in other subjects too.

Student: You argue there is life and then there is death, To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it.

First of all The Professor nowhere makes a statement that death is the opposite of life. Again check the Student’s logic: There is absence of life on the Moon, so according to the Student, there is Death on the Moon. Wow, the Student is an absolute genius!!! I am expecting a thesis on the existence of death on the Moon. What crap?

Student: Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one.

Really? I didn’t know that science couldn’t explain electricity and magnetism. I guess the Student has missed quite a few science classes during his school days.

Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument is going.)
Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher? (The class is in uproar.)

Evolution is a slow, continuous, cumulative process. It will take a hundred years if not a thousand years to perceive a change. The life period of an average human being is only 60 years. So isn't it logically incorrect of the Student to ask the Professor, if he has observed the process of evolution at work.

And as for evidence of evolution, one word: Fossils. Oh also the genes of animals belonging to different species are quite similar to each other.

Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir.

Again the Student’s logic is fallacious. That the Professor is able to reply coherently to his questions is not this by itself proof of a brain. The Professor is obviously qualified with at least Bachelors degree if not a Masters or Doctorate to be teaching. As far as I know, that would do require a brain.

The dialogue can be used to “prove” the existence of, among many others, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and the Celestial Teapot. In the dialogue, just replace the instances of the word God with any of the three above and voila!

I doubt how many people would not ridicule a person who believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Celestial Teapot. C'mon, you would at least give a wry smile and call the person a nutcase. And yet, if a person believes in God, everyone else is expected to respect their religious sentiment and not make fun of it.

Awaiting a reply,

An Atheist

Pidology

Finally folks, you get to read the thoughts of the great Lord Pidog.

Lord Nihlus Pi Dog Says:

● In Life there are certain

✔ Questions not worth asking.

✔ Answers not worth chasing.

● If it's your fate to change fate then what can stop you?(If there is fate.)

● There is randomness in order and a order in randomness.

● Chaos is nothing but random order.

● Society is a tool for the non powerful who know their power to control the powerful who don't know their power.

● The only intransigent thing in life is transience.

● Life is transient, that's the beauty of it.

● Succeeding is great but knowing where you will is greater.

● It's easy to be wise you just need to know how.

● There is only one way from the top.

● No matter how many people you love, no matter how many people love you, when it really comes down to it, you are alone in this world.

● We don't determine our birth. We don't determine our death. Why then do we try to determine what happens in between?

Answer: Because we are humans!

● Is there anything as good or bad?

● Which is better? Being a Specialist or a Generalist.

● Sometimes we have to do things not because we want to but because we have to.

● In Life, tough decisions have to be taken whether you like it or not. The sooner you accept this fact the better it is for you.

● What would be the best way to show your contempt to something but by conquering it.

● We are what we are because of what we are.

● From the darkest of times come the brightest of lights (sort of redundant).

● Sometimes we do not mean what we mean and mean what we don't mean.

● The world is going to the dogs and i am one of them.

● The hardest thing in life is to be honest with oneself and the easiest is to lie.

● What will happen if we know what is going to happen?

● Which is worse? Consciously doing the wrong thing for the right reasons or doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

● The greatest gift that you can offer a person is not that you can ascend the highest peaks but that you can descend to the deepest nadirs.

● Winners "write" history.

● History judges you not by How but by What.

● Your determination to do something is not shown by what your are willing to give up but by what your are willing to take up.

● The worse thing in life is not that giving up but refusing to take up.

● Which is better? Is it to "Stand and Fight" and Fall or to "Live Today, Fight Tomorrow" and Win.

● How much Grey matter you have determines how much you think about Grey area's.

● What is reality but our assumption that it something is real.

● Between the Deep Blue Sea and the Devil, choose the Devil at least you have a chance of making a deal.

● Sometimes to Win is to Lose and to Lose is to Win.

● It is sometimes better to Lose than to Win.

● Ignorance is sometimes better than knowledge.

● It is the principle of the thing rather than the thing itself that matters.

● If there had been no Goliath, there would have been no David.

● The Weak shall die and the Strong shall survive.

● The most barbaric are the most civilized and reverse holds as well.

● Death is not the end of Life, but its continuation.

● Nobody Wins in a War, the same goes for Life.

● Everyone Losses in a War, Life is the biggest War.

● I like journeys, but i don't like the biggest one of them all.

● Go to your deaths with your heads held high and with a laugh, after all it's what life is all about.

● Everyone has fears only the degree and the cause of fear varies.

● The two greatest sin's of the world Self-Deception and Self-Denial.

● Do we know all the time why we do what we do and why we feel what we feel?

● If perfection is a myth, why chase it?

● Perfection is against the very existence of the universe.

● Desire is considered the root of all evil, but without desire how can anyone live?

● If it is not about Winning or Losing, but only about how good a fight you put up, why is Winning given so much importance?

● If Winning is a habit (it should also hold true for Losing), then how does Losing become the first step to Success.

● That all truths are facts and all facts are truths is by itself a truth and a fact.

Nations, Nationality and Patriotism

Nation, that absurd political idea that has, is, and causing so many problems for mankind, ever since it’s inception along with the growth of the civilizations.

Why do I call the idea of nation and nationality absurd? Well, the reasons are fairly simple. It is primarily an idea that was used to by the noblesse to capture and retain their power and wealth. Nations and nationality are at any level just a political idea and holds no other higher meaning. And, nationality does not mean that you have to dislike (nor hate) other countries.

Patriotism and nationality are being increasingly cited as reasons by governments across the world to extend support to their citizen(s), even though the person(s) may indeed be guilty. These are also increasingly being cited as reasons by people to oppose the ideas that other countries put forth and in most cases to look down upon other countries.

Mankind has spilled blood over this idea. I can understand if you are fighting over an area rich in natural resources. But mankind has spilled blood even over areas that are inhospitable and lack any kind of natural resources. Areas that only hold symbolic meaning and sometimes areas that are actually a loss are also defended. Why? Because there is a perception of difference of opinion.

All the differences of opinions among the 200 odd countries in the world evaporate if you take away the idea of nationality. In what way is a person from the continent of America any different from a person from the Asian continent? There is no difference.

Why shouldn’t an individual born in one country feel that his nationality is more that of another country? After all nations and nationality are just political ideas. But such an individual would be called unpatriotic.

And what is Patriotism anyway? Patriotism is an idea. It means not only to stand up for and stand by a country but more importantly for the ideas and principles behind that country. This is the true meaning of the word Patriotism.

Why have I stressed on the word country in the definition?

It is because; there is a difference between the “government of a country” and “country.” Many people have been misled to think that “government of a country” and “country” are the same. The first duty of a patriot is not the government of their country, not even towards his/her country but to the ideas and principles behind his/her country. A person truly becomes a patriot only if he/she is loyal to the the ideas and principles behind their country.

Also, patriotism does not mean and never meant that whatever your country does is correct and that whatever other countries do is wrong.

Just because, you were born in a country doesn’t mean that you have to feel patriotic towards it or have to identify yourself with the nationality of that country. Respect the country you were born in, if and only if it truly deserves it.

But if there is any other country that you can identify yourself with, go ahead and identify yourself by that country. And if you feel patriotic towards a country other than in which you were not born in, you are not unpatriotic.