There are scientists claiming to have cloned a human baby. There has been a lot of debate going on over this issue. But the underlining question among this and a large number of other issues is," Is interfering with mother nature right?"
Here I am assuming that there is a force which is regulating the life forces. THough it is very difficult to attribute properties to it, but the fact that communities all over the world in different times and cultures (not being influenced by each other) have in one form or other been worshipping (which implies acknowledging its existence) mother nature, has to be taken into account.
You may call it mother nature or scientifically refer to it as the "theory of evolution", which may need corollaries still not formed for it too totally encompass the realm of mother nature. BUt one thing is certain if there is one such thing, either it has some limitations or something more powerful has taken control. An ecosystem which has millions of species of which one specie "progresses by leaps and bounds" while others get squashed in its way, either is going in the wrong direction. Or maybe that is what it intends, and if that is the case we are just puppets.
We do not have to go any farther than the school science book to see the flaw. The food chain, of insects camouflaging etc etc etc...clearly show a wonderful interrelation of different species, which more often than not are at a peaceful equilibrium. Why would nature want one of them to take over and pollute the system. I wonder if nature did'nt approve of man discovering fire. If humans are no more than a curious child, who finds something in parents' secret closet which it should not have.
What i am arriving at is the question, "Is there a need for the society, nations etc .etc..with which humans have encroached over the overall realm of mother nature?" Its obvious that the values which have been established It may seem heretic but I am forfeiting my place as a human while writing this and you can consider me as an alien from outer space or the plumber of mother nature who has got the job of removing the obstructions and fixing the leaks. So i am not giving any special considerations to humans.
From the plumbers viewpoint i would say i would rather take some intelligence from humans and share that among some other less fortunate species. Well here i am assuming that it is the intelligence of humans which is making it progress at the cost of other species. For all i know it could happen as Douglas Adams made the dolphins say,"BYe bye and thank you for all the fish ", when apocalypse finally came.
All these ponderings are because of a previous
post, which led to a healthy debate with
nandini. Well from a human beings viewpoint (who lives in a society/nation, and is a [good] productive member of it)it is right to say, quote," there are good value systems and bad value systems". But good for whom and bad for whom. And good and bad are in themselves too subjective, for my comfort. Good always winning over evil, does sound similar to, the victor being always good. For the effecient running of a society there has to be defined, good and bad value systems. I totally agree with this. But value systems change with cultures and times. So if a persons individual values clash with the present values of the society s/he is living, who is the one to blame and who is the one to suffer, for this clash? It was just probabilistic that the person was born in that system. The same values could have made him a normal unit in another place and time.
Nandini says "Robbing a bank will land you in jail. More importantly, if it was considered alright to rob banks, you wouldn't have anything protecting your right to property at all, and someone else could just as easily re-rob that money from you, right? " I wont go into bank robberies but there are plentiful of "bad" ways with which you could make easy and "tainted" money. Probability of landing into jail for the person with right connections or just enough money is the same as of a meteorite crashing onto his head. Society would never think it alright for their money to get robbed. But what do you think will happen if a money van gets into a accident and bags of cash lie strewn on the road. Everytime a riot occurs, like the recent one in gujarat, people come in cars and loot clothes off a departmental store like pantaloon.
"values which make one's life better are good values, and those which make one's life worse are bad values". The quote more or less sums up deciding the value for a individual. But i would suggest changing the "better life" with happiness. Because now this wuold encompass everything, even other individuals. If a person cares about other people and decides to forfeit something which makes his life a little worse but benefits other. Then the joy out of that compensates for his personal loss.
" there are no societal rights or values that's independent from individual rights or values. Individuals with shared values come together to form a community or a nation."
Then what becomes of the minority who dont share there values but get to share the nation. Take for example the DMSC (Durbar Mahila Samanay Committee) of Shonagachi, red light area in Kolkata. I recently got to see ,'tale of the night fairies', by Shohini ghosh. The DMSC is an organisation formed by the sex workers themselves. So DMSC had organised a carnival for themselves in some stadium. Initially the city official didnt give them permission to go on. They had tremendous pressure from women's committees all over from the country to prevent this sort of "immoral activity". The carnival eventually did happen, with all its musical chairs and sweetmeats. There was a kind of conference where some woman from a NGO had come there to know their problems and "save" them from their plight. She said something to the effect that, "prostitution is a crime against woman." Well i think this is the value held by majority of indians, at least the women. Just as she made this statement, one sex worker stood up and said that it was no crime. On the other hand she argued, that sex was in fact pleasurable and getting paid for it was the icing on the cake. Clearly their values do not match. But the comedy of prostitution remaining illegal in India for so much time is due to the majority.
It has to be noted that compared to bombay's red light area, which is more or less totally controlled by the underworld, in Shonagachi the women are mostly free. The thought that a woman would prefer prostitution to say some "moral" proffession like manual labour, without any forcing would be hard to swallow by a lot of people. The point i am trying to make is when people tend to force their values on to others, just because they are in the majority it becomes somewhat fascist. Just as long as the minority's value is not too hurting to the majority. I say, to everyone his..err...her own.
