TECHNOLOGY AND INSTINCTS/NATURE !!

A few weeks back, I was fortunate enough to make a trip to Chopta, a remote place in Uttarakhand, where technology has yet to reach (not coz its really remote, its just 60 kms from Rudraprayag after all, but coz its very near to Kedarnath Wild Life Sanctuary) and its feared that the advent of technology would degrade the natural scenic environment of the place. There are no electric wires (ppl still use solar chargeable lamps in the area) and just one mobile tower (ob, its BSNL !!) with no modern facilities (or necessities !!) like TV etc.
Staying there, I was taken back in time to the days when not each home had an inverter / generator and residential colonies with power back up was not heard of, and when ppl would wait for hours together for electricity to come and "plan" things accordingly; when ppl had time to spend with each other, least of all, with their (new) neighbours; when "social networking" meant meeting friends face to face and not tweeting, facebooking, orkutting or gtalking (and when liking someone's hilarious joke or comment would result in laughing heartily rather than speaking out a series of lol, lmao, rofl etc) !!! On my yet another recent trip to Gangtok, I read in some of the monastery, the 10 diktats of Dalai Lama, and the one which I distinctly remember is: Its amazing how people hv gone to and returned successfully from moon, but dont get time to cross a gallery / road and welcome their new next door neighbour !! how ironic truly ... Sure, how social networking has modified over the years is necessary (and upto some extent, natural) considering the changes that have been brought in the society as a result of post early-90's changes in the economy, but can such social-networking sites ever replace the charm of face to face interactions ... i fail to understand, as one of my friend's status msg on fb suggested, y shud facebook represent hollowness and emptiness within us, if it were just being used as a social-networking medium ? Everyone uses these social-networking sites to stay in touch with their old pals and friends, and ofcourse for fun, and thats obvious, however, wht I fail to understand is, how can such sites sometimes become a substitute,for eg, to congratulate a friend over his success, especially when one can easily meet him and wish the same !!
Also, y is it that technology is always assumed to degrade the natural and scenic environment of a place ? y cant science and nature co-exist (in places other than the advertisement of some cosmetic products) ? There are places like Sikkim, where the local growth rate is as high as 8.3% (as per the wiki page) and yet are too beautiful and so well-planned. The day-to-day life in places like Chopta is too harsh compared to city life essentially coz of the lack of many of the basic amenities (ofcourse, it doesnt matter much to tourists, who normally wouldnt be in the place for more than a week, but kudos to the human spirit for survining there too !!). The dangers of poaching for the musk deer (and other diverse flora / fauna found in the area) apart from the pollution concerns in the area has prevented technology from reaching there. But can such risks be truly attributed to technology ? Aren't they the result of human greed. Yes, over commercialization has, upto some extent spoiled places like Mussoorie (compare the mussoorie of today to what it was somewhere in early 90s and one would immediately realize the difference). However, Gangtok has still retained its charm and natural beauty inspite of all the commercialization and tourism there. So, science and nature need not exist in isolation. They can co-exist too. The nature can sustain the "side-effects" of technology, but only upto a limit. It reminds me of the excerpt: nature can cater to the needs of all, not the wants. Its our wants that we need to take care of !!






P.S: To know more about the scenic beauty, fun and thrill of trekking in Chopta, click here.
PPS: Thank you Amit for re-kindling my interest in blogging :) :)

SHOULD WE REALLY BLAME THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM ??

I recently read an article by Sagarika Ghose in HT abt the movie 3 Idiots and the current education system. The author very rightly observes that the movie, though a wonderful watch, is not meant to be taken seriously. I quote from the article "And, of course, we are not meant to take 3 Idiots too seriously, as it is after all just about having an escapist laugh and not thinking too much. After all, if you think too much you may discover that 3 Idiots is a dangerous, preachy and sanctimonious film that disdains all forms of hard work; that subliminally condemns studying as a pathetic exercise in rote learning and scorns the sadhna of higher education."

The current higher educational system may hv its shortcomings. No system/individual is ideal and scope of improvement is certainly there. However, what the movie does is simply elaborate them (in a comical way) without suggesting ne solutions. Its very easy to criticize a system/an individual; however, the problem as is shown in the movie, is more or less known to most whom 3 Idiots team would include in their target audiences. What is needed is not just criticism but also a solution to it and "3 Idiots" surely fails there. Surely the inspirational speech by Baba Ranchoddas is no good for those who study just for marks. Everyone hears such speeches almost daily !!! Even the simple solutions, for eg, hving more open book exams (wherein students are allowed to take books/notes etc inside the exam hall) instead of closed books were lacking in the movie.

Also, I personally feel that if we do some introspection, we would realize that more than the system, its our attitude thats the problem. May be, the educational system rewards those who don't understand the subject and do rote learning, but surely, it does not punish those who comprehend the subjects and study for knowledge... (this is shown in the movie too when Rancho secures top rank with Silencer around, though there is a diff b/w real and reel life; however i made the above comment on the basis of my personal experience during college life)... so, surely, like many other things, it depends on the individual whether he wants to study for marks or for knowledge .... the current system leaves that choice to the individual concerned .... probably, the problem is we want ppl who do rote learning to get lesser marks, and not strive for excellence (study for knowledge) ourselves ... and therefore, we tend to blame the system ...
also, the following 2 excerpts from the article are truly food for the thinking mind:

1) "caution has to be exercised that urban middle class children are not pampered into thinking that anything that causes ‘stress’ is evil and should be attacked and, worse, not be even attempted." Personally, I feel that upto some extent, stress does improve performance, and if some1 is over stressing himself i believe its the prob with the person concerned ... its like abusing a catalyst to performance, surely if u overdose a medicine, it does more harm than good ... also, there is no clear cut demarcation where stress ceases to be a catalyst to performance...it depends on the individual

2) Encouraging students to abuse their teachers, hate their books, throw metaphorical tomatoes at all centres of excellence is to encourage an illiterate lumpen rage against anything that isn’t dumbed down to the shocking level of intellectual nothingness

well, i ceratinly dont mean that the system is ideal ... but what i want to say is its always introspection that helps ... sometimes, i feel that the easiest thing in the world is to blame the system / others for one's failure .. but one must remember tht the same system has produced geniuses, so, it cannot be 100% wrong either .. and surely its not ideal ...

P.S. For complete article, please click here