DARK PEN

This question was asked to me on Quora Hindi  'How can science systems be strengthened to be better prepared to deal with future global crises?'  I understand that firstly, we have to define what the future global crises and what the scientific systems are in a nutshell. People should have an essential understanding of Maslow's pyramid. With the ever-expanding population, the first thing we all are running out of is essential resources. Humans need to survive, and survival in civilisation exists on the cornerstone of essential psychological needs. As Maslow depicted, biological requirements will always be essential for human survival. I will theorise that with the increasing population, even in a distant future of the next 100 years, we will have a shortage of food, water, clean air, shelter, sleep, and clothing. Poverty is a man-made phenomenon that helps the elite and people in power dictate who and whom should be in power and control. Essential food will be provided to s...

Note: If you have not watched the Toy Story movie series, this article is not for you. I don’t know how closely you have watched Toy Story, but for me, it was the first animation movie that detached me from reality for almost a couple of weeks. In my defence, I was a young kid, so it happens. The first Toy Story came out in 1995, and from that point onward, it has gathered a very loyal following and a fan base. There is Woody, a cowboy doll owned by Andy, a very sweet kid with lots of imagination. So, in a nutshell, you have to watch the movie at least the first one to literally understand the idea of this article. In the Toy Story universe, the toys are not just inanimate objects; they come alive when there is no one around. They talk, think, and literally ride a very intense human-like emotional roller coaster. Okay, so let’s set up a timeline first. In Toy Story 2, we find out Woody used to have his own vintage television show called Woody's Roundup. He was on even Yo-Yo, kids...

Death is so satisfying that even though I know that I don’t know how I will be reacting to it, I still demand it. It’s like a constant struggle with it—I know it’s there, and I know it’s not my time yet, but I ask for it to take me. I’ve read somewhere that the intense emotion of dying is the first sign of true intellectualism, but for me, it’s not about being intellectual. For me, it’s about the point where I just collapse and cease to exist. I sigh for the moments, sometimes wondering how beautiful it’s going to be. Existence is complex, it demands effort, but death is just uniquely linear. It came in the form of disease, famine, drought, war, and even from error—human or natural—yet the linearity is in the end goal. No matter what the process is, eventually, you will just die. Even if you know you live like a king or peasant, fool or thinker, beggar or rich, insensitive or empathetic, even if not consciously deep somewhere you know someday you will die. As a kid, I used to think tha...

Every civilisation or geographically identified people go through certain phases of civilizational evolution. There needs to be an old history of being nomadic. A few nomads settle and become tribes. Tribes fight for control over geography and resources. A few stable or remaining tribes become political entities of some kind for structural leadership and later evolve to be small governed entities and communities. Then they go through the Iron Age, Bronze Age, and begin to identify geographically. Evolution happens with advancements in technology, agriculture, and societal values (unified morals, ethics, etc.) since agriculture allowed for more stable living conditions, leading to population growth and slow or maybe infinitesimal but a constant technological advancement (e.g. writing, metallurgy, architecture, art, martial art) laid the cornerstones for more complex governance systems. We're not going deep into an anthropological discussion, but hear me out. At certain points, this ...

There is this question I got asked by someone on Quora Hindi that ‘ The existence of carnivorous animals in the jungle depends on consuming other animals alive by tearing them apart. If this universe is created by an intelligent creator, what was the need to create such a horrific system of ripping and slaughtering fellow creatures? ’ The moment you phrase the question in such a way from that specific point you dewalls in the field of primary philosophical arguments of The Problem of Evil proposed by St. Augustine . Your concern that this cruelty in nature, where carnivorous animals eat innocent herbivorous animals, is completely contrary to the fundamental idea of ​​an intelligent and benevolent god. Because maybe god is there to protect every living being and resolve their materialistic problems and whenever you pray or burn incense, pray or do aarti or sajda you intentionally asking god to provide you something that you desire and from that moment onwards if there is a god he starts...

Gift of genius is haunting. It haunts the man who possesses it. It makes them suffer, immeasurable existential crisis that creates nightmares. Walking and multiplying nightmares. Imagine you can see everything yet you can do nothing about it because no one is doing anything about anything. In an abnormal society, genius is so unorthodox, unwanted, and undesirable that true genius wants to cease to be original and normal so he can become normal among the abnormal so the abnormal can identify him as normal. How paradoxical it is that one wants to be abnormal to be called normal. Like a philosopher who taunt and degrades society for not being philosophically profound yet forgets that the layman who has no ability to understand ontology, metaphysics, and the nature of reality, that layman himself is the reason for the philosopher's own survival. Layman doesn’t want to understand philosophical elements because this knowledge breaks the framework of his social structure. Philosophy is a ...

Does science achieve statistical probabilities, not certainties? Well, I think that, like all the other questions asked about natural sciences, life science, and philosophy, there isn’t a very straightforward answer to this question. Knowing about particles' momentum and position is not a certainty; it’s a probability . [1] But if you compare an electron with an M777 Howitzer shell, you can know precisely where it will hit, given you have done a fantastic amount of calculations on drag, air resistance, wind, barrel length, shell weight, and type of propellant [2] . There are so many variables [3] , and the more variables you add, the more probable it is that the certainty of your answer eventually shifts towards a probable answer . It does not mean the laws of classical mechanics don’t work; it simply means that statistical probabilities override certainties in a complex world like ours. Knowing something with certainty is as relative as the depth of the question. If you ask...