May 26, 2012

Some drunk discussions... Some insane thoughts...

That's exactly what lead to my thinking about how important we really are. When I say we, I do not mean you and I. I d rather refer to our entire population, similar and different is several ways- still only human- each single one of us and all of us.

Last night, after gulping a tiny bottle of vodka, I got into this irresistable argument with PC. At several stages, all through the debate I rationaled with myself that I'd rather discuss something happier- like food- on a Friday night. But then, I do not know if it was the alcohol or the issue itself, we ended up only looking at the time in our phones at 5 am.

I wouldn't really get to the contents of the argument (I confess, I do not really remember it all clearly), but this is my opinion about us, as it stands today.

  • We have evolved. And that, we have done leading to several results that are good or bad for us or our environment (in all permutations of those four words possible). We are incomplete, imperfect and will never really be perfect. More because, nature doesn't want it. It cannot afford it.
  • Nature is God. It isn't perfect, but it is omnipotent of what all is possible at all. When I say this, I refer to a very relative scale, where nature is extremely close to omnipotency, while we on the other hand are petty and helpless.
  • I do not agree that everything in its natural form is good for us- say in terms of medicines/ food. Neither would I agree that everything in a not-so-natural or processed form is unhealthy. 
  • I do not look at man as being apart from his environment. In fact, I would rather say that man is in all a very insignificant part of a 30 million year old natural process.
  • We cannot really make a difference in the long run. 
- Here, I am not against environmentalists. I have myself worked in the environment sector and I have an inclination towards organic foods and non-plastic things in general. But I think it is not smart to say that you will make a huge difference with these attempts.

- We can only act, in the way nature wants us to act. If we think in a way- if the human mass thinks in a way, it is not our choice. It is the way nature wants us to think. It has programmed us in a way to think this way.

- Then comes the question, why are we so destructive? Think of what we are destroying... Our environment? Resources? Ourselves? Look at it from a range of 30 million years, would you really think if today we destroy all the resources and blast the earth up, life will never come back? I trust it would. I also trust 30 million years later, man might come again and destroy himself again. That's how nature is. It doesn't really favor us.
  • Medicine in any form is artificial. Whether it is ayurvedic or allopathic. Because, they work against natural population control. We do not die enough. (But nevermind, nature will find a way out to mass-kill us). Why only medicines... food, clothes, culture, houses, beds, purses, books, computers, tables and mobile phones are all artificial. I would even go to the extent that I would call human beings themselves artificial- given they're only surviving today by means no other creature 'naturally' uses.
  • Looking at it the other way round, if man were to be a part of nature and his environment... everything must be a part of the same environment too. All products of man, must be a product of nature too; given man himself is a part of nature. 

All through this, all I am trying to do is stick to one side and argue. 

-Either say that man is different from everything natural and only exists on a parallel plane fighting it out, every single day. So, everything we do/ make is bad and against the purpose of nature- nurturing life. That's why we are getting destroyed.

-Or accept, that man is a part of nature and nothing he does could be so wrong that it cannot be fixed. (It might lead to his own destruction, I agree, but that is not important to nature. Of course, it is to us. That's why we want to conserve our resources today, finally!) Nature is capable to fixing all damage done to it. 

But what we definitely cannot do is be apart from nature and fix it too.
And definitely, what we cannot afford is to push nature to eliminate us, for the good of itself.


Munch said...

Refreshing thoughts indeed! Love the way you put things in perspective!

homer womer said...


Reminds me of our discussions in college:-D

Simple hai re

System crashes you reboot .Same thing nature does :-O


Priyanka Tadipatri said...


Yes! I think I could have made the whole point in a single sentence! Respect!

Kanchan Agarwal said...


I just found your long and elaborate comments on my blog. Thank you so much. I had no idea you were reading it. I read your blog as regularly as I can. It inspires me to keep writing by the way. Thanks for writing so well 

Otherwise, how have you been? What have you been up to besides blogging? Still in Hyderabad?


P.S. I read this blog, too. I can't remember why I didn't leave a comment. :p

jaishu said...

"nature" is loosely defined word.there exists (n+1),
(n-1)...etc for all n.there is no all powerful entity governing is merely interdependent.for example.ants life could be at the mercy of us humans..the same way we could be at the mercy of a stronger entity and so on.....all that can exist ,will and all that cant ,will not.things change not just because they can but to make sure possibilities exist.strangely , possibilities are needed for things to exist. all events merely follow this rule.even if the concept of "nature" exists .nature doesn't have to fix anything.for,it doesnt matter what type of matter or long as it exists...
PS:out of context?! ..may be...still couldn't help from commenting..:P keep writing...:)

Priyanka Tadipatri said...

Kya toh bhi! :D