Purely Rhetoric

When people talk about being civilised, I often think what it really means. Initially, eating and reproducing were the only goal of humans. Just like any other animal. Things would have been pretty clear then. For you to continue living, you have to survive. Surviving: is defending yourself. Then the realisation happened. You would defend only when attacked and in the process of defence you would lose something. So why wait till you are attacked. You do the attacking first then your loss will be minimal. The attack here can be from/against anywhere/anything – other society/nature/future/fear within. So, the humans took to attacking these for so called survival.

This is our first step to become so called civilised. So, what I can see here is, to be civilised is, to lose peace and go on the offence.

So, this so called way of being civilised has transformed into a way of life these days and we humans have started to survive not by merely being alive but by controlling the “others”. “Others” are still the same; nature or animal or fellow humans.

The animals have no choice but to perish. The nature is too complicated to control. It is baffling that we, the so called the most advanced of the life forms never realised for 40 to 50 years that when we dig a deep hole on earth’s surface for energy, the consequence is a similar hole in the atmosphere.

The humans are not very different from one of their greatest inventions – Robot. We live in a way that has been collectively considered to be the way to live. Strangely, what is collectively accepted is mostly framed by a very few. We go by our day to day life just as expected from us. Not by ourselves but by the principles drilled into our head from our childhood. What is good and what is bad is “preached” to us and we decide on situations based on the preaching. We formed a lot of religions and subsets of it but you cannot choose anything easily because you are always born into them. So, how different are we from Robots.

Humans, by nature cannot work independently. They always need a leader. Even that leader is a robot (may be the defective ones) who would have got instructions from whoever has nurtured him/her. To put it in simple terms, ‘we needed a leader like M.K Gandhi to become free from British only to hand our leash over to so called democratic set up.

How different is democracy from being ruled by a king if you cannot be a part of framing your constitution?????

What is the point I am trying to make here???????? Just like you I am also scratching my head hard.