UAE’s Ranking in Digital Evolution Index

Standard

UAE’s ranking in the Digital Evolution Index by MasterCard is 21st. We’re doing good but we need to step it up, especially institutionally and in creating demand for technology (one of the best technological infrastructures globally but relatively low demand for it). Countries like Singapore (ranked 1st) are pulling way ahead because, according to the analysis, they largely have a highly-educated, self-driven population, which explains their self-sufficiency in #STEM skills and in innovative startups, I guess. I think we’d do our younger generation a favour by pulling the rug from under them every now and then. Incentives are good but a little adversity, tactically placed, would go a long way in creating drive.

 

   

Advertisements

My Secret Love

Image

My Secret Love

I love. I’m in love with love. But I can never love anybody. Nobody can. Because when you say you love a person, you only love the representation of that person in your mind. That representation will always be different from who that person really is. If you think about it, you don’t even know yourself all that well. How could you even hope to know someone else? No. Love–the way it’s been painted in our collective human culture–exists only in a virtual world where nobody exists, within your mind’s reality. Whatever behaviours, actions or words that come out of you in the physical plane towards that person are only manifestations of that inner, inventive love. We only love the idea of that person in our mind, even if the idea is false. Oh, how many have fallen for someone they have never met or seen, but only by the virtue of their pictures, whispers or writings. Love is not a bond; it’s an imagination. A beautiful, pleasurable imagination that I partake in everyday. With everybody.

Do we really need our parents when we hit 30 or 40?

Standard

I woke up at 4 and couldn’t go back to sleep, despite being tired. Had a strange dream. Not so strange–just that my late dad was in it. And he was very fatherly, unlike the real him. It made me ponder, quarter asleep. It made me think that perhaps when our kids are my age, they’ll still need parents around, but not the same parents they need today. I think as a person grows, his or her need for a parent also grows. And that need grows perhaps according to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Just as in Maslow’s, in the beginning, we need basics like to be fed and sheltered. Then we grow and our needs evolve through Maslow’s pyramid. Perhaps what we need at my age from a father figure is affirmation and recognition (the near-top need in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs).

Why I believe female brains will evolve faster

Standard

Why are humans born weak, in need of care, unlike in most animals? Is one of the main reasons that humans have developed easier, more convenient lifestyles, climbing up the food chain and thus warranting a shorter or less demanding pregnancy, pushing more of the necessary growth of a child to occur outside of the womb, and thus producing very weak babies at birth compared to other animals? Theory: Across evolutionary timeframes (thousands of years at least), the more women are expected to engage in demanding work (especially mentally complex work), the more the offspring is born physically weak (that is, physically weak at birth but not necessarily later.) I hypothesize that mental energy somehow drains the woman’s capacity to reproduce healthier children (that is, not in a single or a few generations but, more evidently, across thousands, or perhaps as fast as hundreds, of years). In this sense, we can say that there are women who are most optimally suited for high-pressure cerebral work and there are women who are most optimally suited for producing fitter children, and that those two roles are supposedly mutually exclusive. Although the cerebral high-pressure female capacity seems to be much newer than the healthy-child-bearing female capacity (reflecting that it’s still a man’s world, so to speak), I think the two types of tendencies, genetically speaking, will continue to exist in varying degrees across time, because both are increasingly needed. I also hypothesize that the new role (the mentally demanding one) will grow, fuelled by increased financial demands, greater potentials for self-actualization and technological advances in human reproduction (i.e. IVF, cloning, genetic engineering, etc.) which may become alternatives to good ol’ missionary.

Evil is not really evil?

Standard

There is no such thing as evil. Evil is a delusion. What we perceive as evil are but flaws, incompatibilities, failures in the attempt to reconcile differences. Interaction between any two or more beings are driven in the core towards realizing a symbiotic relationship—the Eastern notion of harmony, I presume. The drive may be expressed sexually, Freudly speaking, but it is nevertheless directed towards this harmonious existence. Failures in seeking this symbiotic relationship result in violences, conflicts, wars, hatreds, fears and suspicions. Even when two humans fight over an ideal, they are actually seeking harmony. They are not evil; one human is simply trying to make their ideal compatible with the other human’s ideal (whether by dominatingly enforcing one meme over the ‘other’ meme or by locking in at certain macthing points just like two jigsaw puzzles, or very much like the hormone receptors in the human brain). And unless they become compatible through any means necessary (memtic evolution, adaptation or mututation?) then what we call as evil occurs, which is simply a flaw, an illness, just like HIV. And so HIV is not evil. It is just trying to survive. In doing so, it is innately seeking a symbiotic relationship with the infected. Probably since it does not have the intelligence necessary to be aware of the failures of this relationship, it is slower in seeking to evolve it into a more symbiotic relationship. Bioevolution scientists probably know this for sure, but there are many evidences of ancient disease-causing organisms evolving over at least thousands of years into peaceful, and even useful, organisms in the body of the host. In fact, many of the cells and organisms in our own bodies may have been incorporated into us via parallel evolution, I suppose. Question: What then drives those organisms to be more deadly rather than peaceful as is the case today with evolving strains of viruses and bacteria? Resistance. Antibiotics and ‘fighting’ viruses and bacteria yielded more dangerous generations of them. If medicine and biosciences can evolve to harmonize those organisms and give them the help that they actually welcome to evolve into symbiotic coexistences rather than fight those organisms, diseases (the manifestations of the conflicts, and not the organisms themselves or the innate characteristics of those organisms) will be devolved out of existence much sooner than in the hands of a blind watchmaker. We recognize this idea more on the memetic sense, so why not extend it to the genetic world? Here’s a thought: what we usually perceive as evil is often having been caused by a being of at least the same level of intellectual awareness as we are. If one lesser animal, a cat, inflicts fatal harm upon another lesser animal, a mouse, for fun, we would not normally perceive it as evil, even when we know that the animal kingdom is rife with examples of animals killing or hurting others for sport. Better yet, if a lesser animal attacks a human, it is not normally described as an evil act. And, equally, if higher beings (of higher intellectual capacities, that is) observe us engaging in what we perceive as evil, the higher beings may understand that perception of ours but it will not be perceived by them themselves as evil. Hence, it stands to reason, I hope, that the more you evolve mentally, the more you realize that evil is but a side-effect and not an entity or a characteristic or, for the millennia-old poster boy of holy books, Iblees/Lucifer/Satan, an end unto itself. Evil happens when harmony is sought too aggressively. In other words, evil is never a drive, and seeking harmony is the real motive of everything.

Man: Predictable?

Standard

Hypothesis for Fun: two people with exactly the same brains (same size, structure, anatomy, chemistry, EVERYTHING), when asked to select random numbers, will select the same series of numbers in the same order when they’re in the same environment. In other words, this is to say that brain computation is not really random–given the right tools and a sufficient understanding of the human mind, human randomness or “unpredictability” can be predicted. Well, at least in mathematical decisions like picking random numbers or perhaps random shapes. What do you think?