Traditional Rituals

Karva Chauth is an important traditional festival for Indians living in the Northwestern part of the country. This is when women fast for the day and perform rituals meant to keep their husbands in good health and prevent harm from coming to them.

Earlier this year, one of my relatives posted on Facebook a Youtube video of women celebrating this festival. The video showed the rituals and interviews with women who expressed their belief that they were doing it to protect their husbands. My relative presented this video with comments that indicated his thorough disgust with such ancient rituals in the modern world. Needless to say the response was overwhelming with some angry folks (his friends) telling him that this was a tradition and how dare he attack it. “Such rituals are important to bind the society together,” they said.

This exchange made me think of the role of such traditional rituals.

Yes, I agree that we are tribal creatures who need to identify themselves with a tribe and hang out with other members. Traditional rituals such as Karve Chauth provide occasions to do that on a regular basis. Also, when you get together, it is important to do something --eat, sing, dance, pray, whatever. This creates a shared experience and cements the group together. This is all very good.

My problem comes when the participants in the rituals start believing that what they are doing will affect the future. It is fair for a rational person to ask how could that be. How can fasting for a day and performing rituals have any effect on the health and wellbeing of your husband---unless he is fasting with you and taking some weight off will do him some good? Where is the link?

The answer lies in our inability to accept the fact that we have very little or no control over what happens in the future. The need for having control is so strong that we would go to any length and perform any act to create an illusion that we are affecting our future. To prove that we are right, we pull out examples of situations where something good happened because we performed a specific ritual, forgetting to mention countless situations when nothing happened or something bad happened to a person following that very same ritual.

An alternative explanation is that the participant in the ritual agrees with the above answer but has to express his belief as a price of admission to the group. Until all of the members of the group agree that they are performing the ritual just for the fun of it, any belief associated with its effect on future will continue, however irrational it may be.

In Praise of Paper Books

The world seems to be moving towards eBooks.

At this point, Amazon sells more eBooks than paper books. There are now multiple devices available at all different price points for purchasing, storing, reading, and sharing these books. In my own unscientific sampling, people who take the early morning train with me seem to be gradually converting to reading from little tablets in their hands rather than the old-fashioned paper books

An eBook is a great innovation. One can store a whole library of books in the memory of a little device. They can be downloaded on a whim and discarded without leaving a trace. One cannot think of an environmentally sounder way to exercise one’s mind. Add to that all the benefits of having built in dictionaries and such, what is not to like in an eBook?

Hmmm.

Why is it then I keep buying paper books? Once again, as I mentioned in my previous post, I am not a Luddite and I do use my iPad, and sometimes iPhone, to read magazines and newspapers. It is with books that I seem to have drawn a line.

Yes, I like the feel of holding a paper book. However, this nostalgic, and often cited, reason feels like an excuse that does not fully answer why I like books.

I think the explanation lies in what I do with a paper book when I am done reading it. It ends up on one of my bookshelves. I like gazing at the bookshelves and think about the contents of individual books as I notice them individually. I like to randomly pick up and leaf through books. Some of these are coffee table books with beautiful large pictures (generally of mountains or some barren land, in my case) that continue to fascinate me.

Try to do all that with a Kindle.

Even more important is the fact that visitors to my house look at my books and sometimes even show interest in what I am reading. I let people judge me by what I am reading. I jealously guard my books, making sure that the borrowed ones are returned. This is even though I may not read most of them again. Why would I do that were it not for the fact that these books on my shelves contribute to my personal branding!

Until they come out with innovations that satisfy these other reasons, it is going to be paper books for me.

In Praise of a Radio

Recently, my old Sony Walkman radio died. I went to a department store to look for a replacement.

The sales clerk was mildly amused by my request but did help me find one. There, among shelves displaying snappy new MP3 players and iPods, was a tiny area devoted to radios. I picked up a Walkman---which looked almost exactly like the one I was replacing. I guess, not too much effort had gone into developing a refreshed version of this dying product.

That’s too bad.

I like my radio and would rather listen to it rather than an MP3 player when I exercise in my gym. I am not a Luddite---not at all. I own all the gizmos, iPad2, iPhone and all that. However, the radio provides me with something thse other products do not.

First, there is a friendly voice guiding me through the music I listen too. I generally listen to the Western Classical music, and the short summary provided by the announcer gives me useful context and enriches my knowledge base. An MP3 player does not do that.

Second, no matter how large is my library of music, I can not match what a radio station has. So, I listen to selections I would not have otherwise encountered if I were attached to listening just my collection on an MP3 player.

The most important reason I like a radio is the word “like”. By definition, the stored music on my iPod is what I have liked. That means I would not listen to something I have no knowledge of and, therefore, has no preordained “like” associated with it.

How can I prevent my taste from stagnating if I do not explore something new? With a radio, it is just the matter of moving the dial---so to speak. I can listen to anything I want, and then decide if I like it or not. If I wish, I can always down load the best of that new “like” on my iPhone. Yes?

Radio---what is not to like?

A Tale of Two Cities

San Francisco is a beautiful city. With steep hills, spectacular views of the ocean and crazy streets and boulevards, it is a place that is immediately endearing. Add to that the famous weather pattern, which keeps the temperture around comfortable 70 degrees, and the city becomes utterly desirable to many.

On the other hand, and on the other coast, Boston, where I live, has severe winters. There are days when the thermometer dips to zero degrees (and that is Fahrenheit) and the wind is howling. This is not the comfortable and predictable West Coast weather.

Boston is a pretty city but does not have the same spectacular beauty of SF. What it does have is a great deal of culture, history, and education. Money is of course important, just as everywhere, but somehow it does not seem as important in this city, which emphasizes what you know rather than what you own. The presence of two world famous universities of course adds a great deal to the vitality of the city by filling it with young students

Even its weather has its own charms. The beautiful white coat of winter ice melts as new buds start emerging on plants and trees. The light green shades and beautiful flowers are soon replaced by dense greenery and warm sunshine. My favorite time of the year is fall, when trees break out into all glorious colors and the days become crisp and clear. When you get used to these changes, the routine of same old same old on the West Coast would get boring for some of us.

I completely accept the fact that this is all a matter of taste and priorities.

As a popular saying goes---gentlemen prefer blonds, perhaps even if they are not too bright. As long as they are gorgeous and smile a lot, everything is forgiven. Many men will agree with that.

However, some others may prefer brunets who are pretty but not perfect. Those with depth, culture and smartness---and mood swings to keep things interesting---unlike the case with the fixed smile bimbos.

Managing Risks

We all take risks.

“Risks are events or conditions that may occur, and whose occurrence, if it does take place, has a harmful or negative effect.” That does not sound good, and most rational human beings would like to figure out how to manage risks.

Before thinking about how to manage risks, it is very important to classify them into two categories: involuntary or voluntary and recognize that they need to be managed differently.

An involuntary risk is that associated with event over which you have little or no control. Lightening strike, car accident, health and house fire are some of the examples. Eliminating this type of risk has no negative consequences, and generally one can purchase an insurance to cover these risks.

The goal of an individual’s risk management strategy then should be to reduce overall involuntary risk to an acceptable level at a minimum cost. How does an individual manage the risk of his house burning down? Purchase an adequate coverage at minimum cost.

A voluntary risk on the other hand, is that associated with activities undertaken voluntarily, as the name would suggest. Ice climbing, diving, investing in stocks, and purchasing a house are examples of activities that involve voluntary risks. These risks are acceptable because they are by-products of activities that create benefits. Ice climbing creates pleasure, so what if there are risks involved? Generally, insurance firms will not cover these risks.

The goal of an individual should be to maximize overall benefits while taking acceptable risk. When put in practice, this would imply reducing the risk for a specific activity, of course. One should not attempt ice climbing without crampons. But it would also imply adding risk if the commensurate benefit outweigh the additional risk. Sitting home may be safe but could also be very boring!

So the strategy for managing risks that we face boils down to:

• Reduce the involuntary risk to an acceptable level at minimum cost, and at the same time,
• Maximize the benefits provided by voluntary risks while taking acceptable risk overall.

Seduction of Simplicity

I just finished reading a book titled “Life Ascending” by Nick Lane. It talks about ten great inventions of evolution. For a person with a limited background in biochemistry and biology, this is a fascinating account on how some of the major inventions by nature---like hot blood, sight, photosynthesis or DNA--- could have evolved. Each of these inventions followed the basic rules of evolution, and took millions of years to play out. The result is this extraordinarily complex diversity of plants and animals, and of course us, the human beings.

This book clearly illustrates that years of painstaking research are required to explain how something as complex as the evolution of human being. Occasionally, wrong pathways are followed before the likely hypotheses start emerging. It also requires faith in science and its ability to explain.

For a majority of people, however, there is a simple explanation on why we are what we are---God created us in his image over a period of seven days. End of mystery.

What I am wondering is whether this is strictly driven by their faith in God and his existence or is it due to an innate belief that there has to be a simple explanation to life’s mysteries.

Are simple solutions and explanations that seductive that they can trump reason? I think so.

This, of course, is not restricted just to science. A huge chunk of our population believes that a simple solution for the financial mess we find ourselves in is reducing the size of the government and getting it out of our lives. Of course it does not bother these people that they, at the same time, want the same government to help them with retirement and pay the medical bills.

A solution that would work requires a reasoned approach, balancing the complex needs of the society with the financial pain that we all need to share. However, this is not reducible to a few sound bites and slogans, and therefore not appealing to this very vocal segment of the society. I believe that they too are seduced by the elegance of what they propose and not by their understanding of macroeconomics.

I feel the same way about the failed experiment of communism. It was such an elegant solution that provided an alternative to the messy process of democracy. It was easy to explain and enforce. (I bet their regulations and tax codes were not as massively complex as ours!). It was seductive to a great number of people.

The only problem was---it did not work.

July 2011

Fasting as a weapon

Going on a fast until death was a strategy probably invented by Mahatma Gandhi. He used it effectively against the British to obtain concessions and meet his demands related to granting India its freedom. Although it has been used elsewhere--for example, Bobby Sands, a member of the Irish Republican Army, fasted to death in 1981--it is in India that it remains a popular way of achieving results.

The more contemporary examples are fasts conducted by Anna Hazare and Baba Ramdev to raise the issue of corruption in India and make the government do something about it

It is a pretty effective strategy. As long as the adversaries have some moral value, they would not like to see someone starve to death because of their refusal to take some actions. Besides moral compunction, there is a political reason for the other side to act --such an event would provide a strong outrage from the population at large. Finally, they need to respond quickly---the other side has only a few days before the person dies.

However, it can also be considered to be a dangerous weapon.

While no one can argue that gaining independence or removing corruption are worthwhile causes, one can see it being used to gain action on causes of dubious nature. What if someone decides to go to fast until death unless laws are passed restricting what women can wear in public? Is that a justifiable cause? Who decides if it is justifiable?

Democracies, such as India, depend on laws enacted and actions taken that would be acceptable to the majority of population, as interpreted by their elected representatives. Doesn’t the use of fasting to make things happen bypass these democratic processes?

Also, even if the cause is “just” as decided by a majority of people, and there is clearly a need to take action, how can the adversary do something that is well thought out in such a short time span? How can a 20-30 day time limit, before the fasting person irreparably harms himself/herself, provide the time necessary to chart out a well reasoned and debated course of action? I suspect that what you would get is something half baked or without serious intentions for follow up once the said fast is broken and victory declared.

Finally, there is the issue of personality of people involved. Mahatma Gandhi was clearly a person whose intentions were beyond reproach, and Anna Hazare seems to be a similar person intent upon helping people. Baba Ramdev, I am not too sure. Does he really want to help people or is this a stunt to increase his market value?

Fasting is an effective but a dangerous weapon indeed.