Himalayan Bargain

As you may know, recently floods devastated the Himalayan area of Uttarakhand (“Northern Province”) in India. Thousands of people died in this tragedy and more than five thousand are still missing and presumed dead. The images of angry brown rivers and completely washed out roads were shown across the world on TV. Some videos, thought to be too graphic for the TV audience, made rounds through the YouTube channel. They showed a bunch of people getting caught in flash floods and drowning, a tourist bus plunging in the valley, and other similar horrors.

Having been to the Himalayas some eight times made these images look all too familiar to me. I (we) have travelled through villages that looked like those on the screen being devastated. We have encountered numerous times roads that were washed out or almost so. Specifically, here are some such events that have happened in my (our) Himalayan journeys:

·            1963: On a trip to Kashmir, a massive landslide washed out the only road connecting the fabled valley to the rest of the country. Our family was stranded in a village for two nights while they fixed the road. Then we had to wait for several hours to let a military convoy get by before finally proceeding further.

·            1977: While going by a jeep from Darjeeling to a place called Sandakphu, our driver missed a turn and the jeep overturned. There happened to be a ledge just where the jeep landed, otherwise we would have gone down three thousand feet. Amazingly, we were not hurt and the local military personnel arranged for a ride back to Darjeeling for us.

                 2000: This time we did not go to the Himalayas, but our children did, accompanied by relatives. There was a major flood in a river they were supposed to cross, washing away all major bridges. Fortunately, they were on this side of the river not the other. That saved them at least from major hardship if not something worse.

·            2007: Before we left for Gangtok, the capital of Sikkim, on way to a trek, major flooding washed out the highway, isolating the town. Fortunately, the road was repaired in time but the place where we landed, Gauhati was rocked by racial riots, and vehicles were burned. We managed to get transportation by selecting the driver of the right ethnic background. On our way to the trailhead for the trek, the road was washed out, requiring manual transport to the other side.

·            2012:  Before we left Delhi on way to Ladakh, we got the all to familiar news that because of rain the road was cutoff at Manali. By the time we got there, the road was “repaired” but the trip on Rhotang Pass just beyond Manali, going up to 12,000’, was as muddy and dangerous as it could be. Next, at the end of the trip, we got the news that because of rain; the other aide of the road, leading to Srinagar, was cut off at Zoji-La pass. Again, it was repaired, and again, we had a harrowing journey on that pass on a barely drivable road.

All these events would make one think, why do it?  That’s where the positive side of these trips comes in.

I can think of no other region as exciting as the Himalayas, and I have been to many remote corners of the world. It is not just the world-class scenery, but people who live in that region.

Where would you see four of the five highest mountains in the world at one glance, as you could from Sandakphu? Where would you hike up to the bottom of a 28,000 feet mountain as you would on the trek in Sikkim mentioned above? How about the arid, multi-hued, and spectacular region of Ladakh, where the road, bad as it is, takes one up above 18,000 feet and there are multiple opportunities, even for mere mortal like me, to hike higher than one can anywhere else in the world? Do you think a Swiss shepard you meet in the pristine area of Zermatt would ever invite not just you but your entire group for dinner? That would, and did happen to us on one of the treks.

This is the Himalayan Bargain. You take a lot of risks but gain a lot in return.

However, after experiencing this magical part of the world as many times as I have had the good fortune to, I now feel that the risk outweighs benefits. As the roads continue to deteriorate, weather becomes increasingly fierce, and the number of travellers keeps increasing, there may come a day when our luck would run out. We may need to be evacuated or worse, end up in a hospital or a morgue. Yes, there is always one more trek or trip to be done before we really become old, but is it worth doing after having already experienced so much?

Maybe not. 

Our Ancestors Knew That...

One very interesting book I have read recently, “A Universe From Nothing” by Lawrence Krauss, describes, as the name implies, a theory that would explain how our universe popped out of nothing---it has to do with something called quantum gravity. When I wrote about it in a group email to my ex-classmates at IIT, one of the guys shot back saying that this is nothing new and that our ancestors knew that way back when. Then he quoted some reference in the Vedas, the “good books” for Hindus.

When I though about this, I became intrigued by the question---Assuming that what my friend was saying is true, and knowing his scholarly bona fide I have no doubt that it is, how did our ancestors know about how the universe was created? For that matter, how did the Greeks know about atoms in the fifth century BCE (Leucippus and Democritus)?

First of all, I am certain that they did not know that universe popped out of nothing or that matter is indeed composed of atoms---they speculated. There is no way that they could have proven that their speculation was anything but that. The fact that some of these speculations have turned out to be right is not because of some extraordinary knowledge that our ancients possessed or aliens helping out. It can be explained by our selective memory.

These ancients speculated all kinds of things, and we tend to remember only those that have proven to be true. For example, the Jain scriptures talk about earth balanced on a mountain, and that certainly did not turn out to be true. Devout Christians talk about the universe being created in six-days by god some six thousand years ago.  That speculation is not widely used to demonstrate that our ancients knew everything.

Science makes progress when someone speculates, or creates a hypothesis, to explain something and then sets about proving or disproving it. That being the case, I am wondering if any of these ancient speculations played any part in developing modern scientific hypotheses. For example, did John Dalton, who is credited with the scientific theory of atom, rely on what the ancients were speculating?  If so, one has to give credit where the credit is due, and the ancients deserve a pat on the back.

However, that does not take away any credit from the ones who prove a hypothesis to be true. It is only through extraordinary work that the scientific community has developed such a precise picture of what our universe is like. It is one thing to speculate that it is so, and another to prove it.

The ancients were smart and contributed a lot to the development of our civilization, but so are our current scientists and let’s not forget that. 

In Praise of Cold

Recently, we had a lot of guests coming to Boston for the wedding of our daughter. Many of them came from the warmer part of the country, like California, and they were quite vociferous in their displeasure of having to spend a few days in New England’s late winter.

This made me think—why is there such a resistance against cold weather?

I not only have no problems with cold, I actually prefer colder climate than hot. Perhaps it has to do with growing up in the extreme heat of an arid part of India. In those days, an air-conditioned room was bliss (we did not have any), and going for vacation in the cold areas, such as a “hill station,” was heaven. Perhaps that experience has shaped me into being who I am.

However, I am convinced that one does not have to be me to enjoy cold weather; I feel that the resistance against it is entirely irrational.

First of all, most of us get exposed to weather only when we step outside. Our homes are comfortably heated or cooled and so are our cars. Many of those who complain about cold hardly step outside these comfortable cocoons, so what difference does it make to them whether they live in cold climate or hot?

Second, when you do step outside, you can always protect yourself against cold by wearing warm cloths. You cannot do that when the outside is very hot. After peeling off that last layer of clothing, you just have to endure heat. So, as it turns out, you are more likely to be cooped up inside if you live in a hot place than in a cold one.

Third, it is more likely that the interior is heated in a cold place than cooled in a warm one. Air-conditioning is expensive and not considered essential. I lived without it when I was growing up in India. Even now I experience hot non-air-conditioned rooms in our own house (we do not have central AC), or when we stay in inexpensive hotels in many parts of the world. So, not only are you miserable walking outside in a hot place but also being inside. The same will not be true if you lived in a cold place.

Fourth, you feel more invigorated and healthy in a cold environment than hot. Being sweaty and perspiring does not lead to having a lot of fun. Lethargy takes over and the level of activity is curtailed.

If, by these arguments, I have convinced you that cold is not all that bad, and even could be good, you may be able to get more out of your life.

For instance, I don’t know how many times I have heard folks telling me that they would not go to Antarctica because they are afraid of being cold.  This irrational fear is keeping them from experiencing one of the most magical places in the world. (By the way, Antarctica in summer is warmer than Boston in winter.)

Also, unless you are living in the extreme north, most places that have cold winter also have distinct spring, summer, and fall. This four-season living provides you with constant change, and most people would agree that change is an important element in being happy. One can get bored if there is no change, no matter how “good” the situation is.

As an illustration, I go for walks on nearby trails in woods and around ponds, camera in my hand. Every time I go, I see something different.  The leaves turn from light green to dark green and then red and orange. Water turns to snow and ice. Birds come and go. The sunlight comes at different angles as the year progresses.

Try to get this variation and freshness in a place where the weather remains the same year around. 

How Will We Win This War?

A war is never good.  The misery it brings to people involved, the death and destruction, is not something human being should aspire to. However, the wars are not the same. Some are worse than the others.

Of all wars, I think of the First World War as one of the most miserable of all. It was started on a dubious pretext, and soon bogged down to two huge armies facing each other in miles of trenches. Millions of soldiers were slaughtered in the endless game of fruitless attacks on enemy lines. The boundaries stayed the same, only the number of fatalities soared to levels never seen before.

The problem was---WWI suffered from a Structural Stalemate. That is, the structure of the war prevented it from being resolved quickly.

In most wars offense and defense both have a chance of being successful. Thus, one side eventually wins and the carnage stops. In WWI, the offence had no chance, leading to an unending stalemate. This is largely because of two technological advances, barbed wires and machine guns. In order to advance, the soldiers had to successfully negotiate the barbed wires in face of machine gun fire. It was just not possible, and they got slaughtered. The break came when tank was invented and deployed. It could go over the barbed wires and trenches, finally resulting in one army advancing against the other.

I am afraid that the current “war” against terrorism is also suffering from a Structural Stalemate, except this time the defense has no chance.

Take the recent bombings in my hometown, Boston. The suspects, two misguided youths, went across the border to buy gunpowder in form of firecrackers (it is illegal to do so in Massachusetts). They learned about how to make a bomb on the Internet. All they had to do then is to brazenly walk to a crowd of people and detonate two bombs thus constructed.

How can a country defend against such incidences? Granted this is not a World War with millions of lives being lost every year, but one feels the same level of helplessness of seeing no clear pathway to victory. As neither side is about to give up, we see a complete stalemate.

The last time it was a technological breakthrough that broke the impasse. What will it be this time? What will put defense on the same footing as offence in what has thus far been a patently asymmetrical war?

I have a feeling that the solution will not be technological. There is no way to detect or prevent a person from becoming a radical. Once the person is bent on destruction he will come out with a way to cause destruction. If you close down one pathway, he will think of another.

The solution will have to come from making peace with Islam. The winding down of two wars will go a long way toward that goal. Guiding Israel and Palestinians toward a solution in the Middle East will be another step in the right direction. Finally, the moderate Muslims will have to stand up against the radical ones. These are hardly new ideas but I do not think there is much choice.

The First World War went on for more than four years.  This war might go on for decades unless something is done to break the stalemate. 

Picture Pleasure Score

One of the activities I have undertaken in this early stage of retirement is to sort through thousands of slides and prints I have taken over the years. While I see the benefits of preserving a lot of these pictures, I am also convinced that I need to throw away a substantial part of this collection. The question is how do I make decisions on what to keep and what to discard.

Being a good engineer, I thought that I should come out with a framework on the merits of old pictures and apply the resulting rules rigorously (and mercilessly). When I started thinking about it, I realized that pictures need to be classified in three different categories before proceeding further: Snapshots, travel pictures, and artistic pictures. I am sure that purists will argue that many pictures are combination of these three. To them, I will reply that think about the most important aspect of your work of creation and treat it like that henceforth. 

On a high level, the purpose of pictures of any of these three categories is to provide pleasure. This pleasure is derived from your own viewing a well as from the reaction of someone you are sharing the picture with. Further, there is a time element involved---the level of pleasure derived in the future is different from that at the moment or soon after the picture is taken.

So far so good.

The real insight I gained is that the three types of pictures have different pleasure characteristics. Let me elaborate.

In my opinion, the snapshots provide highest level of pleasure when they are viewed by you (or family/friends) some years after they are taken. In fact, older they are, more fun it is to look at them. Interestingly, the pleasure level is not that high when you are taking this type of pictures. Also, the reaction of someone else to these pictures, soon after they are taken, is likely to be polite and muted, especially if you inundate them with hundreds of some pictures. This is not a particularly pleasing experience.

At the other end, as far as the artistic pictures are concerned, the biggest pleasure comes while taking them. You are in a creative zone and the right brain is deeply engaged as you scour the scenery for art worthy captures. If these are good pictures, additional kick comes in when they are shared and you receive praise from those who bother to look at them. However, unlike the snapshots, their value in providing pleasure drops as time goes by. Seen ten years later, as you improve your skills and equipment, you may wonder what made you take that old picture. Also, at that point, do not expect any one else to be much interested in these type of pictures.

The travel pictures occupy a place in between the above two.  They are sometimes difficult to take and distract you from enjoying the experience. However, the real pleasure comes when they are shared with folks once you return. The applause you get for your fine photography (and the jealousy it causes---admit it) constitutes the return on your investment of effort. These photos allow you to relive the experience if you view them years later.

The level interest others will show while looking at your travel pictures in the future depends on the content of the picture. If it includes people, the interest level will be high, because they really are snapshots, albeit in a non-local environment. On the other hand, if the picture shows the place you visited, the interest level will reduce as the place starts becoming less exotic. Finally, an artistic travel picture will suffer the same fate as that taken in your backyard, unless it shows some exotic plant or animal.  Overall, I would rate the interest level to be low.

The diagram below summarizes these observations and provides a Picture Pleasure Score for each box on a scale of 1-5.  As you can see, the snapshots age well, while the artistic photos do not. The travel pictures are somewhere in between.

Coming back to the original reason why I created this framework---what should I do with my old pictures---here are the guidelines that can now be derived: Keep a reasonable number of snapshots, keep only a few travel pictures, and throw away almost all of the artistic pictures, which is almost exactly opposite of the value I assign when I take these pictures.