Half-Finished Poems

 

Today morning
after a long a long time
or maybe
it was just a month,
but still,
it felt like
a long long time,
that I returned and looked at
half -inished poems.

Hallelujah,
it was good to be
back home again.

I can almost hear you say "Amen"

 

Trumpeting survival of the fittest works as long as one is winning

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Social Darwinism
Origins of Social Darwinism
Proponents of Social Darwinism
Could Social Darwinism be Flawed?
How About Softer Versions of Social Darwinism?
Have softer version worked?
A Summary and a Suggestion

Welcome to the land of plenty. Let the ‘Survival of the Fittest’ sort out the matters in the human and societal realm. Let the best person among us win and amass the wealth and natural resources that are out there for taking. It is also ok for the best person who wins to be the master of those who lost but can still be useful for certain purposes; doing so is a win-win proposition for the winners and the losers.

And that is the inscription one reads when entering the land of Social Darwinism.

Social Darwinism

Social Darwinism is a socio-political theory that applies the principles of natural selection and survival of the fittest, derived from Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution to human societies. This ideology suggests that human societies, like biological species during their evolutionary phase, are governed by competition, with the strongest and most capable rising to positions of power and influence, while letting the weaker ones fall behind, and if necessary, could be considered expendable.

Origins of Social Darwinism

The origins of Social Darwinism can be traced back to the late 19th century.

While Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution was primarily biological, some scholars and thinkers extended these ideas to social and economic realms. One of the key figures in this intellectual migration was Herbert Spencer, an English philosopher and sociologist, who coined the term “survival of the fittest.” Spencer argued that just as organisms evolve through natural selection, human societies progress through a similar process. He believed that competition and self-interest drive societal change and progress, and that government intervention should be minimal to allow these natural processes to function.

Another significant contributor to Social Darwinism was Thomas Huxley, a biologist and ardent defender of Darwin’s theories. Although Huxley had reservations about the social applications of Darwinism, his arguments indirectly supported the idea that human society could be understood through the lens of evolutionary theory.

In contemporary times, Social Darwinism evolved and manifests in various forms, often in subtle ways that are not so obvious. One of the most prominent modern forms is the belief in meritocracy, where individuals shall be rewarded based on their abilities and achievements, echoing the Darwinian principle of survival of the fittest.

Proponents of Social Darwinism

In contemporary times, proponents of neoliberalism, such as economist Milton Friedman and political figures like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, have been linked to Social Darwinism’s principles through their advocacy for free markets and competition. While these individuals may not explicitly label themselves as Social Darwinists, their policies and ideologies resonate with the theory’s core ideas.

The current thinking of the Republican Party in the United States (that is also being mimicked in other countries), particularly in the context of economic and social policies, often emphasizes the importance of individual responsibility and free-market principles. Many Republicans advocate for limited government intervention in both the economy and personal lives, believing that such an approach fosters innovation and self-reliance. They argue that a free-market system, where businesses and individuals operate with minimal regulatory constraints, leads to the most efficient and prosperous outcomes for society.

Recently, Project 2025 emphasized principles akin to Social Darwinism by advocating for minimal government intervention in economic and social spheres.

Is it possible that the notion of Social Darwinism may be flawed?

Could Social Darwinism be Flawed?

To see why the notion might be flawed, let us consider its counterpart in its original setting.

In nature, “survival of the fittest” operates in a relentlessly brutal manner. The notion of fittest works in the context of the environmental conditions and the goal is to increase the chance of survival and reproduction. It also focuses entirely on present environmental conditions and does not have a notion of what future may behold. The natural world also lacks the capability for consciousness and operates without any foresight or empathy.

Humans (thanks to evolution and the notion of survival of the fittest), on the other hand, now possess unique faculties such as consciousness, agency, and have the capability to empathize, perceive and plan for the future, recognize inequalities, and provide support to those in need. Human societies are also influenced by structures (laws, governments, finance) and hierarchies that nature lacks.

The proposal of blind application of “survival of the fittest” to human societies ignores these nuanced complexities and assumes that competition alone can be a viable proposition. Furthermore, it also ignores the critical role of the circumstances into which individuals are born setting the stage for what their future and future options could be.

In essence, the fundamental difference in the application of survival of the fittest lies in the fact that while nature operates without an agency, humans (thankfully) have that ability. Humans, if they choose, are also capable of creating equitable systems that balance competition with compassion.

How About Softer Versions of Social Darwinism?

There is no denying that competition does work in promoting excellence and innovation.

Starting from rudimentary self-replicating molecules, over three billion years the survival of the fittest has traced a stunning journey and has created us. But now that it has brought us here and has gifted us with remarkable capabilities, should its application continue along the same path, or could its implementation be adjusted to the reality we are in.

While traditional Social Darwinism emphasizes ruthless competition and minimal government intervention, several approaches adopt core ideas but strive for a more humane and balanced implementation. These softer versions incorporate social safety nets and opportunities for all individuals, creating a more equitable society while still encouraging innovation and competition. Some examples of these follow.

The Social Market Economy (Soziale Marktwirtschaft), primarily associated with post-World War II Germany, blends free-market capitalism with social policies that address inequality and provide support for the less fortunate. This approach maintains a competitive market system but ensures that all citizens have access to basic necessities such as healthcare, education, and social security. The goal is to combine economic efficiency with social justice, fostering an environment where everyone has the opportunity to succeed.

Inclusive capitalism is another approach that seeks to reconcile the benefits (and as evolution has demonstrated, competition has benefits) of a free-market system with the need for fairness and inclusivity. It advocates for the idea that businesses should not only focus on profit but also consider the broader impact on society and the environment. By promoting fair wages, ethical practices, and investments in community development, inclusive capitalism aims to create a more sustainable and equitable economic system. This model encourages competition but recognizes the importance of corporate responsibility and shared prosperity.

These softer versions of Social Darwinism seek to balance the benefits of competition with the need for compassion and support. By acknowledging the complexities of human society and the inherent inequalities individuals can (and do) face, these approaches promote a more realistic and just system. They aim to create an environment where innovation and progress can flourish, while ensuring that no one is left behind.

Have softer version worked?

The answer is — Yes. There are several instances where these more compassionate approaches have shown promising results in various nations.

One notable example is Germany, where the Social Market Economy has been instrumental in ensuring both economic prosperity and social welfare. Since its inception, this model has helped Germany maintain a robust economy while providing comprehensive social benefits to its citizens. The balance between free-market principles and strong social policies has fostered a healthy environment for innovation and competition, while simultaneously reducing inequality and ensuring access to essential services.

In the Nordic countries, inclusive capitalism has been successfully implemented to create equitable societies characterized by high levels of social trust and economic stability. Nations like Sweden, Denmark, and Norway have embraced policies that promote fair wages, corporate responsibility, and investments in education and healthcare. These countries have managed to achieve high standards of living and low poverty rates, demonstrating the effectiveness of inclusive capitalism in creating sustainable and inclusive economic systems.

These examples illustrate that by incorporating social policies and corporate responsibility into their economic systems, nations can create environments where both competition and compassion coexist. These approaches not only drive economic growth but also ensure that the benefits of prosperity are shared more broadly across society.

A Summary and a Suggestion

Competition is beneficial, but when left unchecked, it can be brutal and unforgiving. The irony lies in the fact that competition and the concept of survival of the fittest, operating without direction or agency, have brought us to this point. These forces have equipped us with capabilities that we can now harness to refine the very process moving forward.

Should we not seize this opportunity?

While there may not be perfect answers to tempering the concept of survival of the fittest and balancing free competition (which, due to positive feedback loops, can create runaway inequalities) with caring for those who, for various physical, cognitive, or psychological reasons, may be less adept at competition, there may be good solutions.

Given that we have the ability to foresee the future and the agency to change our current practices to set goal-oriented directions, should we not avail ourselves of that opportunity? Furthermore, should we not rely on our current understanding of how the environment we live in is evolving and how our actions might be altering its trajectory?

It would not be such a loss if we arrived in the future with a bit less progress, but with a better assurance that our future generations will be there. Wouldn’t making that choice be the better option?

I say the answer is yes, and in my mind’s eye, I can almost hear you say, “Amen.”

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

One Plus One is Two and Rest Just Follows

 

A very small cause which escapes our notice determines a considerable effect that we cannot fail to see, and then we say that the effect is due to chance.” — Henri Poincaré

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Summary: We think about the intricacies of life and death, meaning of existence, consciousness, an agency guiding the creation and evolution of the universe, but in the end it could all be as simple as some self-evident facts — limits on resources, randomness — having some inevitable consequences of far-reaching significance.

From on a few simple (or simply obvious), yet undeniable facts, inevitable outcomes arise that have the power to significantly influence the workings of the universe.

One simple fact is that energy as a resource, and available for consumption, is limited.

Living on the Earth’s surface, we rely on the Sun as our ultimate energy source. At the core of the Sun, the immense pressure from the outer gas layers pushing inwards increases the temperature and density sufficiently for two hydrogen nuclei to fuse into a helium atom. This fusion process releases energy, raising the temperature at the Sun’s core further to counterbalance the inward pressure of the gas.

Disregarding the complex physics of stellar processes, all that matters in the context of discussion here is that ultimately the energy produced by the Sun’s fusion process, which radiates outward and reaches Earth’s surface, is finite.

The finiteness of energy, being an undeniable fact, has far reaching consequences.

In an energy limited environment let us assume that biology exists. For now, let us leave behind the question of how biology came about and just assume that it is there.

Basic tenets of biology are a will to survive and to procreate. If either characteristic is not there we will not be talking about biological forms. There will be nothing to talk about because their existence will be ephemeral.

Survival and reproduction require energy. To secure energy, and to secure it better than the neighbor can, biological forms have evolved sensory mechanisms to gauge their environment. They also developed physical (mechanical) artifacts to procure energy and developed the chemistry necessary to convert the energy available in the environment they live in into the form that is suitable for them.

How did they managed to develop such mechanisms is because of one of the inevitable outcomes of the interaction between two simple facts — energy is limited and randomness. Whenever the two are together, an inevitable outcome that we are going to highlight is going to happen.

Within biological forms random fluctuations in their physical, cognitive, psychological characteristics occur. This is because the process of procreation (or replication) is not perfect and during the process random errors occur. Errors in gene replication are expressed as physical characteristics (the phenotype). Some phenotypes help secure more energy that is available in the environment leading to better chances for survival and reproduction. Over generations, the habituation of the advantageous phenotypes leads to the emergence of a new species that is better fit for securing resources and has a better chance for continued survival.

That is the mechanism of natural selection.

The basic and undeniable facts that (a) resources in the environment are limited, and (b) the influence of randomness permeates, if biology is to exist, the inevitable consequence will be an arms race to secure resources and the principle of the survival of the fittest will emerge.

Once there, driven by the natural selection that prefers phenotypes that are better suited at securing energy available in the environment, has far reaching influence on how biology evolves.

Because of natural selection, starting from the biology of self-replicating molecules, a couple billion years later, here we are a biological form that has consciousness and seems to possess an agency to break the guardrails set by the process of natural selection that help it get there.

Put three facts together — a rudimentary biology in a resource limited environment where randomness in the replication process is expressed as phenotypes that help better secure available resources — the principle of natural selection has to emerge to take the rudimentary biological form on a stunning evolutionary journey of getting better and better at exploiting available resources that are sourced from the Sun.

That, in a nutshell, is the history of how we got here

In this process no external agent is required. There is no blueprint needed. There is no preconceived end goal in the mind of an agent.

There is no gardener out there with shears in hand pruning growth and giving it a form that has a beautiful form.

A form like you see in the manicured trees that line the boulevards and streets in European cities was never planned, and yet, there is beauty in what has evolved.

Repeat the process and start once again from rudimentary biology and the evolutionary trajectory will be different. The environmental conditions in which the evolutionary arms race is taking place could suddenly change and what was an advantageous phenotype may no longer be so.

We think about the intricacies of life and death, meaning of existence, consciousness, an agency guiding the creation and evolution of the universe, but in the end it could all be as simple as some self-evident facts — limits on resources, randomness — having some inevitable consequences of far-reaching significance.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

Distorted Perceptions of Time

 

Time flies an arrow, and fruit flies like banana!

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Time warps strangely,
 like distorted reflections
 in a hall of mirrors.
 
 A month slips by in a blink,
 gone before it’s lived.
 
 Yet years in the past
 feel as though,
 between then and now,
 I have lived an eternity,
 wandering through
 folds of time.

There is indeed something distorted about the percepts of time.

With much fanfare, we celebrated the start of a new year and in a blink, it is already the month of February. If I were to say that the month of January just flew by, it would not be an overstatement.

The pace of moments depends on their proximity from the present. Moments that are close to now seem to pass quickly. On the other hand, years in the past (that are distant from now) seem to move at a much slower pace. It is similar to sitting on a train, where the electric poles adjacent to the track rapidly pass by, whereas the trees in the distance near the horizon move at a leisurely pace.

There is also a perception that those past years occurred in a distant time. It feels as though centuries have passed between then and now, even though that is obviously not the case.

Reflecting on my high school years in 1972, approximately fifty years ago, I find it challenging to ascertain the significance of the notion of ’fifty years ago’. The passage of five decades does not evoke specific emotions or sentiments regarding its importance, or perhaps, its triviality.

Is ‘fifty years ago’ any different from ‘fifty-one years ago’? Or for that matter, is it any different than twenty or ten years ago? Is one weightier than the other? If they can have olfactory influence, will one smell different than the other?

What was I doing in the 365 days that were in the year that was ‘fifty years ago’?

I am uncertain about which adjective best describes the span of fifty years between then and now — whether it feels distant, recent, like it happened yesterday, or as though it occurred ages ago.

As time progresses, it seems that the life markers begin to merge into a single continuum. While individual days in the past week are still distinct and identifiable, those from two weeks ago require more effort to distinguish. Beyond two months, the concept of individual days essentially loses its meaning.

Individual months from the previous year may still retain their distinct identity, but even they tend to lose this distinction if they are part of a year that is more than a couple of years ago. Further back in time, even the specific years within a decade begin to blur together.

The phenomenon is like driving along a straight highway and observing milestones in a mirror. The ones recently passed remain distinguishable individually, whereas those located further down the road tend to merge into an indistinct blur.

Perhaps there are some markers for specific events that among the receding years stand taller — the birth of our child, passing away of parents, the visit to Grand Cayman — and can be discerned, but the distance for now still manages to erase details. For some of them, the exact year they occurred escapes.

It may be that my life is too monotonous, or perhaps the perceptions of time I have are not what others see. Alternatively, it could be that events, and their memories, are still there but do not stand out at a quick glance. Only through mindful reflection do the memories of individual events begin to emerge.

Percepts of time are indeed like being in a hall of mirrors.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.