"Whosoever is delighted in solitude is either a wild beast or a god."
— Aristotle
What happens if beast and human come together? When I saw this photograph, even before reading the article, I found immense beauty in it. Beauty, not courage, not adventure. We have seen divers, all dressed up and prepared to face sharks. In an older video, Christina gets real close, and the BBC commentary even talks about the sexual attraction, of mimicking a shark, of the shark being in a trance.
There are other questions that can be raised about interfering with nature, courting danger. And what happens were the shark to turn violent? Who is to blame? Would killing the shark that you have been embracing until now be deemed self-defence? Can it, if we rally extend the argument, be a crime of passion?
The article does not have answers. However, it describes the encounter:
At the 22-second mark, one man swims down and grabs the dorsal fin of the lemon shark. After riding it for several seconds, he does something truly shocking. He swings around to the bottom of the shark, gives it a bear hug and hangs on belly to belly. His head is precariously located just below the shark's mouth and he hangs on for several seconds before finally letting it go.
Before you watch this, let me ask Aristotle: Is it solitude when man and beast come together in what could be a spiritual (and a broad sense godly) experience?
A still-born
baby would not be news. Unless the baby is a dead lamb with
a human-like face. Evolution throws up such surprises. How we react to them
also shows how we perceive our evolvement when confronted with other forms.
Erhan Elibol, a
vet, had to perform a caesarean on a sheep in a Turkish village in 2010. He said:
“I’ve seen
mutations with cows and sheep before. I’ve seen a one-eyed calf, a two-headed
calf, a five-legged calf. But when I saw this youngster I could not believe my
eyes.”
The lamb’s head
had human features on – the eyes, the nose and the mouth – only the ears were
those of a sheep.
While the
reports suggest that the fodder of the mother had abundant vitamin A, the
subtext is the possibility of beast and human cohabitation. A similar example mentioned a goat from Zimbabwe. It managed to live for many hours. The villagers
were so afraid, they killed it.
The governor of
the province had said:
"This
incident is very shocking. It is my first time to see such an evil thing. It is
really embarrassing. The head belongs to a man while the body is that of a
goat. This is evident that an adult human being was responsible. Evil powers
caused this person to lose self control. We often hear cases of human beings
who commit bestiality but this is the first time for such an act to produce a
product with human features.”
A similar fate,
or at least ridicule, is meted out to children with dominant animal features.
Scientific
Darwinian explanation would merely allude to the possibility of an ‘antecedent’
strain embedded in the human body and, perhaps, mind. We live in fairly close
communion with what we term ‘domesticated’ creatures, much as we refer to human
– unfortunately more often women – in such a manner to suggest a comfort with
the hearth than with the caveman skills of slaying lions.
Have religious
mores made the human less animal? How would then one explain “unnatural sex”,
which mimics to an extent animal behaviour when in heat? Humans do not have a
period of being in heat. Should one therefore assume that evolution has
empowered the homosapien to continue with perpetual animalistic behaviour, and
the true test is the amount of value-laden acts that manage to supercede
pleasure? However, experiencing pleasure is a human boon; animals do not feel it,
except perhaps as relief, much as scratching an itch.
When we read
about instances of humans and animals, the preference seems to be for what
might broadly be the canine and bovine family. There is rarely an instance of
sex with simians, who are closest to us. Is there a ‘morality’ embedded in
unnaturalism, where this would be deemed as incest?
Also, would we
be able to stretch attraction to pets where the sexual act might never occur
but the affection is a compensatory aspect, and indeed the nuzzling, caressing,
licking are not too far from human foreplay? These do not worry us, or even
cross our minds, because there is a clear demarcation in our ethical paradigm.
Bestiality is when the lines blur. A human having intercourse with an animal is
termed bestial. We refuse to see it from the animal perspective. Surely, we
could not term it ‘humanistic’. And we do not even care much about it. That
probably explains how eveolved we are, for we can take control of our acts and
how we choose to see them, as also the moral dimension we give it.
“Evil powers” are
blamed. Men have used such evil powers against other humans too. In fact, in
the animal kingdom, there appears to be more equality in sexual encounters.
There may not be long-term relationships, but the act itself is not confined to
the male prerogative to ‘take’. In the human context, women who are adventurous
may be exciting, but they are termed “wild” by their partners too. Even a
progressive man would not fail to notice the uninhibited passion. It is,
therefore, seen as a departure from what is common human conduct.
Recently, a 750-year-old
stone tablet was discovered in Vasai, a far suburb of Mumbai, that suggests a woman
had copulated with a donkey.
The Times of India report quotes historian
Shridatta Raut, of Kille Vasai Mohim, who chanced upon the tablet:
“The stone dates back to the era of the Shilahara kings, who ruled Vasai around 1,000 years ago. It bears a few lines in Sanskrit that we are trying to decipher. Years of exposure to the elements and accumulated dirt have blurred the inscription, but we have read a series of ‘Shri Shri Shri Shri’, which shows that the tablet must have been commissioned by a senior courtier or perhaps a Brahmin. The stone bears an image of a donkey copulating with a human female, perhaps threatening transgressors that a similar fate would befall their women should their menfolk ignore the warning.”
This suggests that not only did humans a few centuries ago use women for procreation, but were not averse to the idea of bestiality as punishment. The female as wartime booty had become a fairly common occurrence. This ‘tradition’ continues. What is deemed as repugnant has been legitimised as machismo. For the male, woman is property is used to protect other property.
Is it much different from animals marking their territory?
"You never see animals going through the absurd and often horrible fooleries of magic and religion. Dogs do not ritually urinate in the hope of persuading heaven to do the same and send down rain. Asses do not bray a liturgy to cloudless skies. Nor do cats attempt, by abstinence from cat's meat, to wheedle the feline spirits into benevolence. Only man behaves with such gratuitous folly. It is the price he has to pay for being intelligent but not, as yet, quite intelligent enough."
- Aldous Huxley
This Chinese man in Phuket with two guns bored through his cheeks is following a tradition that says abstinence and body piercing in the ninth lunar month of the Chinese calendar brings good health and peace of mind.
Why has he used two guns and not, say, spiky feathers? How can an instrument of violence bring peace?
I have nothing against dolphins. In fact, I find them delightful. However, the scientific understanding of them as individuals, raises a few questions.
The Centre for Ethics and Business at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles has come up with a ten-point charter for “life, liberty and wellbeing”, among others.
A group of scientists and ethicists argues there is sufficient evidence of the marine mammals' intelligence, self-awareness and complex behaviour to enshrine their rights in legislation. Under the declaration of rights for cetaceans, a term that includes dolphins, whales and porpoises, the animals would be protected as "non-human persons" and have a legally enforceable right to life.
Is intelligence the only yardstick to project an ethical perception of rights? This would put to test many humans – the physically handicapped, the mentally challenged, those who behave differently from what is the norm, and those who might not quite fathom the complex nature of abstract thought. There are parts of the world where people still live on basic necessities and follow rudimentary rules of social intercourse.
"Dolphins are non-human persons. A person needs to be an individual. And if individuals count, then the deliberate killing of individuals of this sort is ethically the equivalent of deliberately killing a human being. The captivity of beings of this sort, particularly in conditions that would not allow for a decent life, is ethically unacceptable, and commercial whaling is ethically unacceptable.”
The scientists quoted examples of how dolphins know to work on the reward principle. Early experiments conducted on rats have shown similar behaviour. Dogs, as in the Pavlov experiment, expressed their reaction through salivation. There is an understanding where survival makes animals and humans behave in a certain manner.
So, is such ethical treatment based on a human paradigm the right and only one? Protecting a species is fine. But is it really necessary to ‘dignify’ it on the basis of being a ‘person’. This, strangely enough, contradicts the effort to not treat human beings as superior. Then, why elevate only some species to that level?
Animal rights activists might want all animals to be protected. The movement against zoos, cages, slaughter, meat-eating has been active and often vocal. They too use the human in a trapped situation to emphasise the point about rights. It does not quite work because there is a tendency to glamorise and bring out the beast in the person behind the cage or dressed in fur. It sexes up the message.
The dolphin lobby is using a parallel argument by saying that they are ‘non-human persons’ and therefore as good as individuals.
I can see that there is a pecking order here, and wonder just how a species will seek to gain the sanctified position of being human. It really isn’t the best thing to be when the record of human rights is abysmal and the ethics of how certain being are treated as opposed to others affords it less ethical validity than an elephant squashing an ant unknowingly.
Would you like your doctor to be a machine? I am wary about the first ever heart rhythm operation performed by a remote-controlled robot.
Dr Andre Ng, cardiologist at Leicester’s Glenfield Hospital, sat outside the operation theatre as his 70-year-old patient’s vital organ was manipulated to get his irregular rhythm back to normal. The doctor felt in “complete control” and could see and speak to the staff who were with the patient.
As a report says:
The main advantage is that the doctor doesn’t have to wear heavy radiation shields such as lead aprons, which are normally required in the operating room because X-rays are used to see inside the patient.
“Because I was sitting down in a relaxed, not having to wear a heavy lead coat, it was actually a pleasurable experience.”
I have read reports earlier about how patients prefer robot medics to unfamiliar doctors. That is different. It is more like scouring the web for information.
Science has progressed, but is technical progress enough? Doctors anyway use high-tech equipment; laser surgery has made it possible for a small incision to extract huge tumours. I do not understand the need to remove the person from the process.
It might well be asked that the patient is under sedation so s/he would not be aware of the doctor’s presence or absence. True. Yet, we need to ask a few questions:
Is the patient told prior to the surgery that it would be a robotic operation?
If something goes wrong, and our dear doctor is sitting relaxed outside, then who will rectify the situation, who will shoulder the blame? How long will it take the doc to wear his fancy superman suit and get into the OT? And if this is touted as a remote operation, then what is the big deal about other staff being inside? It only proves that human assistance will be crucial at all times.
I am seriously concerned about the possibility of this being done in cities far removed. The manner in which medical science is seen and acted upon by different cultures differs. How will a doctor in the UK liaise with the team in, say, India? What about the ego problems between the two? Again, who will accept blame for any goof-ups?
It is bad enough the way ‘specialisation’ has been promoted, but this truly is taking it too far. If robots must be used, it could be to teach doctors, to be used as guinea pigs for experiments, not to become the masters.
Has anyone given a thought to the psychological ramifications? How will the patient be affected before and after?
I understand that robots have been trained in bedside manners too in other cases. This really amounts to making the patient feel like a machine. I like my doctors with a warm touch and a smile, not some automaton advise me in a disjointed voice that I need a pill. He wouldn’t know if I just need to chill, would he?
Now when you see a Chinese face, think of your great-great-great-ad nauseum grandparents. The hakka noodles could well be Indian.
This is revealed by a study ‘Mapping Human Genetic History in Asia’ which concurs that the human population originally came from Africa. It disproves something based on fossil data. It seems like a nice thing to do given that we have people willing to play fossils.
A hundred thousand years ago the humans in Africa figured out they had to look around a bit. They were focussed on this country, like the world’s eyes are on India stuff going on now. I can imagine them saying that they were moving because of the fertile soil, the amazing culture, the opportunities, and the natural beauty. The canny ones might have even thought this was reincarnation the moment they spotted some thick foliage just like back home.
Then, due to some genetic jugglery they began to show differences. Probably the umbilical cord was being cut off by twisting and turning. They started pronouncing R as L and used sticks to eat. In one of the first uprisings that possibly took place in unrecorded history, they decided to leave. They had to walk for days in the sun, which perhaps lends them the marked features of rather small eyes slanted to avoid the glare. All races have some distinguishing physical aspects. Such as Indians nodding their heads by tilting them towards left shoulder and then the right one at a 30 degree angle to convey yes, no, whatever.
To return to the early departing population, they settled in what came to be East Asian countries. What I cannot figure out from this study is how these nations were already there as prêt-a-porter countries. Were they called China, Japan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Philippines? Why did the first group go to Thailand? Was the place tough on them and is that why they mastered the art of massage? Does the thriving business in Bangkok having anything to do with the lessons from the Kama Sutra they imbibed? And why did the second lot move to Malaysia? Are today’s Pakistanis following Malaysian Islam rather than the Saudi one they are accused of?
Why do Singaporeans have strict penal charges against spitting on the roads? Are they trying to get rid of their Indian roots of spitting any and everywhere? Is the Japanese penchant for making small things and being minimalist a dissenting response to the ostentation of Indian ethos?
These are not questions that engage the 90 scientists who took a sample of 1,928 unrelated individuals from 73 populations in 10 countries. They are more concerned about how this research “is also significant for understanding migratory pattern of human history and furthering the research in medicine. It has great potential for collaboration with these countries in finding treatment to many diseases like flu, AIDS and other pandemics”.
So, if you have a bit of fever and are coughing madly, don’t just gulp down that sweet syrup and suck on lozenges. Think of how the Japs would do it. I assume the fact that they bow on any given occasion is a halfway touching of the feet gesture by the majority population of India; it also probably derives from how they coped with clearing their lungs. You know, bend a little and the kho-kho-kho subsides.
All your ailments will now be seen in the light of how they are faring. If you are about to faint, then make sure to ask them to pass some smelling ajinomoto, please.
- - -
An Indian has been chosen as one of the top ten foreign heroes in the past 100 years for contribution to China. This report came in before the research was made public.
Dr Dwarkanath Kotnis treated Chinese soldiers during the Sino-Japanese war of 1938. Mao Zedong was mighty impressed and when the doctor died, he said, “The army has lost a helping hand, the nation a friend. Let’s always bear in mind his internationalist spirit.”
How internationalist China is we all know, especially during those days, but he probably felt some tug of a common heritage. I think these researchers must be right.
Incidentally, Dr Kotnis Ki Amar Kahani was a film based on the life story of the doc. I am not sure how much of it was true, but in the celluloid version he cured the plague, was captured by the Japanese, fell in love with a Chinese girl and died, because of the plague not the girl. V Shantaram enacted the title role and Jayshree played the Chinese girl. All same-same, no?
