The Chicken and the Egg Dilemma

Jack has solved the mother of all Dilemmas, "Which is first, Chicken or the Egg ?". He says,"Whichever is ordered first comes first !".

I was about to hit the sack, when my cell beeped indicating the arrival of this message. Now, that's funny ! But the question raised in the joke, continued to linger in my brain. As is the case with any such intriguing Questions, the cerebration has begun -- Which is First, Chicken or Egg ?

Theology always has the simplest and most comfortable of all answers. Almost all religious doctrines advocate the creationist theory. God has created chicken out of the blue, and it began laying eggs; the same way god has created Adam and Eve, the great-great..great grandparents of the entire human race.

But we skeptics cannot accept theories so obvious. We need rational inferences drawn from complicated set of facts and observations. And the best scientific theory to base upon is the Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

Theory of Evolution states Evolution is a process by which novel heritable traits arise in populations and are passed on from generation to generation, and over time, the traits that help the organism reproduce in greater numbers than his peers gradually gain dominence in a population. It was a gradual and complicated process that spread across millions of years. Organic Life forms started as miniscule water organisms, which evolved into fishes, and then developed lungs to become amphibia, that later transmuted into reptiles and birds, one of which happened to be a wild fowl bird, domesticated by man as the hen.

Now, there are two ways in which Evolution can be used to answer this question, one concluding that the chicken is first and the other that egg is first. But both arguments follow the similar lines of reasoning.

A Case for Chicken

Let us say that there exists a wild fowl bird that is not exactly chicken. In order to adapt to the changing environment, one( or some ) of the birds might have mutated into a different species developing certain new attributes alien to the original species, and losing a few inherited characteristics. These birds are the first hens, the primitive ones. When these birds lay eggs, the hatched chicken inherits the evolved or modified DNA of their parents. These chickens represent the original species much lesser and acquire more and more new qualities, that defines the birth of new species. These multiply and evolve into the modern chicken. So, the first chicken being the mutated birds which set off the new species, we can conclude that Chicken is first.

A Case for Egg

The non-chickens or the pre-chickens, whatever u call them, mated to form a cell or zygote, which gives rise to the offspring. Due to certain mutations that happened during the fusion and transformation of the Zygote, the DNA might have been altered in an unexpected way. The zygote divides innumerable times to form all of the cells of the complete animal. Thus the mutated zygote produced the new species, the first true chickens.Prior to that first true chicken zygote, there were only non-chickens. The zygote cell is the only place where DNA mutations could produce a new animal, and the zygote cell is housed in the chicken's egg. So, the egg must have come first.

Both arguments sound good. Whichever you accede to depends on the kind of belief you espouse. If you believe that mutations occur after the birth of an organism, in order to help it adapt to the new demanding circumstances, then Chicken is first. But, If you agree with me, that once the DNA is defined in the zygote it doesn't alter, then the Egg came first.

Whatever be the case, we should be happy to have such a nice bird, that resulted in a variety of delicious dishes.

P.S The above information has been collated from various sources on the Net.

My Worst Enemy

Laziness, what else !

Every morning it is a great pain to get off my bed to attend to my daily chores. I keep tossing on my bed, obstinately keeping my eyes closed, unwilling to acquiesce the fact that I am awake, deliberately ignoring every signal sent by my brain screaming at me to get off the bed. Heedless of the hour of the day, be it 8AM or 11AM or even 2PM, this routine repeats everyday.

Then begins the tedious process of getting my lazy self into my office seat. Getting ready is a very slow process, with each activity preceded and succeeded by an interlude of idleness( which I call the prep. breaks ), and it takes hours to get myself prepared for the humdrum existence in the Office. So, by the time I wish Bon Jour to my colleagues, it is in fact afternoon.

The rest of the day proceeds normally. But once back in my bedroom, I revert to my languid mood. This time ironically I feel lazy to sleep. I watch TV, read books or just enjoy my repose. It will be well past midnite by the time my eyes burn and eye lids droop, and finally I fall asleep. If I haven't burn some calories or for that matter, some grey cells in my brain, it gets even late. These days I have sort of metamorphosed into a kind of Nocturnal Creature.

Whenever an important exam or meeting or seminar is scheduled in the morning session, I set the alarm much earlier than the optimal time required. So that I wudn't miss anything. But then when I wake up, lethargy takes over me, and knowing that I have ample time, I tend to waste enough in the bathroom or bedroom, that I end up rushing to make it just in time. And if any of the murphy's laws comes true, like the traffic jam or something else, the whole plan is messed up. I have missed enough meetings that way. I even missed my FMS exam.

But now that I am going to a place, where every one slogs day in and day out to get in, the place where fun n learning is omnipresent, where sleeping for more than 5 hours a day means missing something, I need to work upon this galling aspect of mine. And that is the whole point of this post. Even as I write this, the lazy part of me has been entreating me to stop this and get back to my sweet old movie.

No..I am gonna Launch a crusade against my lazyness this very minute. Wait wait, not now, Lemme take a break and start from tommorrow..

BS

I stumbled upon this word while reading Jack Welch's 'Straight from the Gut'. He has used it many times, esp. referring to the statements made by his executives. Now what does that mean ? As is the case with other slangs, Dictionary couldn't answer my question. Now, I mulled over it for a while and came up with an acronym of my own invention, BS stands for Business Strategy.

The immense gratification of the self-acquired knowledge didn't last long. While I was orkutting, I happened to come across this mysterious term again. Still confident that it is going to be a positive word, a must-know for an MBA, I innocently asked my to-be-MBA-classmate to enlighten me. And she replied instantly : 'Bull Shit'.

What ?!! Is that so simple, so mean and so disgraceful a word ? And now a person as sophisticated as Jack Welch, the former CEO of GE, has used it in his own autobiography. Is it such a common phrase. This isn't something I consider as a part of the so called parliamentary language. And here I was, a fool considering all kinds of fancy alternatives for the word.

----------

Contemplating the experience, I found many such words all around me, used in a very innocuous manner, though the words themselves are mean and vulgar, atleast literally. Screw-up, frigging, sucks, heck, goddamned -- all these words are ubiquitous in our daily lives. We use them so freely, so normally, that many of us aren't even aware of the literal meanings. Some managers even go to the level of using the words asshole, bitch et al. All these are used by highly qualified people even in the boardrooms. And very comfortably.

Now, when these words are translated into Telugu, I would never ever use them. I can't even mention those words here, for my own comfort as well as urs. People who use these words in telugu at social occassions are treated as the uncouth. No cultured and well-mannered person would use such words in public.

But when the same words, which literally are as gross, are used in English, people don't cringe. They take it as a part of the colloquial vocabulary. Well, I myself did not feel even the slightest hesitation while mentioning the words here. I use them so frequently that they no more seem to be the part of lingo of the crass.

Now where does the difference lie ? Does the use of foreign language gloss the grossness ? Or is it bcoz of the open manner in which these words are used by civilized people ? Or were they used so often that they became part of everyday speech ? Whatever the reason is, people use them so effortlessly, and most of them aren't even aware of the meaning.

It's funny how things so gross in our culture seem posh in foreign culture.

What is the Speed of Darkness ?

I have seen this line as a status message of my friend on Y! Messenger. Intrigued, I contemplated it for a while and finally came up with a err, for the lack of better word, scientific theory. Now, there is nothing new or fancy about this, but as I have lotza time to kill and absolutely no topic to write about, I have decided to bombard u with my silly revelations !

Let us begin by defining Darkness. Darkness is nothing but absence of Light. The same way as cold is absence of heat. The same theory our religious gurus use to pontificate : God is nothing but absence of the Satan or the Evil.

Now we come to question, Does Darkness move ? Many people propound that Darkness just exists, and has no tangible evidence of motion. But the same was attributed to Light, until it was proved that Light actually travels and with a definite speed. Now, we agree that light moves and that absence of light is darkness. So, naturally we can infer that darkness moves as light moves.

We need to consider infinite distances for this. Let us say that you are stationed at a point in Space ( Now, only space is that huge ). Say some hundred light years from Sun. And Assume that the Sun is the only source of light. And the light of sun hasn't yet reached the point where you are standing. You will be in Darkness, right ? Slowly the light from Sun starts travelling towards you, at the speed of light naturally. And in hundred years time( remember, u are 100 loght years away from sun ), light reaches you and darkness vanishes. But say some 10 light years behind you, the darkness still exists. It exists until light reaches the point, which takes again 10 years. So, darkness has moved from the point you are standing to the point 10 light years away in 10 light years.

What I am trying to tell is that Motion of darkness has to be considered as the opposite reaction of the motion of Light. And it is equal. So darkness moves at the speed of Light, but in opposite direction to the motion of Light.

So dear folks, Speed of darkness is 299 792 458 m / s ( Courtesy : Google Calculator ).
And I have got another status message to tout !!

My New Gizmo

I have recently taken to an interest in Photography. And the first step, procure a digital camera.

So after a lot of reviews and few visits to the electronic shops, I bought my new Digicam, the Nikon Coolpix S1. Though a bit complicated in operation, it is very slim, with a large LCD display, and above all the pics are of good quality. It's a 5 MP cam with 3X optical zoom and 256MB memory card.

Without reading the manual, I started using the cam. Well, the UI is a bit obvious. But not being a master of night photography, of all the 10 or more snaps that I took that day, only one is presentable enough ! And here it is :

FountainHead : My Take

Completed reading Ayn Rand's Fountainhead - One of the best books in modern literature, in print for more than 25 years; My first encounter with Ayn Rand's philosophy - Objectivism. I haven't got a chance to read her 'Atlas Shrugged' , which is supposed to be a comprehensive exposition of her Philosophy, But I have got good insights into what all Objectivism is about.

There has been so much raving about the book, not to mention the occasional criticism and the cribbings that it is too idealistic. So, I have decided to explore this self-proclaimed 'philosophical fiction' and am not at all disappointed.

The Plot

The book is more or less a narrative of Howard Roark's Life. The trials and tribulations faced by him at the hands of the not-so-worthy sham altruists. Ayn Rand has cleverly grafted her ideals into Howard's character. She shows Howard as the ultimate human being, and propounds her philosophy through the depiction of his life.

Howard Roark, the protagonist, is a genius architect, who believes in building each building with a different spirit. He doesn't compromise on his work and only works when he is given full freedom in designing buildings. Naturally, he finds hostility amongst the stalwarts of the plagiarist culture and was shunned, feared, ostracized and persecuted almost throughout his entire career. The story is a walkthrough of his fight against the second-rate people who believe that public acceptance is their ultimate goal. It culminates in an exciting courtroom trial where Roark upholds his philosophy and finally succeeds in his endeavor.

The Characters

Howard Roark :

An independent and asocial genius, with little regard for the opinion of others. A person with great reverence for his work and wouldn't compromise on his work, even if that means he has to go through abject penury, intense calumny and terrible hardships. He believes that his creation itself is the end, the fact that it existed itself is a great source of pride and he doesn't require anyone's approval to convince himself of the greatness of his work. An egotist in his own way, with just a few friends who could understand him.

This is the character I admired the most. Isn't that Obvious -- afterall he is the protagonist. But many people don't appreciate Roark so much. They feel he's impractical and conceited. In my view, a person who knows himself is much better than the confused poor( Shud I say pathetic ? ) souls. Roark is so sure of his values, his motives, his causes and his pride. He never compromised. His skills, his unflinching attitude, the aplomb he has shown in troubled times and above all his courage to oppose the world impressed me a lot. He works for the love it, and not for the material gains, which is a great quality.

There are certain aspects of Roark I am not comfortable with. His passiveness with the society. His inimical behaviour, his despise for the ineptitude and his total disregard for the human race. Now, I felt uncomfortable, bcoz these are the qualities I would prefer not to have. These are qualities an ideal person better not have. But for a person so devoted to his work, who doesn't need social relations to survive, these qualities fit well.

Peter Keating :

A charlatan, a shameless plagiarist who has devoted his life to impress people. In spite of full knowledge of his ineptitude, he desperately tries to convince himself and the world that he is has it in him. He constantly needs approval of the world to keep himself away from his nagging conscience. His insecurity and self-doubt turns him into a pitiful wreck. A parasite by all means, he treats his work as a means to achieve his end: Public Acceptance.

Though many people despise him, I felt pity. This one character sums up our world. Though we deny it, most of us have at one time or other exhibited such characteristics, maybe not at such contemptible levels. He has ambition, which is good. But the means he chose are so filthy and spiteful. His desire for public approval is a disease pervading every nook and corner of our civilization. But such desire, when coupled with ineptitude, ruins a person.

Ellsworth Toohey :

A person who goes after power and influence over fellow-men. Money is worthless for him. All he needs is the servitude of the human race. He uses media to propagate fake altruism. He confounds the wavering minds, shows benevolence to the meek, does favours to the useful, raises self-doubt and fear among the rich and successful, supports and encourages the lousy artists, everything to make people loyal to him and have control over them. A person lacking talent himself, he envies the able. With an uncanny ability to recognize geniuses, he uses every dirty trick to destroy their self-respect.

A highly contemptible character without any doubt. We might even have a consensus on this. But there are certain points we need to appreciate. He recognizes his limitations and uses his strengths to accomplish what he set out to do. Though deprived of talent himself, He understands talent. A truly self-conceited person, who tries to make up for his clumsiness with the support of mass approval. A person rotten to the core.

Gail Wynand :

A man split between ideals and practicalities. He has pure heart that understands beauty, respects talent and despises the masses. But he has given himself to the trend, to leverage the foolishness of the public, to amass great wealth and power. Feeling inspired by the spirit of Howard, he decides to fight back. He stands strong for a while, but later loses the courage and falls back. He flees from truth afraid of the hardships. Finally, he makes amends by stopping his newspaper and giving Roark a chance to use his genius.

Many people love this character, some even more than Howard. I just like/respect him. Throughout his life, he has done things against his beliefs and values. He perpetrated the very things he hated. He lead a life that he despises himself. And when he finally realized his mistakes and fought hard for what he truly believed, he couldn't carry the grit all through the end. He succumbed to the pressure, against his own will. Of course, he stopped living a debauched life in the end, but failed in upholding his true spirit.

Dominique Francon :

A person who believes in freedom from the depravity of the world. She loves Howard for what he stands for. Instead of fighting with him against the world, she tries to protect him from the world. She flees from the world initially and then she tries to condemn herself to the depravity of world. Finally, she realizes that she should insulate herself from the hurt and returns to Howard.

A coward, that's what I would call her. She aspires to nothing due the fear of losing it. She destroys her prized possessions to prevent them from being snatched away. A person should dream, and show courage to achieve them. Instead of running away from the society, a person should either fight/ignore it. One cannot simply detach oneself from the sorroundings, of which one is always a part.

Steve Mallory & Henry Cameron :

People who always upheld their values inspite of chronic persecution. They fought and fought and lost, but never compromised. They end up broken by the world that doesn't understand them, that couldn't bear their genius.

These characters represent the real people who faught for a cause and lost. Those people banished into obscurity, just because they are different from us. Or maybe because they are better than us. Well, Not every Howard Roark can laugh. Some perish.

The Philosophy

I am no expert on Objectivism. But there are certain precepts I have gathered from the book.

Creativity in Man is the supreme power and should be highly reverred. Man should devote himself to his work and find gratification in accomplishment of the task and not in the praise showered by his fellow-beings. Man should not depend on others for approval of his greatness. He should believe in his virtues and competence. Man should take his decisions on his own. Self-respect is most vital in any person and it shouldn't be lost for any reason. Man should always uphold his spirit and should have the courage to face any adversities in that process. Man should know himself and believe himself.

It criticizes altruism and supports atheism. By treating all people equal, man is committing a sin against the people who create the world. Altruism creates a dependence among human beings on one another for their own survival. It results in decadence of human spirit and people start living second-hand lives in rottenness. Also, surrendering oneself before the divine kills self-respect in a man and leads to self-doubt and mental depravity. It limits a person from exercising his own free will, believing in making his destiny and induces a sense of helplessness. Man's freedom is curbed by his dependence on the fate or fellow-men.

----

Though I do not espouse every ideal propounded, the book did influence my way of thinking.

There are certain things which I believe in : Never lose your self-respect, Admire a person's creative talent, Do not depend on others' approval, Work for the love of it, Believe in yourself etc. There are certain aspects I do not approve of : Self-Conceit or Egotism, Not developing good relations, Ignoring the inept, Insulating oneself from the world, Renouncing the material gains etc.

However, there are certain qualities I have decided to imbue myself with. It's not that the book has inspired these thoughts in me. I have been brooding over these things over the past few months, and the book happened to act as the much required catalyst.

Share your work with others but never look for their approval. I shall work for the love of it, for my personal satisfaction, but not for public praise.

I have decided to take my decisions myself, and not to look for help from some one else. Throughout the MBA process, I have been looking for someone to make my decision for me. But not again. Of course I will ask others for the information and facts, but will never pester anyone for any sort of advice. I shall take their suggestions, and considering all the information available, I will take the decisions myself.

---

There are three Questions I ask myself after reading any such inspiring book :

The character I would like to see myself as ?
Obviously, Howard.

The character I would hate to see myself as ?
No prizes for guessing, Toohey.

Which character do I relate myself and my qualities to the most ?
None completely. But mostly Gail Wynand, with some characteristics of Howard Roark, Steve Mallory and Peter Keating( Now don't look at me like that, I am no saint! ).