Next step in Evolution

Theory of evolution suggests that all species are related and gradually change over time. Everything, every living being that we've known and yet to know have all evolved from a single cell. Survival of the fittest doesn't imply that the fittest destroys all that is not its equal. Fortunately that's why we still see the many organisms around us today because of the importance of their existence to maintain the balance in the system.

Imagine if humans could photosynthesise and create their own food and oxygen using the sunlight. The role of trees, forests and everything depending on it would have been extinct at least a couple of millions of years ago. We have left the trees only because we still depend on them for one thing or another.

What happens when we evolve to something that doesn't have to depend on anything that we depend on today?

Genetics would help us for a few hundred more years but the future belongs to a fitter generation that may only remember humans as humans remember the neanderthals and even deny any relation to such inferior species.

Robots, Humanoids, Cyborgs!

Neuroscience and Robotics has seen a phenomenal growth in the last few decades. We have the technology and intelligence to build machines that could build machines better than we, humans could. 

Factories crowded with thousands of humans are replaced with millions of tiny robots and few humans to push a few buttons and monitor readings.

Wars fought with millions of soldiers are being fought with a few hundred guided drones with the intelligence to acquire target more efficiently than soldiers who spend half their life-time on rigorous trainings.

Only our politics, morality, ethics and fear of armageddon between humans and the superior machines has prevented us from handing over the full control and freedom to machines to be what their potential would allow them to be.

Because there is a difference ethics, politics and morality among the people of different groups and countries sooner or later one country tying to dominate another will end up creating the machines that could evolve to be better than the creators. If we could create killing machines with Machine learning and Artificial Intelligence and allow them perform better than humans, we could also create machines that would learn to survive on its own.

Today, the richest in the world could be considered the fittest and through the theories of evolution will continue to survive. The rest of the world are not extinct yet only because the fittest still needs the rest of the world to survive and maintain its position at the top of the peak. Without the poor faction that spends its life toiling away in factories and fields with a hope to make the future of its offsprings, the rich faction cannot exist.

Likewise, machines will need humans only till the time they are dependent on machines. Once they evolve above that humans will be an inferior species and will have to learn to coexist without claiming the special status or go extinct.

We've only cracked the atoms and we already possess the potential to destroy continents and send out probes to other worlds and spies into the interstellar space. One or another of our next discoveries will help us evolve beyond the weaknesses of humankind as we know it today. 

If humans created superior machines that replace humans, is that not Evolution?

(Inspired by the thoughts of Yuval Noah Harari and Carl Sagan's thoughts and writings.) 

Are we (INDIANS) not a Patriarchal Society?

Dear men of India,

You may scream all day till your juices dry about how you treat your fellow Indian women equally while silently or ignorantly enjoying the benefits of the Patriarchal society that you are born into.

Men are ALLOWING women to work as equals in organisations you say, but there still is a huge divide in the ratio. "The number of female workers is about less than half the number of male workers"[sic].

And then there is the Gender pay gap. You may very well compare yourself to your lady colleague and cry that she gets paid equal or over you. Well, even with that lady earning more than you the Gap is still not evened out which means everywhere else the gap is so much that a comparison is just a joke.

"Gender pay gap high in India: Men get paid Rs 242 every hour, women earn Rs 46 less"[sic]

But then, what motivated me to write this post in the middle of all the atrocious and heinous crimes committed against women daily (some holding the attention of the entire nation for  a couple of weeks) is something I came across in the 'Hindu_Succession_Act,_1956'.

Let me call your attention to one interesting piece from this Act. Particularly to the 'property of a Hindu male dying intestate (without a will)' - "Class II heirs"

Class I heirs are pretty straightforward and no hassle. But the class II heirs is a clear definition of Patriarchy. 

"Class II heirs: Absence of Class I heirs

In case of absence of the class I heirs, as given above, the class II heirs will become entitled to the property of the deceased.

The class II heirs consist of many relatives who have been classified into categories and placed in a hierarchy. Preference is given to the one ranking above, wherein if there is even one member available in the higher (preceding) category then all of the property shall pass to the members in that category and none to the ones coming after that (succeeding).

However if there is no one available in the higher (preceding) category then it shall pass to the members following next in the category (succeeding)."[sic]

Class II heirs are categorized as follows and are given the property of the deceased in the following order:

1. Father [MALE]
2. Son's / daughter's son [MALE]
3. Son's / daughter's daughter [FEMALE]
4. Brother [MALE]
5. Sister [FEMALE]
6. Daughter's / son's son [MALE]
7. Daughter's / son's daughter [FEMALE]
8. Daughter's / daughter's son [MALE]
9. Daughter's /daughter's daughter [FEMALE]
10. Brother's son [MALE]
11. Sister's son [MALE]
12. Brother's daughter [FEMALE]

(yeah, I do not see Sister's daughter in the list either)

Apparently, the rights of the property of an Indian male dying without a will goes to the MALE relatives before the FEMALE.

This is justified by the assumption that a MALE (who is evidently earning more than FEMALE in the our society) is the bread-winner of the family and should be given priority when there is any extra benefit comes their way and the FEMALE is already assumed to be living with another MALE (married off) and will not require these extra benefits.

If you have a brother and a sister, the law gives your property to your brother and not your sister in the absence of any living person on the other higher categories. 

How's that for an Equal and well-balanced society? 

No, we should not compare ourselves with countries where women still do not have rights over property today but work towards rectifying our flaws.