Skip to main content

Were Armchair Scientist Right?

In this post, we will take a basic derivation of Natural Selection - a theory by Charles Darwin. The armchair scientist is a term used for thinkers who depend on the researches provided to them. They interpret the work of others and try to give them shape for other causes. 


To start with, Charles Darwin wasn't one of them. He visited many areas and collected and sorted different types of samples. And gave a theory that changed our view of ours to see the course of evolution. He set us on the path to untangle the mystery of the diversity of life. One of the theories is Natural Selection or survival of the fittest.


 This theory says an organism that adapts to the changes in the environment better will have more chances to survive and stand against the odds. This theory unravelled the mystery of evolution; at least gave a direction towards it. This answered many questions; one such was - Is the rule of Britishers overseas justified?


As a patriot, the answer is NO!, but for a minute setting patriotism apart and thinking rationally; Didn't British rule helped in globalization? I know the world was connected through silk routes. But they took it to the next level. How many Britishers were present in India while they ruled? The number was low, a very few, then how come they dominated us for 150 years (taking India under consideration). 


These outsiders gain trust and position in many kingdoms during the time of establishment. Can you imagine a foreigner sitting in our parliament today? They were that good when it comes to diplomatic talks. Now, why am I praising them? It's because they were better adapted or, say, were superior to the people of that time. 


Many people criticize, they were wrong in moulding the law by Darwin. Do you think the same? If so, tell me, what makes humans dominate the Earth? Development of BRAIN, yes! So, they were better at using it and hence, better suited as humans and prospered. Later, when members of the host country adapted, they liberated themselves. This time people of the host country were well suited and advanced with the support of the public. 

One thing to be noted, only a few people developed and stand against the dominancy of white people and relieved them from the so-called - "White People's burden". With the better interest of the public in their mind, these leaders brought a feeling of power in the hands of common people while keeping them to themselves.


So, I think not; Armchair scientists were totally wrong.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Brilliant Minds

What comes to your mind when we speak of brilliant minds? Albert Einstein? Stephan Hawking? Vinton Cerf? Bob Kahn? There are many names to say. Did they acquire that keen mind of their or they trained them? The thing is, we cannot be sure. After all, science has its language and so makes minds. Two types of mind one innately possess extraordinary capabilities and others who train themselves and push their limits. Nevertheless, these limits can be pushed to some extent only after that saturation comes or, say, and it went out of our hands. A movie named 'A man who knew infinity is based on the life of Srinivas Ramanujan. He was good with the number and contributed a lot in the field of Mathematics. However, what intriguing was that he was not trained or lectured by anyone. Moreover, on the contrary, there was G.H hardy who identified his work and helped him contribute to humanity. I am trying to say that if one deems to a person out of the above two, who will it be? My guess is Srin...
1 comment
Read more

Materialism

Toady we are living are having comfortable life when compared to earlier generation. But is it really comfortable? We have softer beds for better sleep, we have air conditioners to tackle adverse climatic conditions, fancy clothes to decorate our outer appearance to the world, we have different devices to playing games and relax our minds etc. These are comforts right? They appear quite ironic to me, air conditioners to tackle adverse climate condition, the conditions which we played with. Playing games on game devices to relax which really increase mental stress in long run. These all are part of materialism. The ideology of materialism states that everything including emotions can be represented physically.  Now, what do you think, to which extent is it valid? There's a saying that money can't buy happiness, which contradicts this theory. Is it really true money can't buy happiness? I believe there are two types of happiness one which last for short duration and other whi...
2 comments
Read more