• When Man was God…

    A few days back, I read this amazing article ‘Why everything you’ve been told about evolution is wrong‘, thanks to Surekha. Though it begins by rubbishing ‘creation by God’, it thankfully moves soon enough into Darwin’s theory of evolution and the epigenome (the protective package of proteins around which DNA is wrapped), which plays a role in deciding which genes get to express themselves in a creature’s traits and how much. It talks further of how a change in the surrounding environment for even a relatively small time can affect the way genes express themselves in future generations. This raises a question mark on the ‘random mutation + environment filtering’ basis of Darwin’s theory, and suggests that the environment had a hand in creating those ‘random’ traits. Lifestyle alters heredity.

    (Kindly read the remainder of the post before confronting your grandparents)

    I don’t have a hard stance against anything to do with God/faith, because I find around me many things that are not really explained, many dimensions which we haven’t been able to crack. Maybe, we will, in the future, but that doesn’t mean I will be arrogant about science now. There are so many wonderful things around me that awes my mind because of the mix of complexity and simplicity, that I like to have faith in a system/being at a higher level.

    But the article made me think about the way we have reached where we are, and our concepts of God and evolution. And that’s how I wondered whether man was ‘God’ at some far off point, and had some fun. A half-ass thought. For this scenario I’m accommodating both versions – i.e. God created man in his image OR nature threw up enough random genes to create a version of man with super powers.

    So at some point a long way back, we have a set of humans on the planet, all of them with superpowers – lifespan, various controls over elements etc, and thanks to that, a complete disregard for everything around them. The system (God or evolution/epigenome) realises this is a bad thing and starts turning down the super powers slowly. Or maybe they fought amongst themselves and turned off each others’ powers, until only a few had them. Their lifestyle tampered with their heredity. In later generations, they appeared in patches, say in a few  who are now known as rishis/sadhus/saints. These generations however, knew that earlier beings had superpowers and begin to regard them as Gods. They also began to fear the power of nature as they experienced calamities and lost things and people that were dear to them. Man now thinks that he should be beyond the control of nature. Technology  makes its entry and is man’s weapon against everything that nature can throw at him.

    Where does it go from here? Maybe nature is working to a plan – pushing man to increasingly rely on technology until the point he can no longer think for himself. And then attack man with all it has got when he’s at his most vulnerable.

    until next time, a 20:20 vision we might never have 🙂

  • The Time Traveler’s Wife

    Audrey Niffenegger

    It is easy to treat this book as a simple love story, with the added twist of time travel, but it goes much beyond that, and in that lies the magic. The love story of Henry DeTamble and Clare, who meet when when she is six and he is thirty six, though he’s only elder to her by eight years. They get married when she’s twenty two and he’s thirty.

    That doesn’t even begin to describe the story of a man, whose genetic disorder causes him to time travel unpredictably. So, without warning, he finds himself disappearing from his present and appearing in some time in the past or the future, stark naked. It is only his love for Clare that keeps him going as they try to lead a normal life.

    If it had continued this way, it would just be a good story, what actually makes it a wonderful read is the wonderful way the climax has been developed. Sadness, hope and an appreciation for things that really matter. (the last matches my perspective)

    I wouldn’t consider science fiction and romance a natural pairing, and so, the author must be credited for blending it superbly. While these two are definitely the themes, the sheer lack of control in two lives which so desperately want to be together, makes one ask deeper questions on the nature of life and human existence.

  • Online Segmenting and segregating

    We’ll start the thought from the easiest place. Facebook. 🙂 From industry leaders quitting Facebook to TC stating that media attacks on FB are getting out of hand, to Facebook deciding to launch ‘simplistic’ privacy options, there’s a ton of reading material out there. (I liked Danah Boyd’s ‘rant‘ quite a bit) But let’s get to the scope of the post, before i digress way out.

    I think it might be safe to assume  that we are different persons to different people. To the large set of siblings, friends, relatives, acquaintances and the various people we interact with, we share different aspects and versions of our personality, depending on the nature, time, depth, even expectations of our interactions and relationships. So, in a Facebook context too, we would like to retain different levels of sharing and communicating too, in spite of Mark Zuckerberg thinking that having two identities shows a lack of integrity. I think this might be the core of the current tussle – a failure to understand the need to segregate connections, and therefore the content that gets distributed to them.

    When i read Adam Singer’s take on Chris Brogan’s post, I was completely in agreement, because I think HE has nailed a universal truth about normalisation. The last part of the post also mentions how we write basis the kind of audience we’d like. That is a kind of content segregation too, and it is necessary now more than ever, because of content abundance.

    It’s not just to do with publishing, it is also to do with the kind of communities we become a part of. The net provides tools which allows us to aggregate  people like ourselves – basis interests, attitudes, beliefs, and if everything else fails, even location 😀  My point, there’s segregation all around.

    Which brings me to the usual suspect – brands. I started on this last week, and found myself thinking of it during the recent UTV Bindass scuffle. Now, if we go by UTV’s brand communication, its clearly a youth brand. I’ve realised that ‘Youth’ is a very flexible segmentation, and people my age might argue that its all in the mind etc, but it was interesting to see that the average age of opinion sharers was on the erm, riper side of 30. I wonder if the brand would want this audience segment as its viewers.

    It reminds me of the Facebook user’s need for segregation choices. While the net gives the brand tools to find users in a desired segment/demographic, and the brand can limit itself to engaging them specifically, there really is no way to prevent interactions coming from/happening outside the segment. In an earlier era, it was easy, because it was mostly one way communication. Now, what does a brand do if its dragged into a conversation? The non-open options (protected tweets, invite-only community etc) are not really great. Now some would say that this thought approach is close to advocating control for brands – which is a strict no-no as per the tenets of social media 🙂 – but I can’t help but think of the choice that the brand might want in terms of the discussions they want to be part of.  In a case like Bindass, will “Thank you for the feedback, but we all know that different audience sets have different needs and likes. Hope to have some programming that you’ll like, soon.” really cut it?

    In Facebook’s case, while i can perhaps understand Zuckerberg’s version of how radical transparency will make us all better, I’ll still make a case for it to be a user’s choice, unhindered by beguiling ToS and changes to it. Similarly, in a scenario in which mobs and brand-baiting are rapidly on the rise, I’d say there should be a freedom of choice for brands too. How brands use it is a different discussion altogether.

    until next time, the answer, my friend, is flowin in the stream 🙂

    PS: Noted that Hippo, which is doing some excellent work on Twitter, replied to Tony’s Hippo-crates wordplay, (reply) but ignored the (same) one which i’d tweeted a couple of days earlier. (btw, he usually beats me to most wordplay stuff and more importantly, gives credit to original tweets when he doesn’t) Anyway, smart segmentation, Hippo knows i almost never snack.

    PPS: Its got nothing to do with the fact that Tony is almost a decade younger, okay? 😉

  • Higher Stakes

    The ‘cow slaughter ban’ bill that got passed in the Karnataka assembly sometime back, got a lot of people’s erm, goat, especially Mallus, for many of whom, paradoxically, its a ‘holy cow’ issue. But the phenomenal prospects of wordplay is not what got me thinking. Its the idea of something getting banned and the protests that follow.

    Take smoking, for example. I’m sure all the smokers would have been fuming at the bans that came out on various aspects of the product and its usage, but a lot of us feel that its a good thing for different reasons. Me, mostly because those lousy forwards with the much abused ‘kick the butt’ subject line, and horrible pictures, have stopped. I find that the majority of people I know support this ban, citing health reasons etc. But the beef ban, which (at least in a way) prevents killing of a life form, finds lesser supporters. Personally, I love beef, but as time passes, my feelings of guilt have also been strengthening, and its the case of a subjective like over ruling a ‘better for the cosmos’ thought. A sad rendition of  the “way to a man’s heart…. ” too. But I do wonder about a future when the majority would say that the beef ban is a good thing. A higher state of awareness?

    A few days back, I read Seth Godin’s post titled “Fear of Philanthropy“, where though his context is mostly to do with ’cause marketing’, he writes about knowing how much (of giving) is enough.  He paraphrases a question (attributed to Peter Singer) “Would you save a drowning girl even if it means ruining a pair of Italian shoes? If the answer is yes, why not use that money to save 20 kids starving to death at the other end of town/world?” Isn’t it the same? (I need to read up more on Singer, Practical Ethics, and the idea of “the greatest good of the greatest number”).  Godin points to proximity, attention and intent as factors that weigh in in our decision to ‘give’.

    Proximity and attention. I remember wondering in a post sometime back whether all this connectivity, instant communication and micro popularity would make us less compassionate and more inconsiderate. But then again, does this connectivity increase our proximity to issues and would it be negated by the lack of attention? Heh. Will it make us more conscious or will it cause to go even deeper into our own comfortable bubble?

    Intent. I saw Will Smith’s ‘Seven Pounds’ when it played on TV recently. The idea of a man donating different organs/parts of his body, after ensuring that the receiver is indeed worthy – ‘a good man/woman’ (“You’re a good man even when no one’s looking”). Commenting on the intent would spoil the viewing for you, but the point here is the time and patience taken to identify and verify the ‘goodness’. I’d have liked to do that too, but I’m afraid of what all it would entail. I convince myself that I don’t have the time. However, I can’t help but wonder optimistically whether one day, the collective consciousness would help take my awareness so high that my intent is made all the more stronger and then, everything else will cease to be a factor. But then I look in the mirror and say that I’m better off looking within myself, for its difficult to refute an oft asked question “I didn’t make it this way, why should I contribute to making it a better place, when I can buy my happiness in other ways?” As Godin says, its effective enough, sadly so.

    until next time, streamlined thoughts 🙂

    PS. meanwhile, if you’ve been reading this blog for a while, and have liked it, do officially ‘like’ it here 🙂

  • Medici

    No medicinal jokes will be entertained unless they end with ‘chee’, for that’s how you pronounce it. You can read all about the House of Medici here. It would tell you that they were a banking family turned royal house who originated from the Tuscan countryside and finally settled in Florence. It also informs you that they were one of the families who fostered and inspired the birth of the Italian Renaissance. What it doesn’t tell you much is about Catherine de’ Medici‘s role in fusing French cuisine with Italian and introducing the French to the fork. To read up on that, you’ll need to go to Medici, on 100 ft Road in Indiranagar. When coming from the Koramangala direction, its on the left, above Maharaja furniture, and opposite Indigo Nation. Parking is a breeze – valet for 4wheelers, and a large basement for 2 wheelers. 🙂

    We walked in at about 7.15 pm, and managed to get a good table, facing the road. Extremely stylish, but understated ambiance, that’s the first thing we noticed. The place somehow gives a feel that the visitor is in safe hands, of someone who is confident of what they’re doing. Hey, the cuisine is Franco-Italian, i have to at least pretend snobbery okay? But seriously, despite the cuisine’s ‘reputation’ (in these parts of the world), that’s another aspect that Medici needs to be credited for – the efficient service that relies on pleasantness, not snobbery. 🙂

    On to the menu. They have quite a collection of mocktails, and I was tempted to try the Funky Toffy, but I thought I had much ground to cover and this might weigh me down later. Even before we ordered, we were quite impressed with the complimentary bread served. (you must try the cheese provided along with it. Amazing) The food menu starts with appetisers, and includes a Prawn Mousseline, Beef Carpaccio, Salmon Tartare, Calamari Peperoncino, Quiche aux e’ pinards, Bruschetta, Tomato Mozzarella tian. (Rs.150-300). We chose a Poulet et de bacon quiche, “traditional French quiche with chicken and bacon”. You have the choice of 1 person/2 person portions. We chose the former, and regretted it since it was quite tasty. The crust part was slightly flaky, but complemented the filling extremely well, quite unlike anything I’ve tasted before. Highly recommended.

    You could also choose from the salad section – Caesar, Rucola, Roast Duck, and Seasonal Fruit. (Rs.150-280). We briefly considered the Roast Duck, but decided instead to go for a Wild Mushroom Soup, “creamy wild mushroom finished with truffle oil”, from the choice of soups – French Onion, Bouillabaisse, Gazpacho, Borscht,  and Chicken and Leek. (all Rs.150). The soup turned to be as good as claimed (by Karthik). It was creamy (brownish color though), and the truffle oil gave it a flavor that took it up several notches.

    Moving on, you could try the pasta options – Spaghetti Carbonara, Tagliatelle Puttanesca, Spaghetti Bolognaise, Ravioli, Tortellini,  Beef Lasagna, and Fusilli Marinara. (Rs.200-300) or Risotto – Prawn, Mushroom (Rs.300/250). The main course options are split into Meat, Poultry, Seafood and Veg. The veg section consists of Baked Aubergine, Asparagus Crepe, and vol-au-vent. (Rs.250). The poultry options are Chicken Parmigiano, Chicken de Medici, Duck a l’orange (Rs.300, 650). The meat section (Rs.350-400) has Fillet Mignon, tornado, Rack of lamb, and the one i chose – ‘Grilled Pork chops, “pork chops marinated with anchovy and basil served with brown jus and garlic mash”. The seafood options (Rs.350-650) are Fish en papillote, Grilled Scampi, Pepper crusted fillet of salmon, and D’s choice, Duo de poisson –  “fish fillet layered with salmon mousse and zucchini”.

    The pork chops were quite good, but my folly lay in underestimating the anchovy’s effect. Like D pointed out, it did mean that they took the ingredients seriously, but it made the meal slightly difficult for me. (I have a seafood allergy, with only a few exceptions). The garlic mash was quite good though. D was quite impressed with her fish dish, and felt that (probably) the cream cheese in the salmon mousse covering added to the taste.

    The dessert options are quite tempting too, especially the Chocolate Fondant, but we had a movie to catch, and were actually quite stuffed. The other dessert options are Tiramisu, Fresh Fruit Tart, Crepe Suzette, and Creme Brulee. (all Rs.150). Just a note that though the menu seems skewed towards non vegetarians at first glance, the vegetarians do have enough choice.

    All of the above cost us over Rs.1200. I plan to visit soon again, to atone for my wrong choice of dish, and to try the dessert options. I’d highly recommend that you drop in too, for a really smooth ambiance, excellent service, the best food presentation we’ve seen in a while, and a choice of dishes that are not really common here.

    Medici, Mannan Arcade, 2nd Floor, 1206, 100ft Road, HAL 2nd Stage, Indiranagar Ph: 42044987, 42350674

    Menu and Photos at Zomato