The Largest Pyramid Ever?

A grand idea, considered improbable by most. Gaining publicity last month, was the proposed plan of German entrepreneurs to build the world’s largest structure - a pyramid shaped tomb to contain the remains of millions of people of all faiths from all over the world.

The Friends of the Great Pyramid say:

The Great Pyramid can potentially be any human being’s grave or memorial site. As monumental as it is affordable, it serves those of all nationalities and religions. Individuals who are either unwilling or unable to have their ashes buried there can also opt to have a memorial stone placed instead. Stones can be custom designed with any number of colors, images, or relief decorations. The Great Pyramid will continue to grow with every stone placed, eventually forming the largest structure in the history of man.

And regarding it becoming the largest building in the world:

The Great Pyramid grows brick by brick; its structure of rock-solid concrete receptacles and memorial stones is set to outlast the coming millennia. Each tomb container will contain an urn with the ashes of a deceased, while memorial stones hold capsules containing other remembrances.

All stones are identical in size and are positioned at random in the Great Pyramid. After only few thousand stones have been laid, the Great Pyramid will have reached massive proportions. Even if only a small percentage of all current and future living decide on a Great Pyramid stone, the monument will outsize the Giza Pyramids very soon. In only a few decades it will be the largest structure our civilization has ever built.

They have secured $122,600 (£60,000) in state funding, estimate it would take about 30 years to be completed, with each burial costing about $960 (€700). Pritzker-winning Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas is heading the jury for choosing a final design for the project. Not everyone is optimistic about the proposal though.

The Washington Times says:

The improbable plan is based on the idea that people will pay to have their ashes encased in the concrete blocks used to construct the monument. Millions of people would have to sign up to make it viable, though if the team behind it is successful, they will be rich beyond the wildest dreams of even the most ambitious pharaoh.

You can see the number of people who’ve signed up for this here. Also, as expected, local residents’ ire is reported by The Independent:

However, the pyramid idea has not been universally welcomed by residents in the next door village of Streetz. “We don’t want to live next to the world’s biggest graveyard,” one inhabitant was quoted as saying last week.

Gizmodo also contemplates that in 30 years, who would want to fly their remains to Germany when one could fly them in space?

I actually liked the idea in some ways, though it is true that it does seem improbable. If mankind were to extinguish itself by nuclear holocaust or climatic destruction, there would hardly be any signs left of its existence on planet earth. The larger the structures we build, the larger the probability that alien probes would sense man-made structures on earth after our demise. Ah! But that’s romanticizing, just like Friends of the Great Pyramid!

(Image Credits: Friends of the Great Pyramid)

Law of Social Censorship

The Iconoclast has proposed McCullagh’s Law:

As the certainty that legislation violates the U.S. Constitution increases, so does the probability of predictions that severe harm or death will come to Americans if the proposal is not swiftly enacted.

I propose the corollary in the Indian context as the Law of Social Censorship:

The extent to which {something} exemplifies individual freedom, determines the extent to which it will be opposed on ‘moral’ grounds.

The only prerequisite to oppose something on such grounds is that someone’s sentiments must be affected. Examples:

• India was the first country to ban Rushdie’s Satanic Verses. The ban is still in force, even after many other countries have repealed their bans.
• Majority of state governments have banned sex education in schools.
• Forget gay marriage. Being a homosexual is a criminal offense in India.
• There have been widespread attempts to ban Google’s Orkut - the most popular social networking site.
• M. F. Hussain’s paintings - India’s highest paid painter - have often caused controversies leading to his house being destroyed by a mob.
• There are many, many examples. This Hindu op-ed discusses the social censorship scene in India with many more examples.

Climate Changes Nobel Peace Prize?

There is wide speculation that Al Gore will win the Nobel Peace Prize today, and the betting odds are highly in his favor. Let’s get this straight. Alfred Nobel’s Will says that the Peace Prize shall be given to:

the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.

Sure, climate change has the potential to cause wars, but aren’t there people who have been instrumental in fighting for peace in existing wars? Ironically, this is happening when a British court judge ruled that Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth contained nine errors.

What are the various opinions being expressed?

Reuters:

“Such an award would fall under the expanded concept of peace but the activity can be linked to the climate-conflict combination and is highly timely,” said NRK veteran journalist Geir Helljesen who has a solid record of tipping prize winners.

Please enlighten me if anyone understood that.

Salon: Why Al Gore deserves the Nobel Peace Prize

What’s world peace got to do with global warming? Perhaps everything. Or it will if things don’t change fast — if, in 10 or 20 or 40 years devastating floods and droughts displace millions of refugees and spur nations and tribes to desperate bloodletting. At which point, no one will have the slightest doubt why members of the renowned Scandinavian foundation thought former U.S. Vice President Al Gore was an obvious choice for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

There’s one ‘perhaps’ and two big ‘ifs’ in that statement. Since when were Nobel Peace Prizes awarded based on ifs?

Tennessee Center for Policy Research:

Handing a Nobel Prize to Al Gore, a proven hypocrite on the issue of climate change, would be an injustice to the many people bravely fighting for peace and freedom throughout the world. We discovered that while Gore told us to curtail our energy use, he guzzled more electricity at his posh Nashville mansion in a month than the average American family used in a year.

I don’t know about the hypocrite part, but I do think that it will be an injustice to the other deserving folks.

The Investors Business Daily (quoted on an Australian site) writes on how the stature of the Nobel Peace Prize has deteriorated over the years, and says:

“Just what the Nobel committee really needs, another fraud in its pantheon of laureates. If Gore wins the prize as expected, it will mark another step in the long politicized decline of a once highly regarded international award.”

Most environmentalists are gaga over the news. Brandon Keim, from Wired Magazine, stands out among the lot. A staunch supporter of the fight against climate change epitomizes my thoughts behind this post:

If the Nobel committee does choose Gore or Watt-Cloutier or the IPCC, they’ll certainly send a message to the world. A good message, in fact. But it would still be a shame if the meaning of the Nobel Peace Prize itself became a casualty of global warming.

If he does get it, the Norwegian Committee will have screwed up the AlGorethm for the Peace Prize.

Further Reading: Common misconceptions about the Nobel Peace Prize

Religion vs. Atheism in Parenting

A few weeks back, I read Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion say:

I want us to flinch when we hear of a ‘Christian child’ or a ‘Muslim child’. Small children are too young to know their views on life, ethics and the cosmos. We should no more speak of a Christian child than of a Keynesian child, a monetarist child or a Marxist child. Automatic labeling of children with the religion of their parents is not just presumptuous. It is a form of mental child abuse.

I’ve been thinking about this ever since, when I was asked the following questions by Ashok in comments on his Temple Matters post:

1) What is your opinion on children being taken to temples but not encouraged to ask why?

2) At what point do you think parents/elders should leave the decision of finding personal meaning in religion to the individual? What would you do with your children?

For a novice parent, these are profound questions, and it is important for any parent to think about these.

To start with, there is no doubt in my mind in fully agreeing with Dawkins. I was indoctrinated as a Hindu child, and chose atheism only in my teens, after I discovered and studied other philosophies. I did not have to go through a tenacious struggle myself, but I can well imagine different experiences for others. I would disagree with indoctrination of any kind. One must encourage one’s children to think for themselves, and choose what they think is right.

Given that religion is based on blind faith and not reason, it is hardly surprising that most religious parents blindly indoctrinate their children in what they themselves believe is the best for their children’s good. But what about atheists? Do atheists equally provide an open environment for their children to let them choose between religion and atheism?

Even as an atheist, I believe that I should not indoctrinate my child with atheistic principles. Even if I was raised as a Hindu, I will let my child attend a Christian convent school if it offers quality education, even though it may expose her to Christian traditions. I will let her grandparents take her to Hindu temples and let her see and have that experience. I will teach her not to discriminate among her friends based on religion if I find hints of any such thing. Over time, I would encourage her to think critically for herself.

So my response to Ashok’s questions is: #1 is pure indoctrination. Not encouraging children to ask questions is bad parenting. Not allowing them to, is mental child abuse, as Dawkins points out. #2: From the birth of the child. You can provide facts, information, and knowledge. But the decision of finding personal meaning in religion or elsewhere is a birthright of the child.

Of course, it’s not as simple as it sounds (who said rational parenting was easy?). When she asks me for the first time (whenever that is), “Dad, what is God”?, what will be my response? Will it be “Dear, God is a fictitious entity that many people believe in?” No, I suspect I will point at an idol somewhere and say “That is what people call God”, and thus side-step the question of his existence. If after a couple of years she asks “Dad, where can I find God?”, I’ll say “I don’t know dear. I haven’t found him yet. If you do, please let me know.” As she grows up, I will continue to encourage independent thinking. When she is mature enough to understand how different people can have different values, I can then explain what my values are. Well, I hope so!

What are your thoughts?

Update: 11th Oct: I realize that comments section on this post can be too restricted a space for many people to espouse their ideas. I have also learnt that this is a universal topic for parents who think. Hence, as can be seen from the comments section below, this topic is now a meme, open to all.

It has already been taken up by The Rational Fool, La Vie Quotidienne, and AgelessBonding. Feel free to take up this meme on your own blog and write on this topic.

Cartoon Credits: David Horsey, via The Primate Diaries

Weekend Flea Market 5-Oct-07

An assortment of stuff I came across in cyberspace, offered second hand, for anyone who may be interested.

• If you haven’t read it already, Thomas Friedman’s penultimate op-ed 9/11 Is Over, is a must-read.
• China has now started blocking all RSS feeds as well.
• A woman has been sentenced to death by stoning in Iran for committing adultery. Kamangir and a group of Iranian bloggers are trying to stop that from happening.
• Microsoft launches HealthVault, an online repository where consumers can store medical information for free in an encrypted database. For once, Microsoft beats Google to something!
• Ashok talked about “Collective Intelligence” in the comments discussion on my post “Runaway Train“. Techcrunch reveals that a new site, CrowdChess, has launched. You log on and sign up for a game. Each side is made up of teams of dozens, hundreds or even thousands of people. Anyone on a team can suggest the next move, and the move that gets the most votes is the one that is played out. Like Erick, I too wonder if any number of amateurs can ever beat a grandmaster in this scenario! What do you think?
• MMP has his own insightful analysis of why he blogs. He has developed an interesting universal model that shows how we all live in blogging CAVES. Check it out.
• Check out Ashok’s take on the various categories of Indian bloggers to have a healthy laugh at The Blogosphere Zoopedia.
• A US Senate Judiciary Committee has passed the Free Flow of Information Act. There is still a long way to go and final outcome seems uncertain at this stage. See Are Blogging Journalists Shielded? for background information.
• The Economist paints a sordid and bleak picture of the challenges involved in revamping Mumbai. A must-read if you care about Mumbai.
• Financial Times puts Rahul Gandhi’s first populist action after ascending to the Congress secretaryship as the backdrop to describe how political short-termism is hampering retail reforms.
• I had pondered on a few questions regarding cricket’s status in India in my 10 Thoughts on T20 World Cup Win post. Social psychologist Ashis Nandy has some interesting answers in his interview with Outlook magazine. He says there are only three areas of our life—cricket, cinema (Bollywood) and crime that recognize capability wholeheartedly and unconditionally.
• I have written about the contempt of court ruling regarding Justice Sabharwal. Vinod Mehta brings greater clarity to the issue and wisely cautions that if the media and the judiciary engage in a war, the only winners will be the politicians.
• To bring this potpourri full circle back to the US, Rajinder Puri takes on a lot of controversial issues in his take on the decline of the US. Some of his comments resonate with Shefaly’s comments in the discussion on Right To Free Speech: What does it mean?.

Right to Free Speech: What does it mean?

The controversy started last week, when Verizon (one of the two largest telecom carriers in the US), refused to make their network available for a text message program advocating abortion. The program allows people to sign up for messages if they choose, and is a completely voluntary exercise of choice for consumers. Verizon would have earned (some) money from the business, but instead refused it.

The move led to a storm of protests. As NYT observed:

Legal experts said private companies like Verizon probably have the legal right to decide which messages to carry. The laws that forbid common carriers from interfering with voice transmissions on ordinary phone lines do not apply to text messages.

The dispute is a skirmish in the larger battle over the question of “net neutrality” — whether carriers or Internet service providers should have a voice in the content they provide to customers.

CNET opined:

The idea that a telecom carrier will refuse to carry messages based on content is incredibly scary. Could they decide to broadcast messages sent by the Democratic party, but not Republicans? Christian messages but not Jewish? Everybody has a point of view that could be viewed as “controversial or unsavory” to someone else. Apparently the First Amendment does not in itself prohibit such censorship, but we should not accept such an action, which has been likened to the mass censorship of political speech by the Chinese government, no matter whether the carrier agrees with the content or not. Laws that forbid common carriers from interfering with voice transmission on phone lines do not apply to text messages. It’s time to change that law to protect free speech, no matter how it is communicated.

In a swift turn-around, Verizon reversed its decision and decided to carry the message. The Verizon public policy blog attributed the reversal to a dusty, internal policy, but remained ambivalent about whether any such policy will continue to exist in the future.

In the US, newspapers have the right to accept or reject any advertisement for decades. Newspapers are a publishing medium, clearly protected by the First Amendment, as they are liable for what they publish. Radio stations have a right to reject and censor what spots and ads they run (an antiwar campaign was turned down during Vietnam and the court upheld the station’s right to refuse). What about search engines like Google and Yahoo? In February this year, a federal judge settled that question when it gave the same right to search engines as that of newspapers: thus, Google can refuse to accept any ad, without any explanations required.

Free speech and net neutrality advocates like Timothy Karr on Huffington Post are lobbying to convene hearings on telecom censorship policies. If the telecom companies were purely private enterprises, a ruling either way might have been simpler. Being a government regulated industry adds further complications, as Richard Koman argues.

One of the earliest advocates (I could find) who saw all this coming back in 1995, was Nicholas Johnson in the Wired Magazine:

We find ourselves a little late in the free speech day, having already lost our rights to speak through dominant newspapers, broadcast stations and cable.  But insisting on the total separation of content and conduit as the Internet is privatized may still be our best hope.  It’s the only free speech forum left for those of us without $200 million in spare pocket change to buy our own newspaper or TV station.

The court has already ruled that Google is not your public square. Are Verizon and AT&T public squares?

10 Thoughts on T20 World Cup Win

I have never written about cricket before. Why? I’m not sure - sometimes I think enough is being written all around, and I can’t add any value. At other times, I don’t think it has any real “post-substance”, so I let it pass by. Well, such an opportunity doesn’t come very often, so let me take this 20-20 World Cup win to break this abstinence!

Here are random thoughts about the win in no particular order:

1. I think Dhoni is the future of Indian cricket captaincy. Don’t you just love his repartees? He gave it back to the press when they had earlier asked if Yuvraj was taken as a bowler in the team. He gave it back to Ravi Shastri over an article on Cricinfo after defeating the Aussies. He gave it back in front of the mammoth Mumbai crowd when he answered back in Hindi, after being questioned in Marathi and English.
2. I wonder if being a wicket-keeper captain has inherent advantages? To start with, he is able to be as close to the action on the pitch as possible. He can observe the bowling performances, the batsmen’s mood/discomforts/etc. and take decisions regarding bowling changes or advise bowlers accordingly. Being centrally located, he is in better visible and audible contact with as many fielders as possible. Observe how many captains, from Gavaskar to Ponting, have taken slip fielding positions whenever possible…
3. If you ask me what is the single most important difference (physical not psychological) in this team - it is the fielding. I saw a completely different vigor and enthusiasm in the fielding. Never before have I seen two direct-hit run-outs by India within a tournament at critical stages.
4. I think the people who destroyed Dhoni’s upcoming house brick-by-brick after the WC debacle should now apologize to him and rebuild it brick-by-brick themselves.
5. It is amazing how cricket unites our country. We may not be a truly secular country, but cricket is the most secular aspect of our culture. It unites us (whether in despair or in triumph) across religions, castes, economic status, education levels, geographic region, language, etc.
6. On another note, I know that there are political compulsions in player selections for tournaments. But these are up to the level of states. Given that, does Indian cricket exemplify “equal opportunity” in terms of there being no discrimination based on education/caste/status/economic level? Seeing today’s heroes hailing from impoverished backgrounds, illiterate parents - does this “dream come true” hold any meaning for the common Indian?
7. A lot of hue and cry is being made about the comment by the losing Pakistani captain apologizing to all muslims of the world for losing. Many Indian muslims have come out and expressed that their patriotism was offended by that remark. Others are cautioning not to bring religion into cricket in the Asian sub-continent, where cricket is a religion. I believe this hue and cry was given birth to and fueled by CNN-IBN who started flashing it as a ’stir’ based on a couple of comments on their site. Folks, let’s learn to be gracious winners. The poor guy had just frustratingly lost the world cup final when it was almost in their grasp. Called on the world stage, he tried his best to apologize. If you notice how the Pakistani players never fail to mention Inshallah in every other sentence, you might be convinced that it is best to overlook his shortsightedness at such a humiliating moment.
8. When the city-that-never-sleeps came to a standstill when welcoming the heroes, it was simply acting on behalf of the entire nation. It was disgusting to watch the spectacle marred by specimens of the politicus patheticus species, whose dinosaur sized posters lined up the roads and whose best representatives tried to hog (pun intended) the limelight. The NCP government of Maharashtra, not to be outdone by myopic Shiv Sena gave a trophy to the team that had a map of Maharashtra and not India!
9. The Asia-Cup winning hockey players are understandably upset and contemplating a hunger strike. This leads to several interesting questions. Hockey is our national game because for many decades we were undisputed champions in field hockey. What should be the criteria to decide a national game? Dominance, popularity? Can a national game be changed? On the other hand, why is cricket more popular than hockey ever was?
10. We must remember that the 20-20 game format is such that luck and chance play a greater role than in other formats. This is certainly not to undermine or undercut the team’s terrific achievement. It is simply to note that we should not have unrealistic expectations of the Indian team from the coming series against Australia and in future.

A Case of Contempt

In a contemptuous ruling, the Delhi High Court today sentenced four journalists of Mid-Day newspaper to four months in jail.

It ruled that articles and a cartoon in the newspaper accusing former Chief Justice of India, Mr. Y. K. Sabharwal, were tantamount to contempt of court and would tarnish the image of the highest court in the people’s eyes.

Sabharwal Controversy

Former CJI Sabharwal retired in January this year, after a series of high-profile rulings in his career. In the past few months, he has been embroiled in controversy, especially related to his ruling over banning commercial establishments in residential parts of Delhi. The accusations are that this ruling benefited his son’s commercial enterprises.

Sabharwal broke his silence this month, when he responded to the charges in The Times of India. The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms, has issued a rejoinder to his defense.

Contempt of Democracy

I wish to focus on the contempt of court ruling by the Delhi High Court, which interestingly was a proceeding initiated suo moto by the Court itself.

The Midday Editor, who was also sentenced, has clarified that they have taken truth to be their defense. They are going to appeal in the Supreme Court.

What is the ‘truth defense’ in this context? The archaic Contempt of Court Act (1971) was amended in 2006 (PDF) to add contempt acts not punishable:

“The court may permit, in any proceeding for contempt of court, justification by truth as a valid defence if it is satisfied that it is in public interest and the request for invoking the said defence is bona fide.”

If the journalists believe they’re telling the truth, why shouldn’t they be allowed the truth defense? Let further inquiry and investigation determine whether the articles and allegations were false, and if so, the journalists can be proceeded against. Gagging the media in such a way is tantamount to contempt of democracy!

Not surprisingly, there is going to be media outrage over this ruling. Experts have argued in the past about how the amendment to the act itself falls short of expectations, and as such is impotent to curtail the draconian contempt powers of the judiciary. A TOI editorial, Contempt for the Pen argues on Mid-Day’s behalf. 18 eminent personalities say “We Are Equally Guilty” on Outlook.

State of the Judiciary

Financial Times from London highlighted the state of affairs in the Indian courts today:

• No. of cases pending before the Supreme Court in June 2007 is over 43,000. In 1998, there were less than 20,000.
• There are 3.7 million cases in High Courts and 25 million in lower courts.
• World Bank rated India 173rd out of 175 for contract enforcement.
• An employment termination dispute takes 20 years if fought all the way.
• It takes an average 3.9 years to enforce a contract (compared with less than 10 months in China).

With such a state of affairs, the Judiciary is showing contempt to itself, to justice, to democracy, and the nation. It better start focusing on reform and clean up its act, rather than hold freedom of expression ransom in this struggling democracy.

Poverty is not the root cause of terrorism

Archbishop Desmond Tutu has gone on record in an interview with CNN to say:

“”You can never win a war against terror as long as there are conditions in the world that make people desperate — poverty, disease, ignorance, et cetera.

He said the disparity between the rich and poor in parts of the world causes instability and insecurity, but added that he was hopeful the relationship between the two was becoming clear.

In which world is Desmond Tutu living? There is poverty is many regions of the world from where terrorism doesn’t originate. There are many ways in which impoverished people have tackled their poverty - by immigrating to foreign shores or raising the overall economic development of their countries.

Terrorism in our age has been fueled by Osama, who is wealthy, and perpetrated by Islamists who are educated and well-to-do.

Africa is one of the poorest continents in the world - strife with poverty, disease, and ignorance. How many terrorists has it produced?

Forget the fact that terrorism needs an inordinate amount of wealth - those weapons and the educated sophistication cannot come without it - terrorism cannot thrive without an ideology behind it.

It is the fundamentalist, extremist, Islamist ideology that is fueling terrorism, not poverty. And Mr. Tutu, until leaders like you fail to recognize this, we will continue to suffer from it.

Parenting the next generation

I continue to be amazed by our precocious children. And I’m sure every generation before us has gone through the same amazement. What’s unique about our children? Nothing unique, in my opinion, just that as the rate of technological advance increases exponentially, the degree of difficulty in parenting increases exponentially as well.

I was chatting with a colleague over lunch about her kids - a 6-year old son, and a 3 year old daughter. Her son had an account on Orkut. She discussed it with him and convinced him that he was not old enough to have an Orkut account. He finally consented and they deleted his account. Her daughter wanted an account too, as her brother had one. Sure, there are Parent’s Guides to Social Networking, but in India, in many cases, the parents are not knowledgeable about how to use the Internet, whereas the kids are!

Her 6-year old son can take you anywhere in Chicago - in Midtown Madness. You name the place, he’ll drive you there. Her 3-year old daughter can drive you to Crooked Street in San Francisco in Midtown Madness 2, and shriek in joy by tumbling the car over Crooked Street.

Her son creates Powerpoint slides with ease, and is now dabbling in Excel by helping his Dad create his “weekly schedule” of play time and homework.

In the traditional heart of Pune’s Laxmi Road, a woman wearing a halter top with her bra straps visible happened to pass by. After she was gone, a 3-year old boy smiled and remarked “Sagla distay ki ticha!” (”She’s showing everything”). I remember being at least 12-13 years old before noticing such things - that’s a 10 year difference!

It is not just that children are smarter and more intelligent. That has been true throughout history. It is the access to technology that makes all the difference - it is the combination of enhanced intelligence and powerful tools like never before that is fueling the extraordinary achievements of the next generation.

It is difficult being a parent today, more difficult than it was before, because of this reason. And it is not just your own child’s security that you need to worry about. Your own child’s behavior can also affect another child’s security. Prerna writes about this delicate balance with sensitivity - where exactly do you draw the line between protectiveness to safeguard your child’s safety and freedom, so as not to stifle the child’s growth?

One of the core difficulties regarding parenting is of course, sex education. With sex education being banned in more and more states in India, this is becoming more of a parenting issue rather than an academic one. Nita points out: “it is a known fact that Indian parents neglect to do their duty when it comes to teaching their children about sex…and the consequence is that kids turn to pornography.” Paul has a thought-provoking post (NSFW) opining that it is better to allow children access to tasteful nudes that can deter them from tasteless porn.

I sought the opinion of a professional psychological counselor on this topic. She said that the right age to educate your child about sex is completely flexible and dependent on the child and the social circumstances. The education itself should, of course, be incremental and in appropriate stages. It begins with education about gender identity. Boys want to know how girls are different and vice versa. That’s where sex education begins.

From her experience as a counselor, she shared the fact that the most common question children ask is “where did I come from”. Looking at the fact that this question has made human beings build telescopes, launch satellites and planetary explorers, and write philosophical treatises, it seems this is the most fundamental, quintessential questions man has ever asked!

Related Reading: A nice, wide angle view of the Age of Consent, by Nita.

Photos: Copyrighted to me, of my daughter.

Technorati Tags: india, pune, parenting, sex education

Share this post :