Still in awe of the 1st 3D movie experience of my life ( if I disregard the sorry attempt of Appu Ghar way back in time ). Saw AVATAR yesterday and immensely liked it. Do not know whether it was Cameroon or his avatar, but whoever it was who spent all these years making the epic ( remember Titanic came out when we were still experiencing our teen infatuations )did not waster the time.
Many people have already talked about the movie in detail e.g. David Edelstein so I will not go into the technological wonder or the simplicity of the plot but will just touch upon the couple of things which struck me instantly.
The first of course being the fact that there is no limit to a human being's imagination. Left to dream without boundaries a human mind can conjure up limitless possibilities which can manifest themselves in fantasies as exemplified by Pandora. I really wonder why was it referred to as "a hell"! A land with floating mountains, synaptic trees, mystical creatures ( with surprisingly mundane tendencies though ), chiseled inhabitants with magical powers etc. cannot be a hell.
The other thing which came through was the emphasis on the purity of the pagan thinking - the balance of energy, the strength of heart, the purity of purpose all pointed to the times when man had not evolved a lot in his thinking but was probably more in touch with the ecological balance. Do science and progress always induce conflict? Does paganism always imply backwardness? These are questions which do not have easy answers.
Man, can destroy a perfectly good thing working :-)though if he / she puts their mind to it man can also achieve remarkable things.
Did anyone wonder as to why the animals in Pandora serve the same purpose as they do on Earth - the big dogs bite, the many legged horses are used as cavalry, the big birds fly, the big elephants charge etc.? And what would I give to have a body like that of a Nevi - leaving aside the tail bit, though.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Deal Struck?
Have not been able to get into the details of the Copenhagen accord yet but going by what I have heard in the various medias the deal seems to be a beginning hopefully towards bigger and concrete actions.
This is definitely positive as I do believe that finding a solution which is mutually agreeable for 191 countries is a daunting task and the usual methodologies will not work. Hence, probably non-binding targets based on voluntary decisions on the premise of equitable distribution of responsibility is probably the right way to proceed. As you would gather I am a proponent of individual action so the thinking seems pragmatic to me but I still wonder whether it will achieve what we all want by the time we want it.
Will have to read the text from Copenhagen in detail to understand it better
This is definitely positive as I do believe that finding a solution which is mutually agreeable for 191 countries is a daunting task and the usual methodologies will not work. Hence, probably non-binding targets based on voluntary decisions on the premise of equitable distribution of responsibility is probably the right way to proceed. As you would gather I am a proponent of individual action so the thinking seems pragmatic to me but I still wonder whether it will achieve what we all want by the time we want it.
Will have to read the text from Copenhagen in detail to understand it better
Friday, December 4, 2009
It's not so clear or is it?
The more we come close to Hopenhagen the debate around climate change becomes shriller. There is debate which is good however to question the basis of the problem is according to me taking a short sighted view of the situation. For obvious reasons all the "doctored" data about climate change studies is coming out just before the conference but what each one has to think is that there are certain facts which cannot be doctored -
1. Centuries old glaciers are melting
2. Weather patterns are showing increasing amount of unrest
3. The weight we put on our meager resources is increasing
4. Forest covers are decreasing
5. There is an ozone hole
6. Water level in our water bodies is rising etc.
Now yes we can claim that climate over time does change and it is a natural process but is the pace at which the change is occurring consistent with the natural process? I am not a scientist and neither have I done a detailed research on this topic but as a thinking human I do believe that to ignore the problem will be at our own peril. I am optimistic and I do believe that we have not yet reached the point of no return but to continue with our way of life without regard for our environment is a sure recipe for disaster.
The conference itself is going to be a very tough discussion. The bottom line is that we stand where we are because of the past "sins" committed by the developed world. Not that the developing world has not contributed to the mess but the percentage of "blame" would be higher on the developed world. The good thing is that everybody recognizes that we have a problem but finding a solution will be tough unless all look to the future and think what each one can do to make the situation better. China and India have led the way by announcing unilateral cuts in emission targets but it is understandable that growing countries cannot accept legally binding levels which impact their intention to develop and provide better quality of life to their citizens. It is also understandable that in a difficult economic environment where the developed world is finding it difficult to sustain their own high standards of living they are balking at funding the clean development of other countries. But maybe the solution lies somewhere in the middle of these two extreme stands and in acknowledging the fact that unless a solution is reached the impact of environmental disaster would be for all to suffer and not just the developed or the developing world. The stage is set for some of the leaders to become world leaders if they can break out of their set ideas and parochial views and come up with innovative solutions but I am sure it will not be easy. Maybe an approach could be that since carbon emissions is such a contentious issue the discussions could avoid the topic altogether and try to address the problem in a different way e.g. not have binding emission targets but encourage countries to achieve locally defined goals by facilitating easy loans from IMF, World Bank for the achievers, concessions in trade etc.
I do believe that the cause is altruistic however for it to succeed at the geopolitic level it has to be linked to economics in some way or the other. "Market will decide" is the adage which cannot be applied to addressing climate change but a judicious mix of market initiatives, policy initiatives and human will could just do the trick. In the end however it still remains an individual choice and whatever the leaders might decide if each individual can make small changes in his/her outlook and way of life there can be an enormous impact.
Maybe we all need to have our own Hopenhagen!
1. Centuries old glaciers are melting
2. Weather patterns are showing increasing amount of unrest
3. The weight we put on our meager resources is increasing
4. Forest covers are decreasing
5. There is an ozone hole
6. Water level in our water bodies is rising etc.
Now yes we can claim that climate over time does change and it is a natural process but is the pace at which the change is occurring consistent with the natural process? I am not a scientist and neither have I done a detailed research on this topic but as a thinking human I do believe that to ignore the problem will be at our own peril. I am optimistic and I do believe that we have not yet reached the point of no return but to continue with our way of life without regard for our environment is a sure recipe for disaster.
The conference itself is going to be a very tough discussion. The bottom line is that we stand where we are because of the past "sins" committed by the developed world. Not that the developing world has not contributed to the mess but the percentage of "blame" would be higher on the developed world. The good thing is that everybody recognizes that we have a problem but finding a solution will be tough unless all look to the future and think what each one can do to make the situation better. China and India have led the way by announcing unilateral cuts in emission targets but it is understandable that growing countries cannot accept legally binding levels which impact their intention to develop and provide better quality of life to their citizens. It is also understandable that in a difficult economic environment where the developed world is finding it difficult to sustain their own high standards of living they are balking at funding the clean development of other countries. But maybe the solution lies somewhere in the middle of these two extreme stands and in acknowledging the fact that unless a solution is reached the impact of environmental disaster would be for all to suffer and not just the developed or the developing world. The stage is set for some of the leaders to become world leaders if they can break out of their set ideas and parochial views and come up with innovative solutions but I am sure it will not be easy. Maybe an approach could be that since carbon emissions is such a contentious issue the discussions could avoid the topic altogether and try to address the problem in a different way e.g. not have binding emission targets but encourage countries to achieve locally defined goals by facilitating easy loans from IMF, World Bank for the achievers, concessions in trade etc.
I do believe that the cause is altruistic however for it to succeed at the geopolitic level it has to be linked to economics in some way or the other. "Market will decide" is the adage which cannot be applied to addressing climate change but a judicious mix of market initiatives, policy initiatives and human will could just do the trick. In the end however it still remains an individual choice and whatever the leaders might decide if each individual can make small changes in his/her outlook and way of life there can be an enormous impact.
Maybe we all need to have our own Hopenhagen!
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Something to cheer about
Even before the start of Hopenhagen oops...Dispairhagen....oops the Copenhagen climate summit most of the expectations of sane behavior from our world leaders have gone for a toss however the following headline in the daily paper brought a smile to my face -
India’s forest cover rises to 21%
Read the article -
http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Client.asp?Daily=TOIBG&showST=true&login=default&pub=TOI&Enter=true&Skin=TOINEW&GZ=T
And you would realize that it is in no ways a rosy situation but in a dim scenario it is good to see at least some light.
India’s forest cover rises to 21%
Read the article -
http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Client.asp?Daily=TOIBG&showST=true&login=default&pub=TOI&Enter=true&Skin=TOINEW&GZ=T
And you would realize that it is in no ways a rosy situation but in a dim scenario it is good to see at least some light.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)