Will there ever be a Perfect Society?

There is an idea that I have always been fascinated by since I can remember. In most human societies as they are, imperfections exist which lead to grave inequalities in education, opportunities and resources. The stated aim of many democracies is to provide a better life for its citizens, and as difficult as that is, supposing that it could happen, there are very interesting ramifications to our existing societal structure. If everyone is qualified to work, where will manual labour come from? It is true that if the creative ability of so many individuals is unleashed, solutions to such problems may be found easily. Perhaps we will create automation to make that possible. But what would happen to the available resources on earth? Since those cannot be augmented beyond a certain limit, uplifting of society will cause greater strain than now on natural resources, and the earth – consequently us – will suffer as a result. Which professions will still be found? Indeed how the whole configuration of society would change is a fascinating exercise in imagination. 

 We may desire a perfect and harmonious society where all have equal opportunities, but will it ever happen? Will human nature allow such a thing to develop? So I believe that before we can assume the existence of the Perfect Society, humanity would have to wake up to the excesses it has committed and the horrific apathy we seem to have for our fellow humans. It is not within everyone’s reach to help the underprivileged directly or substantially. But the realization that there are people who are worse-off than you will help appreciate the nature of life better. The true enlightenment of individuals is the only way we are going to create an egalitarian society. But that task is enormously difficult, not least because of the self-centered nature of human beings.

Football World Cup thus far

The FIFA World Cup 2010 is almost at the end of the group stages and the qualifiers from groups A and B are known. In the next few days, the rest of the groups will also be sorted out. There will be a few surprises, as is always the case, but this year has also been a little different in many ways, not least the constant drone of the vuvuzelas permeating every match. South African hospitality has been amazing and they have made a reputation now of being wonderful hosts to great sporting events. Unfortunately, Africa has not shone at this world cup, though the luck of the draw did not go their way. It is possible that no African team will get out of the group stages this time. 

 One feature of this world cup is the quality that the lesser known teams have shown and there have been upsets to boot. Slovenia, Algeria, Switzerland and many others have kicked above their weight whereas England, France and Italy have disappointed. France have imploded without Zidane’s calming influence and Italy are poor without their creative spark Pirlo. The biggest disappointment has been England who came in with huge expectations with Rooney in great form and a manager in Capello who seemed to have instilled self-belief in England’s vastly talented but under-performing team. He would not have dreamed of a sudden crisis in confidence, the kind of which English teams are used to every four years. If England do go out, that would be a major blow to them with the Golden Generation about to retire and new players not ready to fill their void. I would be sad too, having supported them now for so long, all in vain. 

 The usual suspects have come to the party in the shape of Brazil, Argentina and Germany. Spain have shown, belatedly, why they are considered the best team on Earth currently. But their profligacy in front of goal may come to haunt them when they play better teams later on. Brazil seem to play the beautiful game once in a while, when Robinho or Kaka are on the ball, but still manage to get great results. They are not as free-flowing as Brazilian teams of the past, but still play well enough that people would come to watch them. The Argentines have been the most impressive team thus far, Messi-inspired and with a strike-force that no team can match. Theirs has been the most attacking mindset and more should come yet. Germany, who were not favourites, have justified their reputation as perennial contenders by producing brilliant performances with a young team. Their midfield has been virile and Mesut Ozil is a star of the future. Portugal played really well to inflict the heaviest defeat of the tournament on the hapless North Koreans, but it remains to be seen how far Ronaldo can drag them. 

 The World cup is just hotting up and the knock out stages will be, hopefully, much less cagey. Momentum is the key at this stage and whichever team manages to get it all together at the right time will be the favourites. I would back Spain and Brazil to reach the latter stages easily, though I hope England can perform a beautiful pirouette and get back into contention. There is still a lot of time.

The unknowable nature of creativity

I once watched a TV feature on how musicians create music. It was supposed to help understand the creative process using brain-mapping techniques. To participate in it and to be a guinea pig by undergoing an MRI while he listened to Western classical music was the famous musician Sting. At the end of the program, the music-loving researcher told Sting he had a map of his brain at the moment he was conjuring up grand images of Cathedrals with huge chambers, high ceilings and flying buttresses in symphony with the music that he heard. Amazingly, looking at those patterns, Sting became coy of any further inquiry into the matter. 

 The reason I gave that example was not only to highlight the unfathomable nature of creativity but also to shed light on more general questions of life: how each of us evolves to be the person he or she is; what is the fundamental reason for life itself or why do we live. The question of the nature of life has been tackled by so many philosophical traditions. A view from the Hindu texts is that life is divided into the four phases of Artha, Dharma, Kama and Moksha. This is such an all-encompassing tradition that it offers no answer to any questions; it simply encourages the individual to explore his life and find for himself his own answers. But there are other views which lay strict emphasis on doing as is stipulated, in their interpretation, by a book or a single individual who is taken to be The Enlightened One. There is a fundamental difference between both kinds of traditions at their core. One seeks to stop people from understanding their own nature by enforcing upon them Dos and Donts while the other allows people to try to understand their own selves. 

 The question is whether we can ever really know the reason we are here. Can evolution and habit be sufficient? Every differing view of life is defined by how they approach these questions. If one believes these are impossible to answer and hence life is, at a fundamental level, never in our hands then one is bound to feel that the nature of life is suffering. But another view could be that life being as it is, and our own existence being inextricably linked to it, the best thing to do is to live it as it comes, without ever being so arrogant as to consider oneself above life’s vicissitudes. Perhaps such acceptance can lead to a happier life as you realise the ephemeral nature of the present and strive to make the best of it. Either way, if it is impossible for us humans to know why we are here, shouldn’t we at least take what we have, and also give when we can? Sting may not have been wrong when he said he did not want to know how he created music.