I was amazed by the new invention of CRISPR- Cas9 gene editing technology. It talks of a method of gene editing which can be the solution to hitherto complex problems of Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease. The enzyme targets the gene sequence and repairs it so that genetic manipulations can be terminated. Before I should say that this invention must deserve a Nobel price, I must say that I am also amazed by series of inventions going around the world.
The question is simple as it should be as for why even after great progress in science we are not able to eradicate the thoughts of hatred based on community, religion, caste or nation. Why do people, even in this great globalized era could not understand the importance of common goals and common values? Why do we succumb to same socio-political agendas which ride on the kangaroo motion?
Whether the invention is the result of individual conscience or collective conscience is the new question we should debate. An individual may propose an idea and with great work may promulgate that idea into general reality. But should we say that concern idea which now is a reality is the work of an individual only? We should ask this question in a way where we see a multinational firm employees thousands of brilliant heads who strive hard to give actual results.
So why do we require so many heads when the idea is the result of individual conscience. Is it the time to which we give prime importance? Is it only because we want some project to get completed in a record time that we employee several people? When might have compartmentalization and derivation of work started in its true form? Should we get the answer to this question in the lower Paleolithic era when hunting and gathering were the main occupations?
If it is for hunting and gathering our collective conscience might have first sprouted while hunting over gathering. As far hunting is concerned, it would have been very early when we might have realized that it is not an individual game rather a collective one based upon support of few individual. On the other side, we might not have bothered when we sent an individual for the collection of taxes for the first time. Mind you the collection of taxes is one of the important tenets for the definition of civilization. So we realized that it is better if we go for hunting with several men and gathering can be done by an individual.
Where does the conscience play part in this analogy? Is it a generalization or a great fact that we slip to unwanted situations just because of our vulnerability to collective conscience. Why do we do things which we might not have done as an individual? Is it because of some kind of security which we get when we attach our self to some group, caste, religion, gender or for that matter nation? The prominent question we should ponder on is as for why we lose our individual conscience to collective conscience.
Can we say every time when progressive ideas might have been conceptualized it would have been proposed by an individual. And every time when we thought of controlling or bringing in conservative idea it would have been the result of collective endeavor. This clash of collective authority over individual liberty might have occurred in every society of every era. And whenever an individual conscience prevailed over collective conscience the result would have been a progressive and rational society. And whenever a collective conscience would have prevailed over individual conscience a result would have been a regressive or conservative society. But again do we have some exceptions?
Before we should talk about exceptions we should ask- do we need more rational individuals who have the ability to challenge the conservative ideas? Is it the individual’s rational outlook and the progressive mindset that we should look for if at all we want to progress? One might counter this analogy by quoting some individual authoritarian leaders whose individual conscience caused great wars. But isn't electing them to power a result of a decision taken by several collective men. Can we not say that these men collapse with their collective conscience?
Again a new question which we should discuss is whether this game of conscience applies to present society? We have a very few example where a foreign power succeeded in their aim of installing a democracy in a war-torn authoritarian based country. This might be because an authoritarianism though inflicted by an individual is the result of the collective conscience of several individuals who voted that authority in power. But isn’t some charismatic leaders the result of their gifted golden spoon provided by hereditary rights. Should we consider those leaders as an exception?
The question of ultra-nationalism, reverse globalization, a calculated denial to basic values of liberty equality and fraternity must have surfaced where a collective conscience prevailed over an individual conscience. One might also ask the question as for why I choose a word collective conscience over mob mentality. This is particularly because a mob mentality might be an instant process where we might lose our conscious to cortisol. But probably the word conscious is quite different from conscience as latter we lose to some prolong rational process. So the question might be as when and to what factors we lose our collective conscience.
Do we lose our collective conscience to a charismatic personality without any attributes of good or bad? Do we lose it to the loud sound coming out of the chaos of some selfless collection of individuals who have some preconceived agenda? Or do we lose it to individual fear which erodes individual conscience which in turn leads to eroding a collective conscience? We should find the answers to these questions in next part.
No comments:
Post a Comment