Why Animal Rights

Since I have made the decision to eliminate from my diet dairy components that I have enjoyed thus far into my life, it is only natural that I describe my reasons for this rather difficult choice. Stated differently, I feel the need to explicate in some detail my stand on the issue of vegetarianism/veganism as it relates to animal rights.  What is it and why is it so important? Is it a reasonable position that has  logical/rational basis or is it just a matter of personal morality? I had stated a long while ago in my column that I will write about this topic and now I think is an appropriate time to lay out my views on this subject. 

FOCUS AND SCOPE:

I should make it clear at the outset that neither the  arguments I shall construct here are novel nor the analogies I draw original. There are plenty of websites (that will show up in a quick search)where one can find detailed information on just about every point that appears here. Moreover, there have been some very important books published on this topic in the last four decades and some of these have had considerable impact in changing peoples' opinions on the matter.  And yet, I am writing this because I want to be very clear and definite about why I choose to believe in it. After all, the subject is hardly short of any controversy and this fact can be quickly inferred by an equal number of websites and books that challenge the basis of the entire animal rights movement. The quality of the discussion can vary- many are truly awful and infantile but few others offer a more serious critique that have made me think more carefully. I have thus heard and analyzed the views from many sides, and all the subtle shades contained therein before I arrived at my own opinion on the matter.  It is partly due to this that I shall frame some of my arguments as a virtual debate where my statements are countered by another rhetorical opponent whose arguments are based on the objections I have heard from several people. 


It is also important that I describe the scope of this discussion. First, the case I am making here is that meat-eating in contemporary society is unacceptable because it is cruel to the animals. There are many other valid reasons for avoiding meat  - improved health, less harm to the environment and eco-system, protest against horrible labor conditions in the meat industry, decrease in overall starvation in poorer countries etc. While each of these has a solid empirical and philosophical basis to it, I am not going to be discussing any of them here. Second, although I say 'meat-eating', I use the term as a general reference to how animals are abused by humans for food which includes eggs and dairy products. There are also other, equally unacceptable, ways in which animals are used in entertainments and pet industry but that shall not be the focus here in this article.  Third, I use the term "animal-rights" loosely and what I mean will become clearer as we go further but nonetheless it can become a point of some confusion because those involved in the movement take the notion to different degrees. It would be useful to remember this fact.

INVALID REASONS:

Before I launch into the actual arguments, I believe it would be very useful to first state what my views on vegetarianism/veganism are NOT about:
(a) Religious/Cultural: This is obvious because religions or cultural norms don't have consistency. Muslims avoid pork, Hindus avoid beef, and Jews have a specific dietary constraints encoded in kosher laws.  While all these religions have paid some attention to animal rights (most notably Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism) the question of acceptability can and should be addressed independent of any religious ideology.  
(b)You should be an animal lover: There is a very common notion- popular amongst advocates and critics- that you need to adore animals and admire them for their uniqueness in order to sympathize with the cause of animal rights. This view is dangerous because it assumes that the concern for animal welfare is based upon OUR feelings for them. That it is our patronizing mercy based upon how we relate to them that makes a case for valuing their life.  Many advocates of animal rights somehow subtly imply this themselves thereby undermining the more universal idea that inflicting pain on animals is unacceptable independent of whether these  are endearing pets or wild, hideous and repellent creatures.
(c) Humans are designed to eat only plants and eating meat is basically unhealthy:  As it stands, this statement is not scientifically accurate. While it is true that there is a strong correlation between vegan diet and good health this does NOT imply that eating moderate quantities of meat is necessarily going to clog arteries, lead to overweight, or cause other disorders. [1] Likewise, it is true that meat has a greater chance of being contaminated with infectious germs or chemicals that undermine the immunity defence of our body,  but majority of meat available in supermarkets and such is likely to be safe.
(d)Inherent value in life OR it is unethical to kill a life form: This is very problematic because it is quite an arbitrary principle that is not based on any clear foundations. More importantly, from a biological standpoint, plants have life and so do algae, bacteria, yeast and,- depending on which biologist you speak to- even viruses.  If the property of being alive, that is demonstrating the characteristics of life -growth, repair, reproduction, nutrition etc -, were given a special value one would have to extend this to all the biological life forms and clearly that is not necessary. Thus terminating life -in and of itself- is not a significant issue.
(e) Animals and humans are the same OR animals deserve the same rights as man:  Few facts can be more obvious than broad areas of differences between humans and non-human mammals, let alone other categories of species that inhabit our planet.  It would be silly to argue that animals must be given the opportunity to participate in our dysfunctional democracies or be given the promise of progressive taxation. Or provide them exact status and identification in society as the rest of us. Clearly neither is this practical nor would the animals desire it, even if they had a choice of some sort.  So when I say use the term "rights" I mean in a more restrictive sense.

THE CENTRAL PRINCIPLE

This naturally leads us to the question of what is the basis of animal rights? The strongest -and arguably the only -concern that underlies this case is the question of whether our actions inflict physical pain on sentient organisms.  That forms the basis for all the arguments in favor of animal rights. Having stated it this way, the debate then reduces to an argument over the morality of such actions - those that result in suffering of living beings endowed with pain perception.


THE OBJECTIONS

1) Nature is blind to right and wrong.:

An immediate question that may pop in your mind at this point would be my tacit assumption of some pre-ordained moral code in a "mechanical" universe that behaves according to value-neutral natural laws.  You may wonder, while pain is clearly an avoidable feeling, there is no basic principle which states that we should not be responsible for causing more of it. This line of reasoning is perfectly rational -albeit quite perverse - and yes, there is nothing in nature that informs us that this is an unethical behavior. However, at the same time,  there is nothing in nature that forbids torturing innocent human beings either. Or anything that argues in favor of human rights  or promotes individual liberty. And yet, these are the foundational aspects of modern civilization that most reasonable people are willing to agree upon.  Despite this, you may be persistent -and more cynically perverse - and claim that these human-related "values" were created in order to advance the human race and it is a rational choice rather than a moral one in that it helps to strengthen the community end ensures safety and security of the majority. To respond, I first claim that this interpretation is evidently false because the primary reaction of people  to murders or mutilation of human beings is not based on cold reasoning and assessment that such actions are damaging to the society but rather as "immoral" in a more basic sense. Naturally, this begs the question of what is meant by "basic sense" especially when I have discarded any nature-derived rules and dismissed religious arguments. I'll admit that it is fairly difficult to pin down this 'basic moral sense' in any unambiguous and objective way but instead, I will provide some counter-examples to this line of argument.[2]  If protecting one's own community/society is the most important goal, then there would no objection to exploiting other societies and benefiting from it. Retail goods being available cheaply in the US cannot be valid reason to promote sweatshops in developing countries even if- as is unfortunately the case sometimes - such practices are unregulated in those countries.  Slavery benefited the slave-owners and the  ruling elite but that is not a reason for insisting on its continuance.  Autocracy and authoritarian regimes always favor the wealthy and the powerful at the expense of the masses but would you regard the actions of dictator and his cohorts as "moral" because it is done to promote the self-interest of their class?   No, it is fairly clear that the basic principles of civil liberties and human rights are based upon a sense of morality - however hard it may be to define that - and not on a rational consideration of the impact of such decisions on variables as the GDP.  

2) Animals are distinct from humans:

If we accept that respect for basic human rights is a fundamental ethical principle that must be universally enforced,  then what are the reasons for eliminating other sentient organisms from such considerations? Is it because humans can talk? Is it because we are more intelligent? Is it because we are capable of showing moral consideration that a lion in a jungle would not?  What is the special property of humans that animals lack which gives us authority to abuse them as much as we do? As can be noted, my central thesis here is not so much about changing value system of society but demanding consistency in the application of the most basic ones we cherish. 

Let me take up each distinction that is noted between humans and animals and dismiss them as valid justifications for our abusive behavior by providing appropriate counter-examples.

(i) Humans are a higher level species with abilities that are unique to them: This is unquestionably true as we can see that no other species is known to communicate as we do or have complex reasoning faculties that has led humans to discover science and develop technology that we enjoy today.  It is also true that we have a very sophisticated social setup that is uncommon amongst other species.  However, it is far from obvious that such progress gives us special privilege to treat animals in a way that would be unthinkable if the victims were fellow human beings.  If we regard intelligence as the primary trait that sets us apart from our lower species, what about those humans whose intellectual prowess are so abysmally low that they cannot carry out simple tasks.  Does it become acceptable, given their severe retardation, that we treat them violently, confine them in narrow spaces, deprive them of basic care and turn them into slave laborers for benefit of other, more advanced people?  Quite obviously, this conclusion is ridiculous.  I can use a similar argument when it comes to our capacity to talk by pointing to deaf and dumb people. Do we then turn them over to a laboratory and perform the most dastardly experiments on their bodies in order to improve the rest of human race?  Worse, there are individuals in an extremely vegetative state while remaining conscious and the extent of incapacitation makes them less able, broadly speaking, than the more advanced non-human mammals. Should we permit mutilating parts of their bodies for reasons of convenience as we do to pigs and chicken?  Again, these rhetorical questions have an unequivocal answer.

(ii) Humans are moral but animals are not:  Detractors point to the fact that the moral code we have in society is something mutual, or contractual. If I am armed but I choose not to kill someone, it is generally true that my restraint would be reciprocated by others in society. However, if I were to spare the life of a tiger in the woods while carrying a rifle, it is unlikely that this generous consideration would be reciprocated were I the one to be defenceless. The argument goes on to state that the moral framework is closed within the human society.  To address this, first observe that majority of livestock animals are not predatory. Pigs or cows are unlikely to attack humans let alone the possibility of chicken and turkey hunting us down. So, even if one were going to justify eating meat of based on this reasoning, one would have to brace oneself for more dangerous hunting trips.  Second - as I stated earlier -it is not so much the killing itself as the conditions in which animals are kept that is most objectionable as far as modern day livestock industry is concerned. Thus the more apt comparison is not a tiger mauling a person but keeping one in captivity for several years while tearing muscle by muscle and limb by limb, dismembering slowly, all done while the person is conscious. Third,at any rate,  this point is fundamentally disingenuous. We have the capacity for moral reflection and so we can take a broader view of things.  Animals are simply incapable of doing that and in that way they are like children.  It is not uncommon for toddlers to inadvertently act in a way that acutely affects someone, but those are not regarded as a violation in the same manner as that of deliberate action by a normal adult.  Animals have an instinct to protect themselves from threats and carnivores have an instinct to hunt and feed.  They have little choice over such instincts.

3) The naturalness fallacy
If our superior average intellect or our special talents as social beings does not give us the right to treat non-human animals in an abusive way, what else does?  Well, our ancestors have all eaten meat. It is likely to have been the primary source of food for a long period of time in our evolution.  Meat-eating is still the norm in most cultures in the world. So, even though we may cause undue trauma to animals in captivity, it is only reasonable that we do what we have been doing for ages.   To address this point, it may be first useful to make an important distinction in the nature of assertions, something that is usually identified in most philosophical discussions. Any claim concerning the world falls into one of two broad categories, descriptive and normative.

(a) A descriptive statement is an empirical claim about the world. It can verified by  observation, examination or simple experimentation. Canada lies  to the north of the US is a trivial example of such a statement. Stating that euthanasia is a contentious issue is most societies is a descriptive fact -it can be verified. Noting that possession and sale of marijuana is outlawed in some developed countries is a third example. Recognizing that financial recessions are known to occur from time to time in all economies is an observation about the world.

(b) Normative statement is one that claims what should be or ought to be in the world. It expresses a certain value. For example, saying that government should promote scientific literacy and eliminate superstition is a normative statement. Euthanasia should be tolerated in society is another example.  Arguing that marijuana, and most drugs, must be legalized also falls within this category. We should try to prevent or at least minimize recessions by developing policy framework that keeps the economy more stable (and not be swept away by the illusion of market self-correction) is a normative claim.


As you can see, in many of these instances, the normative stand on an issue is not identical to the descriptive details. While some of the examples I have provided may be more controversial, consider the relatively uncomplicated case of global poverty. Starvation has been a scourge of mankind throughout its  history (a descriptive fact). However, despite this strong evidence,  we have a collective responsibility to minimize it by trying to reform the production, distribution and pricing of food and other basic resources (normative statement). In a similar manner, there are several other issues where we choose to act against or prevent something that has known to occur in nature or societies over long periods of time (natural disasters, wars, infant mortality, pandemic and even extinction of species) .  It would then be a poor excuse - and very hypocritical one - to defend a specific practice on the sole basis of the observation that it has been this way all along, i.e it is "natural".  It follows then, that merely stating that homo sapien have eaten meat for most part of their history cannot be regarded as a valid justification for continuing to do so.

4) Yet another appeal to nature :
If our "natural" behavior does not constitute sufficient justification for our actions, what else can there be? How about the observation that non-human carnivores would anyway continue to hunt and kill other animals? Even if we all stop eating meat, what happens to the millions of other animals that are attacked and have their flesh ripped apart in the wild? How does our position square against fact? In response, in the first place, recall that the worst aspects of the meat industry are the appalling conditions of housing, transportation and feeding of animals rather than the slaughter itself. Carnivores pouncing on lower level organisms in the food chain and killing them is, on an average, a lot quicker than the near endless amount of intense trauma we cause to chicken and pigs kept in tiny cages covered in bruises, filth and noxious gases. If our meat-eating involved just slaughtering alone (after the animals live a life in a normal environment) , it would be an immensely more acceptable practice. Second, and I don't have exact data here,  consider the number of birds and mammals that are killed every year in the livestock industry with the total number of their deaths in the wild.  The former is a staggering 40 billion - for each year! - and it is so massive that the UN estimates that 30% of land area is devoted in one form or the other to the industry.  On the other hand, the total number of wild birds on the planet is estimated to be about 100-200 million and I imagine the number of mammals to be about the same. Of these the numbers that are attacked and killed during the lifetime would be about a quarter or less. Put together, one can be fairly certain that less than 1 billion mammals/birds are falling prey to carnivores/omnivores in the wild. (What about insects...?)  Third, it is unreasonable to point to other instances of suffering in Nature to justify us torturing and causing more of the same (the descriptive-normative distinction again). It is like saying that yes, there is extreme malnutrition and hunger all over the world - it is only "natural" - and so I won't do anything to help someone I see starving. Finally,  it is absurd to compare ourselves with animals in this context.  We don't take all our hints for a good life from animals do we?  Despite the contrivance of evolutionary psychologists, and to a lesser degree, anthropologists, in explaining our behavior based on our more bestial ancestors, or the glib and wholly unscientific talk of "unnatural" suppression of animal instincts that appears in popular culture and the grotesquely misinterpreted catchphrase "survival of the fittest" - or its sophomoric variant "greed is good" or other ludicrous Randian-esque doctrines -  we obviously don't follow  rules of the jungle. 

5) Challenging the pain hypothesis :

Critics often wonder how animal rights activists are so dogmatic in their insistence that pigs feel pain while wheat crops don't. Certainly plants are living organisms, and consequently the state of being alive and dead applies equally well to them, but how do we know they don't feel pain? The most accurate answer to this is yes, there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY of PROVING that cows and turkeys are undergoing enormous physical stress if you shear off their legs whereas pulling a twig from a tree does not affect it in any way. But, at the same time, there is NO WAY of PROVING that prisoners held under indefinite detention in American military bases overseas are capable of feeling pain. Equivalently, there is no way to prove that Muslims feel pain in much the same way that Jews do.  I am being completely serious here. The sensation  of pain - as opposed to the origin, symptoms and effects of pain - is a mental state and mental states cannot be detected in any way.  If you were to be bleeding, I can only INFER that you are experiencing pain -the bleeding itself or the  cut vessels or the damaged tissue and other observable features does NOT represent pain- and this inference comes from imagining my own reaction in a similar situation.  In other words, knowledge of pain to anyone other than oneself is a purely inferential thing and it cannot be rigorously proved. And I recognize that you have a similar nervous system as I do - the brain, spinal chord, nerve endings, nociceptors etc - and I put things together and conclude that you ought to feel pain. In much the same way, mammals and birds not only exhibit similar external behavioral symptoms when trapped in adverse conditions, but also have anatomically similar structure which enables us to infer - with as much (or as little) accuracy as I did when you bled - that they feel pain. On the other hand, plants don't have a nervous system and hence incapable of sensory perception whatsoever. Is it possible there are other mechanisms by which they feel pain, mechanisms that have different system? Highly unlikely. We have a tremendous level of understanding about the structure, functioning, survival and development of plants  -photosynthesis, transportation of nutrients, reproduction, evolution - and had there been an additional component which enabled plants to experience pain, we would almost certainly have discovered it by now.  Another reason to assume plants don't feel pain comes from observing that plants are stationary. Pain developed, along the evolutionary road in advanced organisms, as a survival tactic -to instinctively run away from adverse conditions. However since plants are immobilized, pain as such would not confer any such evolutionary advantage and so it is unlikely to have taken root in them. Still, even if we accept that we cannot determine whether plants can or cant feel pain, that does not give us reason to be cruel to organisms that we know for sure feel pain.   Also even if rice and corn crops were to experience pain, it would still be more humane to eat them directly because of the inefficiency associated with feeding that to livestock and eating the animals. [3]

 
6) More Perversion
A meaningful question that may arise at this juncture is the nature of classification of living organisms in terms of their ability to experience pain. This is a very pertinent point because the entire thesis here rests on the premise that animals are sentient and hence ought to be treated in a more humane way. The common refrain from opponents is the rhetorical barrage of mock-questions: Is mosquito sentient? Can bacteria and amoeba feel pain? How about E coli?  These questions are intended, quite obviously, to challenge the entire presumption(s) on which the animal welfare claims rest. It is essential to emphasize that the case for animal welfare of those organisms whose sentience is substantiated with solid evidence -mammals and birds, for example- is independent of the precise boundary -if there is one at all - between the sentience and lack of it in the spectrum of animals ranked accordingly. The justification for this, yet again, is that the the possibility that certain mid-level organisms - insects -may feel pain and our corresponding inability to adequately prevent harm done to them gives us no reason to brutalize creatures that certainly feel pain. Addressing the question more directly though, the current scientific consensus holds that fish feel pain and lobsters and shrimps most likely do too. Insects are believed to be insensitive primarily because of the nature of their nervous system and the behavioral responses to negative stimulus. Protozoans, amoeba and fungi are as likely to be as sentient as pine trees.

MISCELLANEA
I have thus far stated, and eventually discarded, most of the direct objections raised against the cause of animal welfare with respect to meat-eating. While I am sure there a few I have not considered, there are other, somewhat unrelated issues, misconceptions chiefly, concerning vegetarianism. Almost invariably, any discussion on this is going to elicit a refrain "But our body needs protein" or "Vegetarian diet cannot provide all the required nutrition"  or with more certainty "I was a vegan for a few years but that made me tired and sick during most of time. My doctor seriously advised me to go back to eating meat".  These and other such observations  - and flawed inferences- will not be dealt with here. There is an enormous volume of scientific evidence to back up the sufficiency and healthfulness of a vegan/vegetarian diet (no need to remind me of Vitamin B12 and Vitamin D). I don't need to mention celebrity athletes to prove my point, but those inclined to believe in such "evidences" can look it up elsewhere.  Of course, other compelling arguments like "Hitler was a vegetarian and so what does that say about vegetarians?!!!" are beyond me to comprehend and straighten out.

GRAPHIC EXPOSE
It may not be out of the line here to post some videos exposing the cruelty to animals in factory farms.  After all, aside from all the arguments I have mentioned, the visceral experience of watching such horrendous acts has its own power. Many have seen this at some point or the other but it does not hurt to remind what precisely happens to animals in feedlots, crates, during transportation and slaughter.




On the disconnect between kosher laws and reality:



The situation in pig farms:



Look for more here.



[1] Here is an interesting essay on this issue where the author argues that humans are more similar to herbivores anatomically and physiologically than to omnivores, i.e we are behavioral rather than structural omnivores.
[2]This is a basic assumption, and if one is unwilling to accept it, then, consistent with the rejection of such a foundational premise,one must not object to child molestation, torture and other abuses.
[3] http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97/livestock.hrs.html

Scientific Method

I
In my last year in college, I took a course on Scientific Method in the Philosophy department. It was to be the fourth and final of my philosophy courses - all my earlier ones were on basic problems in contemporary Analytic Philosophy like philosophy of mind, nature of reality, free will and determinism, and theory of knowledge. Judging from the title of the course, I imagined that it would have a lot of resonance with my understanding and perspectives on the development of theories in physics and standard methods and procedures of performing experiments and drawing conclusions from them. I expected the field to define and explain, in a more rigorous, detailed and general way the foundational premises of the science - from the importance of reproducibility of experiments to limitations of physical theories. However, the class turned out to be quite different from what I had anticipated. Yes, the question of what constitutes a valid method of investigation in sciences was discussed but the entire course was focused more on the Philosophy of Science and the evolution of scientific theories. I was made aware of the existence of such a branch of inquiry within the domain of philosophy only after I took this course. As the early morning lectures(8 AM) moved from one topic to another, I did recognize that some of the issues dealt with were not only important for understanding the foundations of science properly but also provided some insight into the nature of progress in science and emergence of radically different viewpoints. Nonetheless I was disappointed.


Maybe I was bored because I have limited patience and attention to things that I do not find any immediate excitement in. But in part, it could also be due to the fact that I was not able to relate most of what I gathered from these lectures to whatever I had come to understand as the basic philosophical framework for constructing theories and expressing physical laws within. During this entire period when I learnt about the formal theory of scientific method, I was scarcely ever able to make any connection to a real advancement in the field of physics. The entire language was so general, and in some cases quite simplifying, that it was unable to describe say, the insight that led to a specific approach in attacking some topic (BCS theory of superconductivity), or an ingenious way to design an experiment (Michelson interferometer) , or to create extensions of existing laws to account for unexplained phenomena (maxwell's displacement current). Science, at the stage where there is no clear explanation for some problem, is messy and it can be so in rather unpredictable ways: many candidate theories of varying merits (Extensions of Standard Model) , insufficient experimental data to draw any solid conclusions or support any specific theory(Dark Matter) , some intractable mathematical monster that needs to be cracked (energy conditions in General Relativity) , or a whole bunch of different ad-hod ideas that need to be tied together to form a coherent theory (development of Quantum Mechanics as well as Quantum Electrodynamics). Progress in these cases can come in completely unexpected ways, and I don't think there is any unambiguous way in which we can classify the different possible attempts at resolving open questions. No philosophical school describing the methodology of science can account for all the bizarre and crazy ways in which physics evolves at any given stage. For example, it is not always true that experiments precede theoretical developments. The top quark was predicted based on the observed pattern of arrangement of quark families and this inference was vindicated by experiments later on. Our near certainty about the existence of Higgs particle and its properties comes from the enormous success of the Standard model in explaining most of the interactions of elementary particles. Ideas sometimes pop out of nowhere and can lead to creation of a new branch of science. Chaos was first discovered by Poincare when he was investigating the three body problem and the this opened up the study of a whole of class of similar problems under dynamical systems. Explanations provided can be outlandish and they often appear to be completely contrived. De Broglie's explanation for the relation between energy and wavelength sounds pretty bizarre and vague when one encounters it for the first time. Indeed, the postulate that the speed of light is a constant in all inertial frames, the axiom at the foundation of Special Relativity, is unconvincing when you make a sharp transition from classical Newtonian mechanics to this revolutionary new framework. And how on earth did Faraday strike upon the notion of fields? Does any of the scientific method theories advanced by Popper or Kuhn explain the ridiculous brilliance of this 19th century English experimenter who, despite no formal training in physics, was able to put forth a description of electrodynamics in terms of these invisible oscillating lines of flux? I honestly doubt it. The idea that one can systematically describe development in physics according to some general outline is either impossible or the outline is so broad as to render its useless. The history of science is very complex (at least it is so for physics) and there is reason to doubt if anyone working in the Philosophy of Science is aware of all the subtleties involved. Below I shall consider some of the important problems in scientific methodology tackled by philosophers and the various theories advanced to characterize it.

II

The problem of induction is something that comes up often while discussing this subject. Without getting into finer details, let me state that the problem addresses the fact that no empirical law in nature can be completely correct because we have not tested, or it is impossible to do so, for all the possible cases in the universe. Newton's second law (ignore relativistic/quantum mechanical effects) is not exact because it has not been verified in every situation and in every location where it is expected to be valid. A lot of discussion has gone into this and it is a question that has preoccupied philosophers from the period of Hume but there is no satisfactory resolution of this. That it is an important philosophical question is beyond any reasonable doubt but whether a working physicist gains anything from it is something worth considering in more detail. Even before I learnt about this formal paradoxical problem, I intuitively understood the relevance of this question in the context of empirical relations in physics. We know in mathematics that a single counterexample was all that is required to disprove a general assertion. Extrapolating, it is reasonable to expect the same must be true with physical laws as well - if one can demonstrate some experiment anywhere in the universe where the principles do not apply, then it ceases to be a real principle. (Of course, all this must be taken with a grain of salt since even Newton's third law is not valid in quantum field theory but few would dispute that it is a valid empirical relation for a wide class of phenomena). In fact, today we are considering far-reaching possibilities that admit precisely such limitations in the applicability of our theories. We know that quantum field descriptions are constructed only up to a certain scale (expressed in energy or length), and these are independent of the structure of the underlying "fundamental" formulations. In the same way, we expect classical general relativity to break down at energies comparable to the Planck scale since effects of quantum mechanical fluctuations in gravitational fields would make significant contributions to the calculations. There is ongoing speculation regarding the mutability of fine structure constant with the evolution of the universe. Ever since Heisenberg firmly disregarded any speculations on basic theory and confined himself to merely describing the observations, physics has moved in a direction where it acknowledges that the main thrust is to explain empirical observations and not be too distracted by our preconceptions and prejudices regarding underlying theories. In fact, such a stance was taken by none less than Newton himself. He vowed never to make abstract speculations and discarded any metaphysical notions of space, time and physical laws. This was a bold decision at the time, and it required an extraordinary genius like Newton to proclaim such a radical outlook towards understanding nature. The one occasion where he did not put this philosophy into practice was in his description of time, being the ephemeral concept to be pinned down accurately, he resorted a metaphysical position that absolute time exists and it flows evenly, as can be corroborated by observers in any reference frame. Therefore careful understanding and formal analysis of the induction problem is something that is unlikely to provide new insights for physicists as far as research in physics is concerned.

III

While studying the theories of Karl Popper, one encounters the concept of verisimilitude. This is a term that is used to index the "turthlikness" of a specific scientific theory and to compare it with other competing theories. Popper assigned verisimilitude in a quantitative manner based on the number of truth and false propositions of a theory. A theory X is considered better than Y, if the true propositions of Y are included in X and the false propositions of X are included in Y. This is a prime example of how simplistic much of the studies in the philosophy of science is. Anyone with some background in undergraduate physics would immediately realize that this is not how theories are compared and we don't count the truth propositions (or the false ones). In fact, we don't think of it and judge it using such a formal system and doing so would lead to all kinds of odd conclusions. And how does it accommodate for the fact that much of what we consider as theories today, are in fact, approximations that are valid only in a specific regime. By this criterion, all statements in Newtonian physics are false, and the same goes for thermodynamics and even classical statistical physics.

Another criterion for judging scientific theories that was put forward by Popper was falsifiability. A theory was to be considered as scientific only if it provided a hypothetical event or phenomena that would prove the theory as false. For example, the SU(5)theory of grand unification predicted proton decay but since none has been observed in nature this model was quickly abandoned. The absence of a certain event provided a method of inferring the falsity of the hypothesis. That was a nice example which works well to explain Popperian notion of falsifiability but that is definitely not how all physical theories are rejected. In fact, I doubt if a single experimental result has ever been used to immediately decide that a theory is useless and must be discarded thoroughly. It always happens that physicists would try modifying the assumptions in the theory or alter the basic laws in such a way that it accommodates the new observations. The fact that the ether hypothesis was around for such a long time despite several paradoxes would illuminate this point quite well. The ether hypothesis could not explain the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment which attempted to measure the speed of earth relative to the stationary ether, but since the concept of a medium through which light moved had been used to understand electromagnetic propagation for so long, there was a strong tendency to retain such a picture. To account for the unexpected results, various new models were proposed for interaction of ether with objects in the universe, most specifically with Earth. One way of approaching this was to assume that the ether was dragged along by massive objects like our planet and this could account for a null result. This was the first patch applied to a hypothesis that was, from Popperian classification, falsified. This method of rescuing the ether hypothesis opened a new set of complications. In a different attempt, Fresnel proposed that ether is partially dragged by a medium which resulted in a lower velocity for light traveling through this medium. The Michelson-Morley experiment in fact could not rule out this possibility. Meanwhile, Lorentz had considered contraction of all objects traveling through the ether and this included the arms of the interferometer used in the experiment. With a specific contraction law (which not surprisingly is the same as the one that can be derived from special relativity) one can still successfully defend ether's omnipresence. Note that in all these cases explanations and laws were worked out such that it would fit the experimental results. It was not until Einstein's formulation of special relativity and his unambiguous rejection of the ether concept that the idea was dropped. There were plenty of reasons to do so before but history shows that such a cherished belief would not be thrown away by a single, or for that matter a few experiments. A slightly different example would be the role of renormalization in modern quantum field theories. When cross-section calculations in QED using standard correlation functions that involved contributions from loop diagrams were carried out, it appeared as if the number obtained from theory was approaching infinity. Since that is an absurd result, going by strict Popperian criterion, the theory should have been dumped right away for its unfeasible implications. Indeed, many physicists believed that this conclusion sounded the death knell for the framework. Yet there were others who sought to modify it in a manner such that the divergences can be eliminated by some new ad-hoc rules, rules that was certainly unconvincing to many physicists and almost all mathematicians interested. While skeptics of this approach ( renormalization) were critical of the way quick-fix method that was devised by "sweeping the real problem under the rug", it eventually turned out that the formalism of quantum field theory required such a treatment of the quantities that appear in it. As time progressed and many of the predictions arising from working with such renormalization techniques gave correct results, the approach won over many skeptics and ultimately it became universally accepted as a legitimate theory. Such a unique development depended so crucially on the details of the specific theory to be interpreted accurately by the general criterion laid out by Popper.

IV

A person of towering influence in this area of study is the American philosopher Thomas Kuhn. Kuhn's work in the 1950's and 60's can be rightly considered as representing a departure from the basic modes by which the subject had been analyzed by all his predecessors. His view of the history of science immediately strikes one as being altogether independent of the traditional and orthodox ways of understanding progress in scientific endeavor. Particularly, he strongly disagreed with the notion that scientific progress was a cumulative process, something that had been assumed in all the standard picture of the history of science. However, Kuhn argued that scientific activity can be broadly divided between two distinct phases, one "normal science" and the other characterized as scientific revolution. Normal science is the period when there is an existing framework within which all the discoveries and solutions to conventional problems were carried out. In his conception, this was a puzzle-solving time-frame where the scientist applies the rules, techniques and the underlying theoretical axioms to determine a solution to these relatively minor puzzles. This sort of activity is even compared to 'mopping the floor' and 'clearing the mess '-referring to the unresolved issues of the particular framework. In contrast, a scientific revolution basically involved a complete overthrow of the existing framework and replacing it with a paradigm that may be completely different from the earlier one. The revolution is a dramatic shift in the development of science because it involves a drastically different understanding of the basic concepts and ideas along with new tools and techniques for investigation, a different outlook of natural phenomena, and a shift in priorities between different aspects of the theory and the experimentation. As one would imagine immediately, the most striking examples of this comes from the revolution that took place in the early part of the last century, namely the development of quantum mechanics and relativity. There is absolutely no question that there is hardly a single field in modern physics that has remained untouched by these new frameworks, and in many areas, both these theories are incorporated compatibly. In addition to this, Kuhn also uses as examples the paradigms set and shifts that occurred around the works of Aristotle (on analyzing motion), Ptolemy (planetary positions),Maxwell ( expressing the electromagnetic equations in their mathematical form).


Yes, all these may be some good examples but how seriously do we take the claim that there is a reasonably clear division between a revolution and normal phase in progress of science. Let us focus on the period since those groundbreaking ideas of quantum mechanics and relativity came to be accepted as valid scientific theories by the physics community. It would be very hard to argue that there has been any other development(s) that can be considered as revolutionary since then. The most fundamental theoretical milestones during these periods would certainly include establishment of Quantum Electrodynamics, the Salam-Weinberg electroweak unification and the eventual setting up and success of the so-called Standard Model of particle physics.
Of course, none of this can be regarded as a paradigm shift in any way because they still retain the same underlying structure of quantum field theory -indeed that structure was just extended to all the basic interactions. However,let us consider all the important developments that have taken place during this period within this framework and ask ourselves whether these are something to just be casually treated in the somewhat demeaning manner of "puzzle-solving". Looking at the wikipedia page on physics time-line, one notices a whole of exciting new discoveries that took place in the last 90 years or so. The ascendancy of the Big Bang Cosmology, BCS theory of superconductivity, development of transistor, solution of 2D Ising Model, Fractional Quantum Hall Effect and Bose Einstein Condensation are some of the most striking examples . None of this and the associated research it spawned can be looked upon as a revolution because neither did it undermine the validity of relativity and quantum mechanics nor did it completely alter the progress of all fields in physics. Yet, taken together one can say that our view of the entirety of physics has been highly influenced by most of these "puzzle-solutions" and "floor-mopping". In fact, no one in the 1930's could have conceived the current status of physics, its achievements over the years, the formulation of ingenious principles and all the various new areas of research it has opened up. In other words, one can consider all the developments in physics together cumulatively as a 'revolution' without having any of the characteristics of scientific revolution as postulated by Kuhn.


If this argument is not convincing, let us look into the future and ponder how some of the unsolved problems of our era are going to be tackled. Certainly, one of the greatest unresolved questions in physics is that of unification of the fundamental interactions and all the associated problems and loopholes in the Standard Model -ranging from the lightness of Higgs mass, to origin of neutrino mass, to QCD vacuua. If ultimately we find a way to unify these interactions together successfully it would truly be one of the greatest breakthroughs in modern science. It may even represent the pinnacle of our achievements in understanding the most fundamental aspects of natural phenomena. However, would that be a scientific revolution in the sense described by Kuhn? How many areas of physics would such a development have any perceptible impact on, let alone completely turning it upside down. The answer is a few, if any at all. The unification is expected to occur at the Planck Scale and that energy is almost unattainable even in any accelerator that may be constructed in the foreseeable future. That being the case, there is no reason to expect that it will have any consequence for almost all of physics except in cosmology. At least until the time that we can explore such energy scales inside the condensed matter laboratory! Hence studies in atomic and molecular physics, theoretical nuclear physics, surface and material sciences, high Tc superconductivity and non-equilibrium statistical mechanics will continue as if nothing ever happened. And when it comes to understanding the origin of the universe and addressing some of the unresolved questions in that field such as the constituents of dark matter or the cosmological constant problem, although we may find solutions to these with the construction of 'theory of everything' it would not invalidate the progress we have made so far. Thus, cosmologists will not have disputes amongst themselves and will universally adapt their work to this paradigm once it is established. So, there is no room for such things as incommensurability(methodological or epistemological) or Kuhn-loss or new vocabulary as was laid down by this very influential philosopher. Hence, it is safe to conclude that however great an accomplishment the unification may be, it certainly will not be a scientific revolution.

V

Although I have been disappointed with most of philosophy of science, there is one special exception amongst the various doctrines of the discipline that I find very pertinent and useful: Logical Positivism. The exact positions and principles of this school have been debated upon extensively and some of the more radical positions have now been abandoned. I shall however not concern myself with these issues in this discussion(such as the analytic/synthetic distinction , the controversial rejection of synthetic a priori statements or regarding mathematics as a tautology). Instead, I am going to focus on that one important aspect of the doctrine that is key to distinguishing science from metaphysics and this revolves around the principle of verifiability. It is held that a statement has "meaningful content" only if it makes a claim that can be supported by empirical justification. Or more broadly, the only statements that express factual knowledge are those that have the potential to being empirically verified sometime in the future. Hence, a statement like "God exists in ways unknown to man" is devoid of any meaningful content because there can be no observations or events that can establish its truth or falsity. Extending this principle the founders and adherents of the Vienna Circle in the 1930's made devastating critiques of areas in philosophy, metaphysics and theology. They argued that many of the propositions contained in these disciplines do not express any cognitively sensible fact about the world. I find myself agreement with this viewpoint and think there really is no meaning in asking questions like "Are there parallel universes out that is outside our space-time continuum?"*

It would be improper for me to conclude this discussion without putting philosophy of science in some fair perspective. I have raised several objections to the basic postulates put forward by some of the most important practitioners of this school of inquiry. I will always have a skeptical outlook towards how successful any theory describing the evolution of science can be and will suspect the accuracy of any characterization of the history of science based on certain simplistic rules. Applying Kuhn's own standard, I would say that philosophy of science is still in a pre-paradigm state! Yet, I strongly believe that every field of scholarship is of value and contributes to human knowledge. While the ultimate scope of philosophy of science may be too ambitious for its own good, there is no denying that the various theories shed some light on certain essential elements that characterize the practice of science. It may be incorrect to declare universal rules that govern all innovations in science but more modest statements about the development and progress of sciences would certainly prove to be useful to anyone-expert or not - curious about the evolution of what is unarguably the greatest collective human accomplishment.

*I have to admit that part of my inclination towards this philosophical position is my annoyance at the invariable propensity of individuals to make statements that have no empirical content whatsoever while imagining them to be something really profound! I have had the misfortune of having to sit with such loud-mouthed, gibberish-spewing "revolutionary thinkers" in the philosophy classes I have taken.

Book Review : Homage to Catalonia

Homage to Catalonia
by George Orwell

George Orwell went to Spain as a journalist to cover the ongoing revolution in 1936. Once he was in the midst of dramatic events, he decided it made more sense to join the fight against the Fascist forces which had been under the command of Franco, and aided by Hitler and Mussolini. This book, written in 1937 after he returned to England following a bullet injury in his neck that prevented further participation, deals with his personal experiences fighting alongside anti-Fascist groups. It also provides a description of significant political developments that he was aware of. Today, it represents a very important document on the war, and although it is one man's account of his involvement in a large-scale war, it manages to paint a pretty clear picture of the different positions taken by various groups and the constant internal strife, the severe betrayal, the egregious lies and false propaganda and the insidious international engagement. Even though several years have passed since the tumultuous events, the details and description are very interesting but more importantly, it brings out aspects of war and the machinery surrounding it that are usually not to be found in more standard treatments.

Reading this book after Nineteen Eighty Four, I was constantly trying to make connections with that great novel and not surprisingly, a lot of what Orwell witnessed in Spain provided the basis for the creation of the harrowing world of Airstrip One. Nonetheless, his experiences in this battleground were far more diverse than just the use of misinformation and pure fabrication to control the course of war. There are as many examples of generosity, loyalty, sacrifice,forthright honesty and goodness of spirit as there are of tragic betrayal and lies that makes this a much more pleasing narrative when compared to the bleak and hopeless environment in which Winston Smith is trapped. The book succeeds amazingly well in being able to describe how the war was perceived by the ordinary conscripts and volunteers and their valiant efforts, their ideals and their hope of a better and just future. The nature of the confrontation is itself such that in many of the instances, it is not the bullets and the explosions that everyone is most scared of, but the terrible winter and the crippling shortage of essential supplies. There are situations where people, even enemies behave in ways contrary to general expectation, and most often it is a turn to the more positive of human tendencies. Thus the book is made a lot bearable even though in the end the gaols of the idealistic revolutionary groups are sabotaged by the more cunning and powerful Communist forces.

Orwell is initially unaware of the various political factions that exist in the country and their different agendas. Not interested in political divisions or understanding their subtle variations in principles, he decides to join the P.O.U.M, a leftist revolutionary party that is one of the many organizations that have come together to fight Fascist takeover of Spain. The events leading up to the start of the war can summarized as follows: the Spanish Republican government is being besieged by the military that is led by General Franco who attempts a coup d' etat with the help of Fascist regimes in Germany and Italy. The Government is weak and unable to defend itself. In an effort to resist the spread of the Fascism in Spain, political parties of varying shades, militia groups, workers and peasants decide to launch a concerted effort to defend the government. The Communists (UGT) receive support from Communist Parties all over Europe especially USSR, under its leader Josef Stalin. The co-operation and alignment of foreign players in this struggle to fend off Fascist takeover is not decided based on any grand principles but more by constitution of military alliances and particularly the strength of relationship with Soviet Union. The agenda of the Communists here, unlike what one would imagine, can only be described as the right-wing with focus on retaining control in the hands of a few and allowing the country to kowtow the Soviet leadership. Hence, Communists are in favor of a centralized government and are not opposed to adoption of a capitalistic system. That may seem very surprising at first but as it would be become clear in just a while, the primary intention of the Communists was for the country to be a useful military and political alliance of the USSR, irrespective of what the nature of the economic or political structure that exists. In particular they are strongly opposed to the Anarchists -who represent the radical anti-Stalinist Left - and other revolutionary organizations like P.O.U.M that aim to make Spain a completely decentralized country where land, property and production is controlled by local councils and peasants and farmers exert direct control over decisions concerning their lives. The reason the Communists bitterly oppose this setup can be understood by studying the alliances, say, for example,between France and USSR. This relationship would benefit the Russians, only if France, a capitalist-imperialist country, is strong and stable, and hence the Communist Party in France would tow the line of the Russian Communists, which is essentially anti-revolutionary. We are told about how French Communists initially voiced their unwillingness to fight their German comrades, but later on made a volte-face and marched behind the tri-color , sang the national anthem and bid goodbye to their earlier protests for decolonization. The Spanish UGT was influenced by their French counterparts, and hence opposed any form of revolution by the militias. Since Britain was still quite isolated from Russian influence, the English Communist party remained somewhat ambiguous in its policies towards the Spanish situation or European Imperialism. But as it becomes amply clear later on, the Communists in England fell behind the UGT and demonized the revolutionary groups. It should also be mentioned here that Mexico supported the Republicans (i.e the united anti-fascist groups) and provided arms and ammunition to fight the Spanish Army. In fact, Mexican cartridges were regarded as a premium in comparison to their local counterparts and were reserved for use with machine guns.

At any rate, as Orwell clarifies, the Communists would still be better than the Fascists. They would undertake some development and construction - build roads, provide education, erect hospitals and reduce the exploitation by the land-lords. On the other hand, Franco, being supported by the landlords, the rich bourgeois and the Church clergy, would return power to the same groups that impoverished the nation and marginalized the poor and caused the disillusionment with capitalism.
But, as noted above, Orwell is unfamiliar with the political intricacy that existed when he joined the fight and even when he does learn about the main groups, he seems to treat the matter with little importance. He repeatedly insists that he finds these divisions and associations quite perplexing and is quite cynical about the necessity to know anything more than the bare essentials on the topic. And yes, politics cannot be ignored in such a novel and it figures quite prominently in many places, especially towards the end of the book.

The first part of the book is devoted to the experience of fighting in the cold, wintry P.O.U.M camps at the frontline. While one would imagine the mood to be very intense considering how bloody the conflict had been in retrospect, the nature of the war and the different aspects surrounding it paints a slightly different picture. At times, it can get as removed from such intensity that some incidents begin to actually sound quite funny. To start with, the various rebel groups, and even most of the pro-Fascist troops, have a remarkably poor supply of arms and ammunition. To worsen the combat potential, much of the weapons -the rifles and machine guns for the most part- are of lamentable quality and perform unreliably. The minor accessories were also in short supply - telescopes, periscopes, wire-cutters, field glasses or even cleaning materials. Next, the preparedness level of the army was ludicrous. Most of these fighters -both volunteers and conscripts- were rooted in left-libertarian ideology who took the concept of equality and abolishment of hierarchy to extremity and insisted in treating everyone in the same manner. However, it does not take much expertise to know and understand that an army functions effectively and successfully executes complex operations only if there is some sort of structural hierarchy in the system which demands rigid discipline and obedience to authority. When this central tenet is missing, the combat force simply descends into a disorganized, amateurish, blundering mass that bungles up every plot. But naive idealism would make the P.O.U.M fighters -and to a greater extent the Anarchists - blind to such reality as it would, later on, to the cunning and devious betrayal by the Communists.

Many of the people fighting were kids - several under 15. Few received any training and at any rate, even those that did were given one that lacked the basic standards of professionalism that in the end, it possibly made no difference to their capacity to participate in a war. Practically no one was taught how to use an automatic and the familiarity and skill with the gun was so pathetic that it led to repeated incidents where people came close - and in some cases, actually did- to accidentally shooting their own men. Ironically, an equal number of deaths were averted because of the spectacularly poor Spanish marksmanship. Orwell himself would have been wounded earlier on, were it not for the woefully inaccurate firing skill of the Spanish militiamen. This must be seen in the broader context of Orwell's experience with the Spanish people in general, irrespective of their political affiliations. While not complete strangers to brutality, the fighting spirit displayed by the Spanish was comparably less aggressive, their hostility mitigated by an element of sympathy and consideration, their determination to achieve victory naturally undermined by the absence of killer instinct, and their ideology rarely overwhelmed their collective humanity. Orwell greatly admires the decency of the ordinary Spanish people. To Orwell, their easy friendliness, loyalty and ingenuity comes as a great surprise and we often encounter stark comparisons drawn between this and the attitude of the English people.
It may be cliche but there is something authentic when Orwell remarks, while observing the Spanish graciously acknowledge the French for their superior war tactics, that the English would rather have their hands chopped off rather than making such an admission. In addition, the Spanish warmly greet foreigners and strive to make their visitors feel comfortable; class-divisions are less visible and rigid in Spain as compared to their deeply entrenched presence in English society. Another curious feature is the apparent lack of religious feelings amongst the Spanish working-class and peasants. No religious customs seem to be observed and people do not invoke religious ideas and beliefs in the face of unpleasant events. There is little sanctity for the dead people as can be inferred from a graveyard that is littered with bones. The gravestones hardly ever bear religious inscriptions on them, something that strongly suggests a complete absence of faith in people. The Church was widely acknowledged a swindle by the elite and no one believed it representing anything useful. And this feature also explains why the revolutionary groups wanted to completely destroy the institutions associated with the Church as soon as they had an opportunity. (I have read elsewhere that they raped and tortured the nuns and the clergy but all of that could very well be remnants of Communist propaganda.)
Sadly though, as Orwell notes, it is this same magnanimity that made infantile groups like P.O.U.M and Anarchists hapless idealists waiting to be cruelly betrayed even before anyone of them saw it coming. In a foreboding sense, he writes,

There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life - snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc -had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tinted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves,and no one owed anyone else as his master.Of course such a state of affairs could not last.




Orwell lists five essential items while he was at the front - which was basically a hilltop "position" in Zaragosa, amongst other such positions in the mountain ranges. Those are, in the following order, firewood, food, candle, tobacco and enemy. This should give a quick idea that the enemy was not the main concern amongst the militiamen at the front. During most of the day, the Fascists did not matter at all and during the night, except for the possible fear of a random bullet striking someone, the primary preoccupation was to keep warm in the extremely cold weather. The same was true about the Fascist troops across the valley at their position. The typical situation at the frontlines was radically different from the standard imagination of a fierce battle between troops during the war. There were no airplanes dropping bombs and the rifles were so obsolete and poorly designed that in most cases the shots fired from them would fail to make their way across to the enemy trenches and instead drop in the valley between them. That being the case, it would not be hard to understand that the risk posed by occasional shots fired by those who received little or no professional training is minimal and less of a bother than the freezing weather that everyone had to struggle against on all nights. The weather became almost intolerable when there was rain and many men did not have the necessary clothing to protect themselves from the biting cold. Firewood was of utmost importance and a considerable part of the time and effort was spent on gathering and storing it. The soldiers ventured into the valley and pull out the shrubs and bring it back escaping being accidentally hit by the bullets buzzing overhead. The living conditions at the frontline was abominable -there was not enough water to clean up, the men defecated in the trenches itself, there was dirt and grime everywhere around, and people slept with their clothes on lest an attack caught them floundering. Yet, Orwell was happy to receive his quota of one pack of cigarettes everyday. The matches and candles were plenty initially but their supply was severely reduced later on and they had to overcome the shortage of this all-important commodity.

While all these brave young men -many of them volunteers from various countries -were fighting for a revolution that would lead to the establishment of a classless Socialist/Anarchist society,treacherous plots were devised by the Communists, primarily the U.G.T and P.S.U.C, who in fact were assumed to be on their side and provide necessary military and political support. The Communists bitterly opposed the revolution and claimed that it was important to first have a democratic setup in the country. They argued that the revolutionary groups were hurting the cause of creating a democratic Spain by not uniting together and forming a strong alliance. However, in reality, their motives were quite different. As briefly explained earlier, the Communists followed the Russian line and wanted Spain to remain a stable capitalistic country that could be useful as a military ally to USSR. Indeed, the military aid provided by Soviet Union was contingent on such an arrangement. Britain and France indirectly backed this movement too in the hope of protecting their significant financial investments in the country. If the revolution were to take place the way the Socialists envisaged, it would result in the collectivization of production and complete dominance by trade-unions without any guarantee of repayment to foreign investors. Furthermore, the Communist Parties in both these countries adopted a stand that merely reflected the interests and ideology of the Russians. Orwell however does make it quite clear that the ordinary soldier working for the Communists was just as well-meaning as anyone in C.N.T or P.O.U.M, and was primarily involved in the war effort to defeat Franco. It was the Communist leaders and their powerful associates in Europe that were masterminding these counter-revolutionary tactics. The foreign Communist press was particularly deceitful. In the early days, they simply portrayed the revolution as misguided ideology that would lead to fracturing of the anti-Fascist forces and create unnecessary chaos. However, later on the Communist propaganda becomes a lot more insidious. They contend that the P.O.U.M's revolutionary philosophy weakening the combined battle against Fascism was not simply a result of some misguided idealism, but rather, a deliberate design. They portrayed P.O.U.M army as consisting of traitors who were secretly working with the Fascists to sabotage the Government forces. The P.O.U.M militia and everyone who worked with organizations with similar ideology were labeled as cowards, murderers, spies and Trotskyists.


It is not a nice thing to see a Spanish boy of fifteen carried down the line on a stretcher, with a dazed white face looking out from among the blankets, and to think of all the sleek persons in London and Paris who are writing pamphlets to prove that this boy is a Fascist in disguise. One of the horrible features of a war is that all the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people not fighting.

A lot of this negative and divisive Communist propaganda was being disseminated when the P.O.U.M militia was in the frontline naively assuming full ideological support from their Communist "allies", whatever the differences might be amongst them in terms of initiating a revolution. Supply of arms and ammunition to the Anarchists was curtailed lest they use them later for revolutionary goals. In a civil war such as this and at the time when the Fascist powers in Europe were gaining strength by the day and expanding their sphere of influence in the continent, one would have been expected that the great democracies of the world, namely Britain, United States and France would have had the foresight to come to the rescue of the Spanish Government and suppress Franco's Army. That can only be considered bad judgment even if self-interest was the primary motivation for extending military aid to foreign wars. But more unfortunately,as Orwell observes no country, aside from Mexico had the decency to back the Government in what was clearly a just cause against tyranny. All these powerhouses were eager to declare neutrality in the conflict and it was upto some of their brave citizens to join the war effort and lay their lives to contain the reach of Fascism. The external role in this civil war was largely provided by Communists all over Europe who were devotedly playing to the Soviet tune.

Back at the front in Aragon, the troops occupying the P.O.U.M position alongside Orwell launch a surprise attack on the Fascist redoubt. Crawling through the sodden ground, striving to remain noiseless, and maintaining proper communication with their fellow fighters, the group manages to take control of the Fascist parapet and kill or drive away the fascist conscripts occupying the dug-outs there. A powerful telescope is discovered at the enemy camp that would be of crucial importance in the battle but the fighters settle on a ammunition box to bring back with them alongside Fascist rifles. Despite leaving behind the telescope the ambush is considered a success in the sense that Fascists were forced to divert their troops for counter-attack from another position where they were fighting the Anarchists. Following this event, the batch of troops are substituted by a different set and they make their way back to Barcelona.

The Barcelona that Orwell returns to after being at the front for about three and a half months has had a makeover in appearance. The revolutionary spirit that once dominated the atmosphere of Spain and the surrounding philosophical principles of an equal, classless society without hierarchy or one-upmanship that had attracted so many ordinary working class people, was now gone, and in its place was the quiet, unremarkable world of established class-structure, one that separated the rich from the poor, with the privileged flaunting its wealth while the shopkeepers and workers were cringing. There was a brief period when everyone treated others as equals, irrespective of their social position or profession. Thus, waiters and flower-women refused to take tips and looked at people in the eye, revolutionary language was commonly adopted, workers addressed each other as "comrade" and there was almost no begging. But that atmosphere was to be temporary, something created by idealistic people who briefly flirted with the idea that such a thing as perfect equality is a viable scenario in society. It was at best an illusion - a suspension of disbelief - but a tempting possibility to entertain and hope for in the face of long and damning injustice and inequity.

A fat man eating quails while the children are begging for food is a disgusting sight, but you are less likely to see it when you are within sound of guns

The Popular Army had been formed by the government and all the militia factions were officially a part of it. The revolutionary sentiment was almost non-existent and it was replaced by an unspoken resignation to the reality that there was never going to be a revolution that would lead to workers' control of production, land and revenue. With little fighting going on, pessimism returned to the populace as the town slid back to normalcy. The Anarchist-Communist split was very much alive and this division seemed to predominate the thoughts and fears of the people more than threat of a battle with fascists.



On 3rd MAy 1937, the Civil Guards launched a surprised assault on the Telephone Exchange in Barcelona that had been controlled by the CNT. The Civil Guards were nothing more than a peacetime police force that acted as a strongarm bodyguard protecting the ruling elite. Taking over the Telephone Exchange was part of the strategic manoeuvre to weaken the militia forces and arrogate power by winning control of all industries and organizations that were under the supervision of Anarchists. As the news of this event broke throughout the town, it caused panic and confusion as both sides - Government/Civil Guards on one side and Anarchists/POUM on the other- were entering into an armed confrontation on the streets and buildings in the town. Shots rang out, bullets flew in all directions, troops ran to occupy positions on rooftops, wielding guns and guarding buildings, each of which were predominantly occupied by members of a single political party.

The rival groups were randomly firing at every other suspected individual on the street leading to complete chaos as people were holed up in buildings for protection. Orwell finds himself running between different hotels and cafes in this tumultuous setting, sometimes being dragged along by fellow militiamen and at other times to find out if his wife was safe (she was staying in a different place). The chaotic street fighting is a real tragedy and renders so much of the effort, the spirit and the sacrifices of people futile. It is truly disillusioning and depressing ;instead of facing a battle with the real enemies (Fascists), here there were troops firing - and killing some and wounding others -at each other barely aware of the reasons for targeting the "opponents". These events seem to quieten down the next day as Civil Guards are asked by the government to be more cautionary in using weapons and firing at Anarchists but nonetheless the fear and mutual suspicion was still quite strong and the troops were still camped on rooftops prepared for any offensive fire.

Throughout the fighting I never made the "correct" analysis of the situation that was so glibly made by journalists sitting thousands of miles away.What I was chiefly thinking about was not the rights and wrongs of this miserable internecine scrap, but the discomfort and boredom of sitting day and night on that intolerable roof, and the hunger which was growing worse and worse- for none of us had a proper meal since Monday (this was Thursday)


Things were returning to normal even when the CNT members were completely overpowered as the Telephone Exchange was wrested out of their control by Civil Guards. Even at other important strategic Anarchist holdings, the government forces had moved in and had taken charge. Simply put, the city came under the mercy of the government and its armed guards and troops. In addition to such assaults, many of the remaining Anarchists retreated from their barricades because of food shortage. Adding insult to the injury, the government passed a law requiring all organizations to surrender their arms as the civil guards go around ensuring that the law is duly enforced. Debilitating the militia even further, the Anarchist press was censored while the Communist publications continued to run wildly fabricated stories of CNT/POUM treachery. The Anarchists desire to hold on to their arms was "interpreted" by the Communists and the foreign press as a disloyal and selfish action. They claimed that the weapons were badly needed at the Aragon front although it was clear that both Communists and revolutionaries had stashed weapons that they would use for reasons other than fighting the main fascist enemies.

At this point, the feeling and mood in Barcelona was one of deep distrust- distrust for everyone around be that friends, fellow soldiers, associates, comrades, it made no difference. Nobody could foresee who would turn out to be a spy - there can be people working for any of the groups including fascists, communists, foreign governments - and denounce them to their ideological enemy. Meanwhile the CNT feared that there would be a foreign intervention if the internal strife went too far -indeed there were two British warships that had moved into the harbor as the fighting intensified with the proclaimed aim of "protecting British interests" but there was little doubt that it was to crush any massive uprising by the working class.


The POUM was decried as "Franco's fifth column" and as Trotskyists who were loyal to the Fascists. The outbreak of the conflict at the Telephone Exchange was described as an insurrection by the Anarchists. The gross misrepresentations of the events by the Communist press was systematic, ubiquitous and invariable - spinning facts to the degree that the roles of the various parties involved were reversed : the Telephone Exchange, the Daily Worker stated for example, was being held by the Government workers until being seized by the CNT forces in a surprise uprising. Never mind the fact that the same story was turned around a couple of days later without any mention of retraction or correction of the previous account. Also forget about the blatant contradictions in the descriptions and statements: inflammatory leaflets were the cause of the Anarchist uprising according to one release, but in another report, it was argued that these same leaflets were issued following the attack - it was a consequence. The newspapers did not care to maintain basic consistency in even stating the day the actual attack took place. In fact, the propaganda program was so obsessive that the Communists, either out of poor judgment or indifference, were giving away vital military secrets that could compromise their war effort while benefiting the Fascists. These included details about the strategy, the preparedness and the number of troops at the front and other tactical information that could be crucial to outcome of the war. (Orwell mentions in a footnote about the relative accuracy and neutrality of coverage in the Manchester Guardian,a newspaper known today simply as The Guardian. Incidentally, amongst all the regular newspapers I have come across in the English language, I find The Guardian most balanced and objective in coverage and detail.)


The betrayal reached its zenith in June 1937 when the POUM was declared as a full-fledged illegal organization by the government and all suspected members of the party were rounded up and flung into jail without the slightest concern for any due process. The Communists concocted a dramatic tale of how the entire group as a Fascist Plot designed to undermine and subvert the government forces.The charges leveled against POUM were ludicrous, such as claims that militiamen were in radio contact with Franco or in communication with the Nazi regime. Anyone rejecting the Communist policy from a left-wing perspective was conveniently condemned as Trotskyist -the implied meaning being treachery and a possible link with Fascist regimes in Germany and Italy. That this was full blown lies is apparent from the mere observation that these troops were still in jail for long after they were arrested, something that was impossible had they found any evidence of such subversive collaboration with the Fascists. In fact when an independent international delegation was went to Spain later on to investigate the role of the POUM in the conflict, the diplomats did not uncover any evidence to support any of these outlandish allegations. This admission of the innocence of POUM was in fact was made by the some of Spanish Government leaders, including the Minister of National Defence and Minister of Justice.

As appalling as the Communist backstabbing may sound, it is nothing particularly unexpected for this uniquely disgusting political ideology to denounce its detractors as traitors. Orwell point out for example that while today opponents are attacked as "trotskyist-fascist", a few years ago "Social-fascists" would have been the derogatory term of choice. But these critics and skeptics are not permanent nor does the official Communist line have any qualms about consistency (much like it does not have any principles). So such treacherous "social-fascists" like members of the British Labour Party were claimed to be behind a planned military invasion of USSR but this same Labour Party has now automatically morphed into a natural ally that English Communist Party members are trying to get into.


After the POUM is outlawed, Orwell again volunteers to go to the front in Huesca although his affiliation is not very clear. He mentions that he has been moved into a more structured pay commission that the militiamen were forced to accept abandoning their earlier stance of complete equality for all soldiers.
It is here though in the trenches of the battlefield that Orwell gets shot by a sniper that puts an end to his volunteering effort to fight Fascism in Spain. His recollection of the experience of getting shot straight through the neck is quite unusual in that he explains everything in a clear and objective manner. More amazingly, true to his style, even a dramatic personal incident like this one does not alter his perspective on his role in the war as merely a soldier fighting for a greater cause and coming close to death not unlike so many other brave individuals. In life, it so often happens that we are preoccupied with our self-importance. We like to think that our world view is unique and accurate, that our feelings deserve respect,that our concerns are serious and genuine and our opinions and ideas, important and insightful. In all of our thoughts and involvements, we feel the need to project our intellectual abilities. We obsess over what we like and what we don't and we make a big deal about the little ups and downs in life. What a stirring contrast it is when someone who is now considered as one of the most important authors in the 20th century, describes a bullet making a clean pass through his throat in the most ordinary way one can imagine -without ever drawing unnecessary attention to himself. I have never regarded myself as a fan of modesty of any kind -not at the conscious level at least- but his experiences in Spain- particularly this incident- evokes immense admiration. In his engaging introduction to the copy I hold, Lionel Trilling writes:

Orwell takes his place with these men as a figure. In one degree or another they are geniuses, and he is not - if we ask what it is that he stands for, what he is a figure of, the answer is: the virtue if not being a genius, of fronting the world with nothing more than one's simple, direct, undeceived intelligence and a respect for the powers one does have, and the work one undertakes to do.



Returning to the actual incident, Orwell explains that being shot felt like an explosion around him, something akin to a lightning strike with no awareness of pain but a sense of numbness and a dazed feeling. It had to pointed out to him that he was actually shot and it was only a brief while later that the horrible sense of pain came to overwhelm him and oddly enough, it was felt first in his arms. Despite this ghastly injury, he notes, almost glibly, that he has no resentment for the sniper who got him and would in fact congratulate the soldier on his shot while recognizing that he[Orwell] would have done the same thing had he been in the sniper's place.

He is carried in a stretcher to an ambulance that takes him to a temporary medical facility from where he is transported to Barbasto in an incredibly bumpy journey. About another half dozen trips to various hospitals and medical centers, where he silently witnessed all varieties of dreadful wounds on fellow inmates like smashed rib cages and collar bones, and followed by an additional 2 months of rest, Orwell recovers to reasonable health and miraculously he has his voice back -something that most doctors had ruled impossible. Unfit to continue fighting, he returns to Barcelona in the hope of finally leaving the country and going home.

The situation in Barcelona is a depressing one, with armed men roaming the streets, ubiquitous occurrence of arbitrary arrests, and a perpetual sound of machine gun fires heard all around. A this stage, the Communists have full control over the city and CNT/POUM militiamen - even those who had former ties with these groups -were being jailed without any charges or consideration of a fair trial. In order to leave the POUM without being considered a deserter, Orwell needs to be declared unfit first and then obtain the discharge papers from POUM headquarters. While this may sound like a straightforward affair, Orwell had to stop by a dozen hospitals to get his documents in order to be free to leave. No sooner does he return to Barcelona than his wife hurriedly warns him that he was now in real danger of being arrested - since he had served in the POUM militia before. The news of this inexplicable situation in Barcelona was something that Orwell cannot bring himself to accept - he had done nothing to hurt the cause of the anti-fascist resistance. Now, it was necessary to remain on close alert and protect himself from being discovered. Lying low was not an easy choice- any hotel or inn in Barcelona required its staff to report about new visitors to the place ; several waiters in restaurants were also familiar with militiamen faces and they could easily give away the identity inadvertently in the presence of Civil Guards or other Government troops.

Elsewhere POUM leader Andreas Nin was arrested and thrown to jail where he was believed to have been later killed by the secret police - this incident was concealed from the public by the Communists who provided vague and sometimes conflicting information on Nin's condition.[He was actually tortured and murdered by the Soviet Secret police] In another event Bob Smilie, one of the young men that Orwell knew from fighting in the front, was now known to have died in prison from medical complication. Orwell recalls Smilie as being a "tough lad" who was able to withstand the rigors of winter better than most of the other militiamen and his prison death is suggestive of the terrible conditions in which the Spanish jails were maintained. A student who left Glasgow University to join the revolutionary forces, Smilie's death was truly symbolic of the genuine tragedy of the conflict - the Communist betrayal.

But what angers one about a death like this is its utter pointlessness. To be killed in the battle- yes, that is what one expects; but to be flung into jail. not even for any imaginary offence, but simply owing to dull blind spite, and then left to die in solitude- that is a different matter.


Despite the horrible events which has left Orwell with evil memories of Spain, he belabors to point out that he has few bad memories of Spaniards. It would appear, according to him, that even if Franco were to ascend to power, the military dictatorship would not be the as brutal and repressive as in other countries[something that was partly borne out to be true]. Spaniards hardly possessed the efficiency or the ruthlessness to impose the kind of totalitarian nightmare that was possible in Nazi Germany or Stalinist USSR. The Communist secret police, while displaying some of the spirit of the Gestapo had little of the same competency or aggression.


In his last few days in Spain, Orwell tries unsuccessfully to free George Kopp, the Belgian volunteer who was Orwell's superior officer while fighting on the Aragon front. Kopp was arrested while carrying a letter to a government official and as usual, no charges were filed for the incarceration. Orwell explains the situation to the assistant of the colonel (the government official in question) and manages to get the letter back - which should have served as a proof that Kopp was serving the government- but it turns out that this new evidence was insufficient to secure his release[Kopp survives somehow despite interrogation and torture by Soviet Secret Police after which he settles in England].

On that defeated note, Orwell, along with his wife and two other British militiamen, leave Spain and after a short stop in France return to London.

(Fascists had full control of the country by 1939 when General Franco came to power).

A momentous oppurtunity for change

Here, right now, as I type these words, is an incredibly opportune moment for us to witness the change that we have been hearing from Barack Obama. For someone who came to power on the promise that he is going to bring change to Washington politics and reverse the damages and disastrous policies followed by the Bush Administration, he could not have bargained for a better time to show the world what he was sincere. As Israeli shells pound the Gaza strip is what is unquestionably an obscene display of excessive force against a decidedly weak opponent, we have a situation that calls for unreserved and strong condemnation.

Most importantly, everyone is waiting for the signal from America. Indeed, there are commentators arguing that this whole episode was a demonstration to the incoming President about how Israel is going to deal with this longstanding dispute. And we are still waiting for a comment..... No, Mr. Obama, dodging questions by saying that there is only one President at a time is not good enough, and that is certainly not what people in the world expected to hear. You can say more, even if you cannot do much, like the strong words you chose when responding to the congratulations from Mr. Ahmadinejad. Evidently there is only one person running the White House and we all know that the President in waiting cannot order an intervention, but a less ambiguous reaction would have gone a long way in changing the face of geo-politics in the Middle East in months to come.


And yet, nothing is coming from the man who stood for change. I understand how entangled American interests are in the special US-Israel relationship and I am not naive enough to have believed that the new President would supply tanks and ammunition to Palestine on arrival, but there was definitely a hope for a relatively more even-handed approach to the resolution of conflict. And nothing, not even the financial mess, could have presented a golden opportunity such as this to ascertain Mr. Obama's real intention of bringing change and improving the image and global standing of America.

And, we are still waiting....

Society and human behavior

I am a vegetarian. I also happen to be raised a vegetarian. Up until now, I have maintained a certain distaste and even disgust for the sight and smell of meat. But I have also come to realize that vegetarianism is significant from an ethical point of view too. My primary concern here is animal welfare since there is ample evidence to believe that sentient beings are put through some of the most horrifying conditions one can imagine before being slaughtered.


I am often shocked by how people don't seem to care too much about this at all. How is it possible they don't realize the inhuman treatment that animals are subjected to for the trivial benefit of satisfying their palate? I find their flippant attitude inexplicable, especially so when is many cultures, cruelty to dogs would be condemned in the sharpest way possible (and can even be punishable). However, I am not going to be discussing the ethics of vegetarianism here, even though I have several opinions on the issue. Maybe, I can post it sometime later. Besides, there other sites that discuss this including Wikipedia. No, here I am going to use this fact as a starting point to launch into a more general argument that, when a certain behavior is acceptable in society, however despicable it may be, there will be many people who would not refrain from indulging in the same.

I was completely shocked when I learned about how the Red Army marched into Germany when the tide of the war swung in the favor of the Allies, and then raped and molested all the women they could find. They ravaged and destroyed the towns and did not even spare some of the 'liberated' death camp prisoners. I was equally taken aback when I heard about the anti-Sikh riots in northern India by Hindu extremists in the aftermath of the assassination of Indira Gandhi. That rioters just picked on innocent Sikh men, dragged them out of their homes, and brutally attacked and murdered them was something I could not believe. Maybe it was my sheltered childhood, but the fact that normal people were capable of such barbarism went beyond my comprehension of humanity.


Of course, I have grown up now and am aware that these incidents are far from being isolated cases of violent atrocities. War crimes follow virtually instance of a warfare or regional strife, and this has been the situation throughout recorded history. However appalling Abu Graib or Guantanamo Bay may be, it is not particularly unique, even for the US Army (though this is no justification for their continued existence). It is not just horrendous acts perpetrated by armies and other combat groups that are guaranteed presence in all of human history, but so are other forms of injustices and cruelty entrenched in wider society during better times of peace and prosperity.. Slavery, colonialism and imperialism, racism, oppression of women, casteism, trafficking are all examples of human behavior, that viewed from the perspective of modern "civilized" world, appears as wholly deplorable. And yet, they were acceptable at one point. Widespread, almost unopposed acceptability has existed/still exists with regard to the practice of just these same human indignities in societies. Today, in most parts of the Western world, slavery would be perceived as completely abhorrent, but less than 300 years ago, there were several educated, intelligent and otherwise decent human beings who participated in the practice and held various flawed beliefs to justify it. Some of the leading philosophers and thinkers in the generations past have lent their credence to the idea that Africans are fundamentally inferior and hence deserve the treatment they get.


A similar justification was made, based on the ideology of "White Man's burden", for conquering and ruling other nations while impoverishing and depriving them of their resources. Not many in the oppressive community/country back then expressed a tenth of disgust that the majority would now do,looking at the past. How is this possible? Obviously, there is no inherent change in human beings over a few hundred years. There is also no reason to believe that each generation is born with certain unique inherent traits. In other words, if the same child were to be hypothetically transported across time to a different era, the whole outlook that he/she develops would be spectacularly divergent from what it is now. But, if such is the case, would it not be reasonable to argue that this is nothing more than a generalized version of "cultural relativism". Clearly, that is not how people understand it today, otherwise we would be hearing a lot more along the lines of "Who are we to judge what someone did in a different period when public morality was so different?".Much like when we hear a lady is being stoned to death for alleged adultery in Iran, few would take the stand that it is all fair and reasonable from their(Iran's) cultural standpoint. No, we believe, correctly or incorrectly, that these are wrongs and must never happen anywhere or anytime. Once we claim such absolutes in ethical judgments, we need to go back and revise our opinions on why so many participated in and encouraged what was so obviously WRONG. The answer, according to me, is simply that it was acceptable in society then whereas it isn't so anymore now.That is the sad truth of the world we live in:we are capable of doing just about anything so long as it is acceptable in society. So much for peoples' righteous moral outrage! Alter this argument a little and replace society by a group or institution, and we can explain everything from the Holocaust to human-rights violations in North Korea. The group is the one that has authority and power - the men in charge of implementing official policy of torture and abuse.


A microcosm of the same phenomena can be witnessed in the whole ragging issue in colleges across India. Students, barely past their teens, mostly growing up in regular middle-class families and seemingly introverted, somehow get transformed to something quite vicious and sadistic. The abuses inflicted on the freshmen in certain colleges, can take many forms, including repeated beatings and sexual humiliation. It is interesting though that in these cases, those in the vicinity witnessing the initiation ritual, see nothing odd about two people simulating sodomy. This is particularly striking when contrasted with the overall attitude of the broader Indian society when it comes to similar issues. How come those nurtured in a closed environment like this, in less than a year, turned to doing something that is not only in poor taste, but is also outright illegal?
It is equally interesting to note that the same people who were in the thicket of organizing the ragging drill would not have much of courage to do anything even a little daring in an environment where such behavior would not be acceptable. In other words, timid individuals who seem incapable of standing up and being bold can turn into monsters when they know that their actions would be regarded as normal, however disgusting these actions may be in a more standard setting.

My hypothesis was strengthened when I learned about some famous experiments that were carried out to test similar potential possibilities in normal people. Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram devised a famous test where participants were supposed to administer electric shocks to a "victim" whenever he/she answered a question wrong. The order to do so was to be provided by a a stern authority figure who sat in the same room as the participant. And with every wrong answer, the voltage was incremented. The results were astonishing -many of the participants triggered shocks greater than 200V and only one participant refused to do so beyond the 300V threshold. 65% of the participants were willing to go up to 450V although many of them expressed reservations and were uncomfortable to do so. Interestingly, this was three months before the trial of Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi operative considered to be the architect of the Holocaust. Basically, the experimenters wanted to determine if ordinary Americans were capable of doing what the Nazis had done. (By the way, the analysis of Eichmann's personality is also noteworthy.)

Ten years later, an even more disturbing psychological experiment was carried out. The Stanford Prison Experiment involved selecting a bunch of undergraduate students, randomly assigning them "prisoner" and "guard" roles that they are supposed to enact for a period of 14 days in a real prison. The whole arrangement was setup in a manner that would simulate a real prison environment as accurately as possible: from the baton that the "guards" carried around to the chains tied to the ankles of "prisoners". The lead experimenter Professor Philip Zimbardo was himself playing the prison superintendent. The experiment had to be shut down in 6 days because the whole situation got out of hand very soon. Guards began to beat the prisoners, denied them food, and routinely humiliated them. Some of the prisoners were thrown into solitary confinement. The prisoners are said to have been psychologically traumatized at the end, having undergone serious stress during the progress of the experiment. To be fair, the experiment was criticized by many (though not criticisms are convincing) and the BBC conducted its own Prison Study in 2002 and the results this time were definitely less dramatic than SPE. The difference seems to lie in the fact that in the conditions were less harsh and hostile in the BBC commissioned study than in the SPE. That is not to say it did not have any incident involving tyranny and abuse of power. My own interpretation is that the inferences that can be drawn from all these psychological experiments are in line with my overall opinion of human nature and behavior.

When we go by this hypothesis, we are able to better understand various barbaric events in history and also societal attitudes to and (in some case )participation in various horrors, from mild injustices like denying equal rights to women to applauding brutal Gladiator fights. So long as everyone around feels the same way, it reinforces the idea of normalcy in such behavior and people will engage in them without any compunction. Or, they are unlikely to realize what their actions would be judged harshly in the future or by a society with different norms. Thus every time I hear about some horrible violence somewhere in the world, I am inclined to believe that the perpetrators are living in a place and time where such activities are deemed acceptable . It is a truly disturbing thought indeed.

Endnotes:
(i) It is important to remember that most of the experiments that I have described here were not designed to study anything directly related to what I am interested in. Instead, they mostly concerned the willingness of normal people to simply follow instruction in the presence of an authority figure, however much it went against their perception of what is right and what isn't. In their own right, they are quite surprising. The results from the BBC Prison Study are particularly well reasoned out and analyzed. I also do not claim that my conclusions based on these experiments have been obtained in some perfectly-justified purely rational arguments. I just see a strong connection between them and my own hypothesis of human behavior. Also,in no way am I desperate to find evidence-weak or strong- to prove my point. Far from it, I actually wish I could be proved wrong.

(ii)Same goes for various incidents I have highlighted. It is certainly possible that the underlying motivation to commit violent crimes may been have vastly different in these cases.
(iii) Irrespective of the idea you may get away with on reading this, it was by no means written to drive home the imperative for converting to vegetarianism.
I cannot however deny that I feel the same logic applies to the whole issue of vegetarianism though.