Our Obsession with full digits and how much do we suffer from it


I don’t know whether anyone has thought about it or not but at least I have not read or heard anyone talking about it; this thought has always been doing rounds inside me, and that is, our obsession with full digits. All of us have a tendency to jump to the nearest full digits at the slightest opportunity. But I don’t think anyone has ever estimated the loss do we humans suffer to due to our obsession with full digits.


Following are some examples which come to my mind instantly


Suppose a deal is going to be settled logically at 99.5 lakh, then there is all probability that they will settle it in100 lakhs. Now why on earth should one party bear a loss of 50 thousand?


An investment Guru is giving 10 best stocks to invest in.

Suppose there are only 9 stocks fulfilling the criteria of the investment Guru, but to make it 10, he might have included one stock not worth inclusion. Or may be he might have a total 12 stocks fulfilling his criteria, but he gave us only 10, in that case too, he has deprived us of some information due to obsession with full digits.


My teacher wanted to know how muchtime i would require to solve a problem

I thought 5 mins would be too less and 10 mins would be too much, but still I ended up saying either 5 or 10 mins, though what I wanted to say was “7 mins”. I was deprived of giving correct assessment of time required by me.


One has to start a new project conceived on Friday afternoon, and even with six working days in a week (ie Saturday working), it’s decided to start the job from the coming Monday. Who is now responsible for this time loss?


The reasons for this obsession is psychological for sure, and I don’t want to go into further details of it. Here I have raised a question, the question is not that why are we obsessed with full digits, but, why do we suffer losses for this and why no one has not yet estimated the extent of it.




Evolution of Humans: Developed world and Developing world















Recently a British genetics expert, Steve Jones stated that humans in developed world have stopped evolving, because people there in western countries need not struggle for there survival and the famous theory of Darvin “survival for the fittest” doesn’t come into picture. And he didn’t miss saying that the evolution hasn’t stopped in the developing world, because people there have to struggle for survival.


I am no expert in the evolution theory of genetics, nor have I studied biology beyond matriculation, nor I want to challenge the British expert because I am not qualified enough, but I cant suppress something in me which tend to disagree.


This seems to be a loose statement and I differ and would like to raise some points


He says that humans in developing countries stopped evolving because they need to struggle for survival. Well, I feel this is a very sweeping statement, as not all people in developing countries struggle to survive, many of the people live as lavish life as people in developed countries. So does that mean that in developing countries too some people have stopped evolving? Evolution takes a vast time frame, even for a minor change thousands of years pass. And I don’t think it takes anything more than a century for backward countries to develop, so as per the theory of Mr Steve, nowadays peole of developing countries are subject to evolution and after hundred years they will again stop evolving? It seems Mr Steve has assumed that all backward countries will remain backward in next thousand years.

Or can anyone say it for sure that all people in developed countries need not struggle for survival.


Even if I view it from another point of view, and forget about developed and backward countries as mentioned by Mr Steve, can it be assumed that anyone irrespective of country he lives in, if lives in extreme poverty, then his further generations would also live in extreme poverty so that evolution could take place?

I think evolution theory is not same for humans and animals, as animals can not change their life at their will, they will live in jungle, struggle for survival and in the process, will evolve. But in case of humans, as they have got the ability of change their life due to highly developed mind, their process of evolution should be different. Suppose someone lives in extreme poverty and need to struggle for survival, so is his next generation, so next to next generation, but it’s not guaranteed that his 100 generations will live for sure in extreme conditions for evolution to come into picture. In fact it’s very likey that his next generations live in much better conditions.  


One more fault (at least I think so) in Mr Steve’s theory is that he has assumed that if conditions so come, people in developed world will not evolve, and also there wont be any crisis which would call for further evolution of humans.


Evolution takes place in a very vast time frame, but nature has made it sure that even in a very short time frame further generations of living beings may be born with somewhat better profile, by making two sexes in almost all of living beings.

All the species happen to have a tendency to extend their population and two sexes can help the newborn inheriting better of two. This is a natural refinement process of the living beings, but unfortunately we humans waste it because in our civilization marriage is supposed to happen only between equals.


Are Birds close to Reptiles













Few days back I watched a show on discovery channel which tried to establish a link between dinosaurs and birds, it said that possibly birds evolved from dinosaurs. It showcased many reasons for the same. Mainly the similarity between the skeletons of the birds and dinosaurs was too convincing, such similarity to the dinosaurs is not scene in any other living creature on earth.Also dinosaurs are believed to have respiratory systems similar to modern birds.


 As the dinosaurs are said to be reptiles ( As they had no fur, laid eggs, their skin had scales, and many of their species were cold blodded )  after watching that show, I started wondering whether birds are close to reptiles, though birds are not technically reptiles as they are warm blooded as opposed to reptiles which are cold blooded. But there are many similarities, which are following

  • Birds and reptiles both lay eggs
  • Birds and reptiles show some skeletal similarities
  • Birds have feathers, which are said to be modified scales
  • Birds feet have scales 

Even whether dinosaurs were reptiles, is too debatable, as it’s still not sure whether they were warm blooded or cold blooded. Till the mid 20th century it was believed that dinosaurs were cold blooded, slow moving creatures, but later research has found that they were very active animals and could have been warm blooded. This issue is still debatable.  Also one dissimilarity between dinosaurs and reptiles is that the legs of dinosaurs were directly below their hips, like in mammals and unlike in lizards.


So, the conclusion of the above is that there are similarities between both birds and reptiles and dinosaurs and reptiles, so scientists established a theory that both birds and reptiles had a common ancestor in dinosaurs. But there are many who even believe that birds are not evolved from dinosaurs but birds are dinosaurs.


Many may think that why I’m discussing such a topic, or how does it matter if birds are close to reptiles. But it matters to me because I used to like birds and used to not like reptiles. In fact I hate reptiles, I become restless if I spot a lizard on the walls and cant live in such a place. So, now after watching that show on discovery and analyzing similarities between birds and reptiles, I didn’t really enjoy this fact.


Technological Advancement: Why Only Last Few Centuries Have Witnessed it All









 Scientists say humans evolved in the present shape some 2 Lakh years back, and since then we have inhabited this planet, expanded our civilization, made society and are trying to make our life as better as possible.

 We made lots of inventions since the ancient times for the betterment of our life style.But what surprises me is that how come most of the technology and scientific inventions happened to be part of last couple of centuries only. If I put it in numbers then since last 2000 centuries when humans evolved in present form, only last 5 centuries count for fundamental scientific research and last 2 centuries witnessed technological advancement. 

 There is a difference between science & technology, as technology (Engineering) is the application of fundamental science, so we can assume that most of the fundamental scientific research (In the field of Physics & Mathematics), which solved some of the basic questions, happened in last 5 centuries (Including Newton era) and most of the advancement of technology (ie application of science) happened in the last couple of centuries, which started with the industrial revolution in Great Britain in late 17th century.

 When I think why exactly is it so, I come to a conclusion (As, I have to come to the conclusion for the sake of it) that the humans in the beginning when evolved could not understand the nature and it’s complications, they were afraid of rains, quakes, floods and other natural disasters, when they could not demystify these natural phenomenons, they assumed in the power of almighty God. The concept of God became the answer to all the questions which the poor human could not answer and the concept of religion came into existence. Further, the Kings and the heads of Human societies too believed in the Religion/God and took shelters of some religious Gurus. The concept of religious Gurus was a worldwide phenomenon who were advisors to the Kings. In Indian tradition there was a concept of “Rajguru” in the west “pope” (Though pope is a very recent phenomenon) and before Pope, the religious advisers to the Kings. 

 And these religious Gurus were one of the major hurdles in the advancement of the science in the ancient times. These religious Gurus could have their position in question had the people started believing scientific theories. We all know about the story of Socrates of Greece , that how he was given the death sentence when he tried to defer from the religious beliefs of that time and tried to explain the things scientifically.


 I know I came to this “conclusion” for the sake of it, and this is just one of the reasons, and still this question continues to haunt me that how come the most of technological inventions happened in a very ridiculously brief period of the human history.


Exploring the Endeavors of Human Civilization


















There has been lot of buzz about a recent experiment in Geneva where the scientists want to create the circumstances just after the big bang. This was the time when “Time” and “Matter” was created as per the threory of Big Bang.This experiment claims to help us understand the very fundamental question, that who we are, where are we and why are we? In short, this is an attempt to answer the question that how this universe came in to existence.


  Just a couple of days back I heard a scientist on television saying that they are trying to find out why the universe looks the way it does. Frankly speaking I was surprised to see a scientist speak like that. For me, the question “why it looks the way it does” is not a fundamental question at all.Simply because we can not judge or see this universe only with respect to us, the humans.


A very basic misconception that many of us have is,

“There exist no objective world irrespective of an observer”


 What all we see, feel and observe is with respect to us, with the help of the powers/ senses given to us by the nature. For example, Bats can hear some ultrasonic sounds which exist, but we cant hear. Many animals cant see colours but we humans can see.So, ultrasonic sounds exist, that we found with the help of our technology, but in this huge cosmos, there are so many things which exist but we can’t feel.



 “What exists” too is not a fundamental question because everything “exists” with respect to something. For example, a piece of wood is solid with respect to us, but it’s not solid with respect to a single cell bacteria. About 90% space within an atom is empty where electrons revolve around the nucleus. So, what’s the definition of a “solid”.


 There is a saying in sanskrit “Yatha pinde tatha Brahmande “, which means every particle is a universe in itself.


  So, everything we see, feel and observe in this universe is with respect to us, with the power/senses gien to us by the nature, this universe is different with respect to an animal, again entirely different with respect to an insect , and again different with respect to a bacteria…And all together different with respect to some species which never born on earth/universe…………So? what’s there without respect to anything….What’s there in absolute terms….Answer is, may be nothing, may be a pack of energy ..or may be God..





 At times i feel what is the aim of our human civilization, where are we moving to?? Can we get the answer in our lifetime????