Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Humans and the right to roam freely on Earth

Sometimes I wonder, animals and birds can freely roam from any place to any other on Planet Earth. Nobody stops them from walking over the mountains, crossing the "borders" and moving or settling in a new territory.

Us humans, arguably the most special species on this planet, in contrast, do not enjoy this right to move freely on our very special planet. I ask why. Why aren't humans allowed to travel freely on Earth? To whom does this planet belong? Can anyone be stopped from traveling to other celestial bodies (like the Moon, or perhaps Mars or to an asteroid)? Most likely not. So why cannot humans travel to any part of Earth, a planet that belongs to all of us collectively but none of us individually...

An aerial view of a dense forest.

12 comments:

  1. Panchi nadiya pawan ke jhonke...
    koi sarhad na inhe roke..!

    Sarhadein insaanon ke liye hain...
    Socho tumne aur maine kya paaya
    insaan hoke..!

    :) This song speaks your heart, haina? :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think one reason can be as you also say that 'We are just so many!' And moreover because humans have very high consciousness relative to other species, it has more needs & so more issues to fight. So boundaries are 'supposed' to reduce the chances of conflicts by forming smaller groups...

    It's like one neighbor (or else) to other-I have my own home (country) you have your own, you can come to my home (where my rules are followed!) but don't forget to ring the bell (visa work)! :)

    There is one king in one jungle but there is the need for so many human rulers (implying more boundaries-physical or non-physical)even within a single country not because we are more wild but because we just can do 'So' much (both positive & negative) & that needs a check!(which is easier to do in smaller groups)

    We need to protect ourselves from our own specie-mates or form agreements amongst ourselves that I'll not harm you & you don't harm me by staying independently in our own territories! But that's a different issue that even after forming agreements (own regions) we humans still have lot many other issues to harm each other!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Perhaps a better situation then, although not the ideal one, would be to allow those who travel on foot to freely traverse any geographical or political boundaries without restriction. The right to be an animal, I mean. Humans ought to have this right - the right to be an animal, because that's what we are after all. Lol, that looks like an interesting thought. We're "forced" to be civilized "people", and aren't even allowed to be just animals :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Right to be an animal, Sounds good! :)

    haan it is ideal & not practical as you say because animals are just animals they cannot think more than food (practically) but humans are not just animals they have lot much in their minds & so cannot enjoy that privilege of being taken as animals.

    You never no, after getting right to be an "animal" you enter singapore & udhar enter karke, uski beauty dekhkar teri "insaaniyat" jaag jaaye aur tu oose invade karna chahe! :)
    So it's a risky right! :) :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Comments mein bi option honi chahiye - Interesting, Intriguing, Not good.
    So that one gets to know the reaction of the receiver even when there's nothing to comment further or any other reason.

    ReplyDelete
  6. But wouldn't that allow the reader who comments to "manipulate" his or her comments based on author's reactions to previous comments? Wouldn't that kill the spirit of honest comments and make it a game of writing only "interesting" comments?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Why will one change his/her reactions based on what the author desire? No one comments to make the author happy or disturbed. It's to discuss or share one's own views too on the topic author has written about.
    It'll only tell the reader who comments that what's the author's perception about his opinion in a similar way as he/she has shared his/her perception about author's opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  8. So we should have a 'Like' button on comments, right? FB already has it, and I guess Blogger too will. But people don't always "like" a comment when they 'Like' a comment (I've observed this on FB). More granular buttons ("Interesting", "Disagree", etc.) might be immune to this problem.

    Agree.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ya, the options which render the conversation to be complete even when there's no suitable reply which can be written.
    Having objective reaction is somehow better than no reaction, coz at least it gives the feeling that one's view has been thought over & not ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  10. So a neutral button called "Ok, I've read it." is also needed. It should perhaps be called just "Ok".

    ReplyDelete