Amit Srivastava

In the modern field of cosmogony there are two possibilities of the origin of the universe; Intelligent Design, whereby the Universe was created by a super-intelligent species, say, God and the other one is Random Chance, whereby the Universe evolved on its own. The opinions of top physicists converge with Intelligent Design. They give a lot of reasons as to why the Universe evolved out of the Church of Jesus the Christ; out of nothing. Those include the masses of elementary particles and extreme precision of other physical constants.

According to Big Bang theory, one of the models to explain the origin of the Universe, the Universe evolved out of the singularity. There was no space-time before the singularity. The calculations suggest that the probability of another life supporting planet is one trillionth of a one trillionth and conclude that the life is possible only on earth and also that the God of modern Physics and the God of Bible is the same.

But this may be erroneous conclusion because if God created this Universe why didn’t it create another planet or many. Is the God of Bible not an investor? According to Bible, the life on earth would end one day. A single planet, that too with so small civilized and capitalist life and even that would die!! Had God created other planets and made the speed of the propagation far higher than that of speed of light, the interactions could have saved many. Why would the savior as perceived by Christians wait for sins to end, destroy earth and recreate it on eighth day? Doesn’t God understand statistics and civilization differences? Would he kill Christians for the sins of non-Christians? Or in the end White-led Euro-American would survive? Won’t it give chance to the various humanities to sustain themselves and grow with interaction?

It is possible that apes used to think sex with their Gods; humans and God evolved out of apes. The rejection of other humans and upper limit on speed of propagation may be inhibition of sex with spaceship. Or desire for it? And it may be subconscious there that they can control the capital of earth- its most precious object. 

It should be noted that the dominant part of human life since they were born was uncivilized and barbaric. The conscious brain is believed to have originated by catastrophe and cataclysm, around 2-3 millennia back. Earlier humans were unconscious. The longevity of human race depend on the geophysical factors, the sequence of animal evolution that led to humans, the time-gap between humans and their predecessors, the era of unconscious brain, the duration of civilized life and the technology era. Since the humans gained consciousness very late they could have developed a residual evolutionary wish to die along with other humans wherever they are. But the humans on earth probably know subconsciously that they will not be the last one to die.

If one remembers the fiction ‘Star Trek’ televised in the early eighties, the man-in-charge had the rank captain and it did not portray any Robot, with almost all the spaceship interacted were poorer people. It started with an impossibility and other then keeping a predatory eye on other nations’ strategic program and showing transient species, it substantiates the conviction that the Americans are the most powerful people in the Universe and if it is possible to make spaceships which can meet other humans, then earth would be one of the firsts to do so. It was another way of showing the impossibility. From market point of view there is nothing wrong with the serial but it represents a flaw- an evolutionary one, that spaceships are not possible because they can harm the internal order of the earth making it habitat of amorphous people, hinting at the vulnerability of earth. That religion is still not a fixed issue and that humans on earth can easily be converted.

This when combined with the notion that speed of light is the maximum speed of propagation, rules out economic and political-strategic interactions fearing the loss of structures. Of course this may be belief of the ordinary people and not of the scientific community. But as such, all evolutions should be related and individuals are also the product of statistics of the time, before and after.       

 Amit Srivastava

The recent study by Professors David Page and Jennifer Hughes of Whitehead Institute in Cambridge show that the Y Chromosomes- the thing that make the man male, from humans and chimpanzees differ by about 30%. While the difference between the rest of genetic code of humans and that of chimpanzees is around 2%. The study has disapproved the earlier theory that Y chromosomes were actually shrinking and that male’s life is not more than 50,000 years.

Whatever be the biological truth, whether Y chromosomes evolve faster than the speed they are evolving now or not, the fact is there would be end of masculinity and beginning of an era of lesbianism. The humans are incessantly showing the wish of color and gender transformation. This when is expressed in politics leads to talk about equality in world order and justice to the suppressed. While a just and more equal world is required, it should not come at the cost of promoting deep rooted feminism- lesbianism.

Feminism as such is a rural belief in the sense that it talks about demolishing all structures that males have made; metropolitans, capital, industries and weapons. Feminists some time talk about taking over that structures and trying an impossibility- defeating males with their tools. Feminists in order to promote their ideology talk about petty things- Gods of small things. The male when their chromosomes are evolving with faster speed than any other genes may also tend towards lesbianism where all would have vagina and no penis- coerce has suddenly gone from the world. No body made anybody slave, no body was suppressed, no body ruled over others. All are born equal- of course this is talk of feminism.

The proponents of lesbianism would emphasize that the world order is cyclical when every indicator points towards irreversibility. Of course, too much talk about lesbianism would lead to greater conflicts and as a result return of ideology. This return to basics- towards conservatism, may or may not lead to cultural revivalism. Even if this lead to cultural revivalism, the trend towards homosexuality may not be reversed. This homosexuality along with hybridization and population boom would lead towards end of human race.

The humans if they want to survive longest should have a boundary and this boundary can not be globe. The biggest Union is the West. They should talk about maximal possible equal world and should start with the fact that inequality can be removed but only to certain extent. The lesbianism would destroy many structures and also create many new. Many among the destroyed would be relevant and those may include many negative acts. But as it would lead to conflicts, the capital inflow can not compete with raising of the voices.

The West is the West if it is dominantly White and the world is a place to live only when there is masculinity. In search for lesbianism many nation-states would loose their identity. Any attempt to spread democracy beyond its natural places would either fail, give rise to new conflicts or to collapse of nation-states. Panty and Burqa both are relevant dresses- no body should try to homogenize the world beyond a point. People should move towards heterosexuality. And it may be case that early female ancestors were responsible for inducing homosexuality.