Pondering Parenthood

I have wanted to be a parent since I was in my late teens, as strange as it might sound. I guess the parent mind-set entered into my brain when I became a big brother a few months before turning four. I had to help my mother in taking care of my baby brother; I had to be a role model, mature, and act like grown up. Part of it might be genetics, but the concept of responsibility was inculcated into my brain at a very young age.

As I grew older I understood the sacrifices my parents have made for us. My extremely qualified mother had to stay home to ensure our education was never neglected. My parents never went anywhere or did anything fun for themselves so that we can have a disciplined life at home. They did not take cable TV when we were young so we won’t be distracted from our studies. They spent their entire life savings on our education, and my dad left a stable career where he had worked nearly 25 years and stayed back in a country for our education. Along with these major sacrifices, we cannot quantify the infinite smaller sacrifices they have made for us nearly every single day of our lives, from financial support to emotional support to cooking for us every time we are home, and packing a week’s worth of food when we leave!

Even though our parents have loved us unconditionally, as children we weren’t always grateful. Many a time we never appreciated or understood their love. One of the sad facts of life is that many of us don’t understand someone else’s love until we have loved ourselves, and many of us don’t understand the love of parents until we ourselves have been parents. That is a mistake I might have made in adolescence, but something I have actively tried to avoid since my mid-20s. I do not want to be the person who appreciates someone else’s love, caring, kindness, and sacrifice when its too late.

As such, being a parent for me is giving back to 1-2 more lives what my parents have done for me. It is passing on what I have learned in my life, my experiences, knowledge, my mistakes. Each generation should learn from their’s and previous generations so they can make the next generation’s lives better. I want to have a kid or two, and give them all my love and affection. I might not be the most verbal individual in the world, but I hope they can understand my love for them through my actions. I want to be a role model for them so they have healthy childhood, and they in turn can be a role model for their own children. Not only as a father, I want to be a role model to them as a husband to my wife so they learn from childhood that both genders are equal. If they see me doing household chores, cooking, cleaning, and grocery, maybe they will grow up with a progressive mindset towards gender roles. Marriage, or any relationship, should be a partnership – a teamwork, where both couple complement each other. Today I might cook, and tomorrow she might cook. Or I love cooking more and she loves cleaning more, maybe I will cook more often and she will clean more often. There should be no defined roles, but a true partnership based on our interests, desires, and compromise.

Being a parent also means living a disciplined live so they have a stable childhood. It also means being disciplined financially so they can pursue whatever they want to do, whether it be a doctor, tennis player, or a musician. My parents gave me a better life than they had. And I want my kids to have a better life than I do. I hope they can travel more, learn more cultures and languages, and see the world more. But that can happen if I can provide a stable foundation as a parent. The responsibilities are enormous, but nothing can compare when you see your loved ones being happy. When you unconditionally love someone and see they succeed, prosper, smile, and be happy…that is a reward in itself for all your efforts.

I am under no illusion about how hard it is to be a parent. I will have months of sleepless nights. I will be worried about them for the rest of my life. I will be hurt by them. It might be a disaster. But when I see my parents do it all, see so many people sacrifice so much for their children, I want to too. Whatever my strengths or weaknesses, I know when I decide to love someone with everything I have, I can go farther than most people. And that is what I hope to do, love my kids and wife…have a loving family where we can build our own stories, our own laughter and tears, and hopefully leave my children with a better world and a better future. That must be the goal of every generation – leave a better planet than what we found. And if we can do that successfully as a good role model, hopefully our kids can learn from us and leave an even better world for their children and our grandchildren.


Put the Sci in your Fi – #2 – Beakers, Bunsen Burners and Budget Cuts (Part 1)

Read this blog from an amazingly talented and imaginative scientist about how scientists use some day-to-day wares and instruments in a life science laboratory.


First of all, thank you to fellow sci-fi writer K.S. Watts for the title!

And now, on to post no. 2 for putting the ‘sci’ in your ‘fi’, part 1 of the mini-series, Beakers, Bunsen Burners and Budget Cuts!

If you’ve watched any sci-fi movie, you’re probably familiar with the following setting:

Super dark, blue-lit labs… (Image credit: jimmyjimjim)

Full of high-tech equipment… (Image credit: neisbeis)

Why do labs always look like this? Because it’s edgy. It’s dramatic. It’s exciting and photogenic.

It’s also incredibly expensive. And who can blame the author for wanting to set up a billion-dollar lab? Expensive, flashy toys are always exciting, not to mention they are apparently extremely effective at getting the job done. Vaccines can be discovered and mass-produced within a week, amiright?

But what if your character is not a trust fund baby with rich parents, and they want to set…

View original post 1,500 more words

Gender stereotypes and toxic masculinity

Recently, I read on the internet about a famous director’s statement that women have never been complicit in any atrocity in history. Many women took offense at it because that is factually not true, and putting women on a pedestal propagates gender stereotypes and is ultimately detrimental in fighting sexism, including benevolent sexism like this director’s supposedly well-intentioned statements. In this blog post I want to focus on how gender stereotypes from everyone can affect us all. Whether it is society’s unrealistic expectations of women, or the expectations of men that can lead to toxic masculinity, both issues need to be addressed honestly. Since I was in high school, I have had dozens of female friends who have shared their most intimate pain and sufferings with me, details they even hide from own parents and husbands. One of the most common themes I have heard over these past 18 years is that it is the women in their lives – their mothers, grandmothers, sisters, friends – are the ones who have enforced the rules of patriarchy and made their lives miserable. They are the ones who enforced gender rules detrimental to these girls’ independence and freedom. They are the ones who have slut-shamed their sisters and friends. From my grandmother’s time in her village in India, to my own friends’ lifetime here in New York City, it is the mothers-in-law who have treated their daughters-in-law the worst. And stories that break my heart the most is when mothers and grandmothers know of sexual abuse in their household, but protect the male perpetrators to maintain the “honor” of the family.

These personal anecdotes doesn’t even encompass the complicity of women in wartimes, crimes, and genocides. The point is to show that women too can commit crimes, they can lie, and can entrap. Indian society has had a huge problem with women being murdered and tortured over dowry, as well as facing sexual harassment and assaults in daily lives. As the laws have strengthened to prevent these atrocities, false accusations of dowry harassment or sexual assaults in exchange for extortion have also skyrocketed. It is factually true that women suffer more than men because of their gender and associated stereotypes, but putting anyone or any group on a pedestal of perfection doesn’t help anyone, least of all women who suffer because of other women.

I and countless others have written about male and female gender stereotypes of women and how it negatively effects women. In this article I also want to focus on the male and female gender stereotypes of men and how it can lead to toxic masculinity. It would be negligent to say that our evolutionary history has no say in what traits we look for in a partner of the opposite gender. Combine that with cultural expectations of gender roles and we have a toxic situation in our hands. Whether it is looks and obedient attitude from women, or power and being the provider from men, these expectations has led individuals to act out in detrimental fashion. We shouldn’t train boys to withhold their emotions. They will grow up to be men who cannot express themselves, men who bottle up their feelings before they explode. We shouldn’t have toys and games for different genders, where girls are guided towards traditionally feminine toys such as Barbie dolls that focuses on looks, and boys are guided towards action figures that focuses on violence and power.

To combat toxic masculinity, we should be teaching men and boys how to harness their traits and testosterone towards better causes. We should stop rewarding testosterone-charged behaviors and traits, the side-effects of which leads to war, violence, domestic abuse, and sexual assaults. As per many psychologists, rape is less about sex and more about power and domination. Expecting men to be the strong, silent type can have detrimental effects, and both genders are complicit in propagating these stereotypes. Both genders use the phrases “be a man”, or “grow some balls” when talking about courage. Does that mean “being a woman/girl” means lacking in courage? And what does it matter if someone lacks in courage about something? False bravado or trying to be stupidly brave has led to enough wars and violence. Let men be emotional if they want to. Let women join the combat marines if they want to. Let boys play with dolls, let women play with video games. Many times I hear, even from the most feminist/progressive women, that they want the stereotypical manly men. When I point out the contradiction between the views of no gender expectations for women but having the same expectations from men, many fall back upon the tried and tested answer of “it is in our nature/it is part of evolution”. Are we going to be limited by our genes and natural selection, or do we believe in free will and think we can rise beyond our primal instincts?

Instead of silence, we can teach boys to be communicative and expressive, so they can grow up to be communicative partners. Strength shouldn’t mean physical strength, but emotional strength, so men have a proper outlet for emotions and pain without resorting to unhealthy vices and outbursts. “Being a man” can mean someone can be loving, caring, affectionate, and expressive of emotions, without any of these traits being mocked at. “Being a man” can mean teaching responsibility and maintaining equanimity in tough situations. Men should police themselves so we do not glorify behaviors such as rape jokes or using degrading language used towards women in our personal conversations. It is not the woman’s responsibility to dress in a way so that they don’t get assaulted or harassed. It is men’s responsibility to be respectful and not see women as walking meat. If a man doesn’t think he can control himself around a woman, he should remove himself from the situation or from society, not remove the woman from the situation or from society by making her stay indoors. Power can be used to dominate, and it can also be used to bring about changes. Men should be part of feminist issues because change isn’t happening without both genders working towards it. It means men taking a deep look at how their attitudes and behaviors and assumptions affects women. It also means many women not instinctively assuming all men as scum or pigs, which can quickly turn off potential allies. It means men not putting women on pedestals, and helping women calling out their own who are complicit in abuse and misogyny. As individuals and as society we have to decide how quickly we can rise above biology or culture. Arc of time has always bent towards progressive values. It is up to us to decide how quickly we can accept change, and if we as a generation want to be on the right side of history.

Put the Sci in your Fi – #1 – Button, button, who’s got the button?

Amazing post about…would a genetically engineered baby grown outside a womb have a belly button?


Hey guys! In keeping with one of my New Year’s resolutions, I’m starting up a new section on my blog: Put the Sci in your Fi.

My hope and intent with this blog thread is to create a fun, informal resource for non-scientists who want to write Sci-Fi novels. Those of you who are already well immersed in SF writing will know that you must do your homework, and sometimes there’s a great deal of homework to be done. But sometimes, it’s hard to know what to look for when you’re unfamiliar with the field, especially if you’re looking for something specific.

giphy Always researching…

During the course of writing SF, I’ve been asked a good number of questions that I did my best to explain. There is a certain level of creativity that we can inject into our works, of course. Otherwise, we might as well just write textbooks, and…

View original post 1,340 more words

Beliefs vs Facts

As a human and not a machine (unfortunately), I have numerous beliefs. But I have tried hard over the last 10-12 years to differentiate between beliefs and facts. I believe in God, but I don’t consider existence of God/s to be an objective fact. In this issue, atheists and agnostics have a better rational argument than I have. Just because none of us know the answer, doesn’t mean the answer that comforts us most (and belief in God is comforting to me) is the objective answer. Therefore I am dispassionate about beliefs, but what does upset me is when people force personal beliefs on others as a matter of fact.
Very few things can be considered objective facts. Political ideology is certainly not one of them. I might lean liberal in most issues, but neither liberal nor conservative ideologies are objective truths. Role of government vis-à-vis social safety nets, abortion, healthcare, military, and education can elicit deep emotional responses, but no matter how deeply we feel about the issue, the other side feels just as deeply about their viewpoint. This doesn’t mean logical inconsistencies or hypocrisy cannot exist on either side regarding an issue. We can still debate for our beliefs while still calling out irrationality or double-standards on all sides.
“Man-made climate change is a hoax” or “GMOs are inherently dangerous” are objective falsehoods. Evolution is true and vaccines are safe are objective truths. We should be humble enough to accept that the Universe is far too complicated for us to fully comprehend. But the scientific proofs and consensus in these issues are far too strong that unless there is a paradigm shift with new data, these scientific issues are objective truths. 9/11 was not a false-flag operation by Bush, and Obama was born in America are objective facts, doesn’t matter what the far-left and far-right want to believe. Once we learn to distinguish between facts and beliefs, hopefully we can be dispassionate in our debates and arguments and learn to understand the other side’s perspectives. It doesn’t mean giving up on all our beliefs, but at least not considering differing beliefs as objectively evil or falsehoods, or not giving in to the loonies on either extremes. It means not instinctively supporting “our team” or opposing the “other team”, but trying out best to study an issue devoid of emotions and then deciding if it is an issue that can have an objective answer, or is it an issue that will remain subjective and therefore open for endless debates.

Immigration is important, and it must be fair.

Last week I completed 17 years in the United States, and three weeks back was 14 years since I last entered the country. I have been extremely fortunate at the opportunities I have had here, while the byzantine and illogical immigration rules have at times made it impossible or risky to travel abroad, and also stressing me out about the uncertainty of my future legal status. Yet the immigration debate on both sides bother me, where the binary choices come down to either slashing immigration numbers or supporting all undocumented immigration. Here are my thoughts on a few immigration topics –


First, here are some basic statistics about immigration in the United States –

  • There were over 617,000 green cards issued last year, including over 230,000 in the family category and over 370,000 in the employment category.
  • There are over 4.3 million people waiting on line for their green cards.
    • As of October 2017, the waiting line for some family-based categories goes back 20-22 years for Mexico and Philippines, while for India and China it goes back 6-13 years.
    • For employment-based green cards, the waiting line for India goes back 9 to 11 years, and for China it goes back 3 to 4 years.
  • There were nearly 10.4 million visas issued last year, while an additional 3.7 million visa applications were denied.
  • Over 40% of those living in the country without proper documentation have overstayed their visas, and every year since 2007 more people have overstayed their visas than crossed the border illegally.

As someone still jumping through visa hoops, I wonder what will I do if I go back to a country I have visited once in 17 years, especially when my own parents and sibling are citizens here. From a rational perspective, we need young people who go to school, college, and contribute to society and the economy. We need these young workers and innovators whose contributions can create even more jobs. From a moral perspective, we shouldn’t punish those who came here as children and for whom this is the only country they know or remember. Neither the latest DREAM Act proposal nor DACA should discriminate against legal immigrants who came to this country as children, which both currently do, but who have fallen through the cracks of the system because of long waiting periods. Immigration, when done right, is important for economic growth. Immigrants are consumers, employees, and employers. Their participation in the economy causes growths of jobs and new industries. They help businesses that cannot find enough qualified native workers. Immigrants tend to move to different locations more than native-born. This helps the growth of sparsely population and rural regions. When immigrants are younger they slow the aging of the population, and their contribution to the economy and taxes lessen the burden on the social safety net.

Immigration laws must also be fair, to protect both immigrants and native workers. Legal immigration must be made easier for those truly in need, like refugees and asylum-seekers from across the world, as well as those who can contribute to a country’s growth. We must fight restriction on intake of refugees, as well as fight the discriminatory ban on Muslim-majority countries. As an immigrant, myself and others have looked upon the ideals of America as a land of fresh start, a land where old tribal identities and battles can no longer hold us back, and a land of laws and a sense of justice and fairness. Helping refugees portrays the good side of America. And if we help those truly in need, we also benefit to reap the rewards of their gratitude. The ban on Muslim-majority countries does not distinguish between individuals, and painting them with a broad brush just because they share some man-made tribal identities is inherently unfair and immoral.

Whether it is high-skilled jobs or blue-collar workers, as long as employers aren’t allowed to abuse the minimum wage laws, hiring of immigrants must be made easier for employers when they cannot find native workers. But once people are allowed to immigrate as workers, like on H1B, they must be allowed to change jobs or look for other jobs without losing their immigration status by tying them to a particular employer. This gives the employee more rights to negotiate salary and benefits, and prevents employers from driving down their own cost and employee wages by hiring immigrants over native workers. As an immigrant going through the byzantine immigration process, as well as part of a company’s management, I have experienced the frustrations of the immigration system from both sides. There have been a few times I have thought it is better to go back than deal with the amount of paperwork required for filing an application, or feeling overwhelmed by the waiting line. And I have also seen that one of the biggest disruption for a small business is employee turnover. If someone has received a high-skilled work visa and has been working at the same company for half a dozen years, getting an employment-based green card should be automatic or at least made easier. Yet the employment-based green card process is ridiculously complicated for employers trying to keep their senior or high-qualified employees.

Similarly, H1B visas or employment-based green cards shouldn’t punish employers who spend time, money, resources on their immigrant employees who promptly quit when they find something better. It is not fair to tie employees to an employer, but it is also not fair to an employer to make them go through the months-long process of doing immigration paper-work and then lose the employee in a short period of time. Immigration categories like H1B must also be fixed so that a few multi-national companies, like those from India, do not abuse the process by placing tens of thousands of applications and overwhelming the visa lottery process. Smaller businesses should not suffer because larger companies get most of the H1B visas because they afford tens of thousands of applications. And highly-skilled workers of other countries should not be left behind because the vast majority of H1B visas go to Indian multinational companies who have overwhelmed the visa lottery process.

If the employment-based immigration process is complicated and long for those from India or China, I think the family-based green card process is even worse. Limits on immigrations from individual nations has resulted for some countries’ citizens getting a green card in a few months to a couple of years, while for people from countries such as India, China, Mexico, and Philippines it can take a dozen years to a few decades. And the visa categories have ensured that if someone turns 21 while waiting, or for a few other reasons, they can get kicked off the line and start the process all over again. For those who fall under these cracks, like myself, getting a green card through the legal process can possibly take half a lifetime, even if they have been here since they were children. Yet someone coming from overseas through marriage can get a green card in a matter of months.


From my experience, illegal immigration, even among the immigrant population, is an issue that varies by age and geographical ancestry of immigrants. Liberal second-generation immigrants, or those who came at a very young age, or those from countries without a long waiting line, tend to have a different view towards undocumented immigrants than those from other places of the world who have experienced the excruciating slowness or cruelty of legal immigration laws. Those who have had to wait years or decades or gone through tremendous hassles have a more negative view towards undocumented immigrants. We cannot have people living in the shadows and in fear. Without legal rights, they are at risk from being taken advantage of by employers and other unscrupulous people. Immigration must be made easier and practical, but stronger borders are necessary to thwart human traffickers or those taking advantage of their geographical proximity to the United States. It also ensures that those trying to immigrate legally do not lose out by following the rules.

If we are going to have immigration laws, we must have enforcement of those laws. If we choose to have open borders where anyone who can afford a flight ticket or rent a pickup truck can stay here, that is okay. But having immigration laws for those who follow them, and not enforcing the laws on those who don’t is inherently unfair on the former. I support stronger border because of the fairness for legal immigrants and protection for illegal immigrants. Imagine if half of those 10+ million getting visas annually decide to stay behind after their status expires. Or the millions whose applications are rejected each year decide to cross the border illegally. Most adults who are currently here without documentation must get a pathway to citizenship. But they must get behind those who have been waiting for green cards through the legal pathway. Sometimes I keep reading that sending people to the back of the line isn’t desirable because of how long and slow the legal line is. But it would be inherently unfair if those following the rules are treated worse than those who did not.

I hope for a world of open borders and unhindered travel. But for such a world to exist, we must have economic equality between nations so that the free movement of people isn’t only in one direction. We shouldn’t build walls, but prosperous nations must do more to help people in the poorer nations. With opportunities and economic security, there would be less brain-drain from the developing world. Over-population can put a strain on resources, and too much increase in supply of workers can depress wages. We cannot ‘save’ everyone in the world with the wave of a wand. But we can help others to the best of our abilities as a people and a nation.

Not everyone who supports immigration control is a bigot or xenophobe, nor does anyone who supports law and order in immigration matter should be criticized as a racist. We have to understand immigration through human nature. At our innate level, we have a basic fear of others – it is more in some and less in others. Protecting our territory is a trait that goes back deep into evolutionary history. In India, there has been deadly violence when people cross state lines to pursue better job opportunities. Yesterday’s immigrants might oppose today’s immigrants, and today’s immigrants might oppose tomorrow’s. For us to convince others about the positive aspects of immigration and free movements of people, we have to understand their viewpoints as well as ensure that economic security of native workers is taken care of. Ad hominem attacks on anyone who disagrees with us won’t change their mindsets. No matter the positive aspects of immigration, if native workers are struggling economically many will vote against immigration, even if it is self-defeating for the country. And in a democracy, the optics of not trying to ensure the economic security for native workers will do more harm than good to the concept of immigration. Emotional decisions, be it of the bleeding-heart variety or xenophobia, do not tend to work in the long term.

Yemen – forgotten by our tribal mentality

According to the UN, Yemen is currently the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. Countless have died, become homeless, on the verge of starving to death, and besieged by diseases. Yet it has barely created a ripple in American social media. I am starting to realize social media outrage has the potential to produce real-life changes. The conflict in Yemen has been covered by the major American news organizations for years. So why hasn’t the war gone viral or seeped into our collective consciousness in the United States? I think it is because the war in Yemen doesn’t fall under any ready-made narrative. There are no preconceived heroes or villains for liberals or conservatives to pick on. A civil war in a Muslim nation where numerous Muslim nations are fighting a proxy battle doesn’t animate conservatives. Since Israel or some Western nation aren’t involved, liberals aren’t motivated to condemn the atrocities in Yemen either. Add the fact that the Obama administration’s continuous support and arming of Saudi Arabia made it complicit in the war crimes in Yemen, liberal outrage has been mostly muted.

I think in our polarized times what goes viral depends on what tribal narrative it can fall in to. I noticed it earlier this decade and tested the hypothesis in my head during the Sochi Olympics. Just before Sochi started, protesting against the anti-LGBT laws in Russia became a big thing on social media. I was surprised and also happy. But I wanted to know if this attitude will extend to all other countries with anti-LGBT laws or will the topic fade away after Sochi ends. From prior experiences, I guessed it would be the later because it is easy to hate on Russia. But criticizing “minority” countries, where most of these anti-LGBT laws exist, has become very hard for progressives in the West.

It is harder to find ready-made villains in the Yemen conflict, unlike the Syrian refugee crisis. That war had been raging since 2011 and well covered in mainstream media, but it only jumped to social media few years later when the bad guys were white Europeans who were uncaring for asylum-seeking peoples of color. Around that time, I started feeling frustrated about the lazy criticism of mainstream media. The idea that the media did not cover the Syrian war was not true, just like it is not true that the media isn’t covering the Yemeni crisis. Not all news organizations have resources to be everywhere. With consumers moving towards free media, which is also prone to click-bait journalism by appealing to our emotions and personal ideologies, the serious media with high journalistic standards is suffering from declining readership and revenue. Layoffs make it harder to cover every inch of the planet. Safety of journalists also come into consideration in covering every conflict. Therefore, is it not the fault of the citizenry for sometimes being lazy in not getting their news from diverse sources nor paying for good journalism. When the Syrian conflict reached European shores because of refugees, more media outlets could cover it. And only then did the outrage machine about the Syrian crisis go into overdrive. There was no outrage or sympathy at the plight of Turkey, Lebanon, or Jordan, each of whom host over a million Syrian refugees. 30% of Lebanon’s population are Syrian refugees. These information could be found in mainstream media, if not in the social media echo chamber or highly partisan websites.

Similarly, there is a thinking among many that the American media is the world media. If something is not covered in the American media, it is assumed it is not covered anywhere else. Or that the American media has a responsibility to cover every story from every corner of the planet. And if it doesn’t it is proof that American/world media doesn’t care for these other places. For example, over the past week coverage of Hurricane Harvey has dominated American news media. Couple of days back The New York Times reported about the monsoon floods killing over 1000 people across South Asia. I have seen two ways in which a story like this is shared across social media. Some share it for informational purposes. And some share it with a self-righteousness shaming of others. The later goes along these lines – “while the world media/mainstream media is focused on Texas, 1000 people have died in South Asia and little or no attention is being paid to it.” This led me thinking about two things – these monsoon floods have been going on for a while. The people who post with the second attitude did not read about the issue till The New York Times and then the NPR reported on it this week. So they weren’t too far ahead of those whom they were shaming. Secondly, when I look at Indian, Bangladeshi, Pakistani, German, French, or Spain’s English language newspapers’ websites, there are none to maybe one small article on their websites about Hurricane Harvey. Are THEY ignoring the disaster happening in America, or is the more likely explanation that media companies have limited resources, and they invest those resources in places where their readership is more interested in? Indian newspapers report on things happening in and around India. American newspapers report on topics happening in and near America or its allies.

We pick on outrageous comments or actions of individuals on the “other” side and paint them as a monolith. Yet when someone does the same on “our” side, we say these individuals don’t represent all of us. Instead of waiting for full facts or the understanding of nuance, we jump to instant outrage. If liberals support a cause, conservatives have to be against it, even if it goes against conservative ideals. Even if it turns over the conservative movement towards racists and nationalists who would have never been included in the original conservative movement. If conservatives are against something, liberals become for it, even if it means abandoning the ideals of liberalism. Embrace of racists and anti-Muslim bigots on the conservative side has made Muslims an oppressed minority in the eyes of Western liberals. But that has led to the muting of any criticism of LGBT or women’s rights in Islamic nations. There is no outrage at the state persecution or mob lynching of liberals, secularists, or atheists in many of these nations and other “minority” nations. But many of these “minorities” in the US are conservative majorities elsewhere. Many of these “minorities” had vast empires, were conquerers and subjugators, and also engaged in slave trade for centuries. Many of them are apologists about issues within themselves, but quick to point fingers elsewhere. I know this because as a liberal Indian, one of the biggest criticism I get is talking about problems in Indian society. I am met with the familiar – “problems happen everywhere, so are you picking on problems on our side.” One of the biggest causes of bigotry and prejudice is seeing people as “us” vs “them”. Us is the good side. Them is the bad side. And if liberalism also becomes “us” vs “them” where we see people as monoliths of good or bad, victim or oppressor, we lose the individual stories and their nuance. We only speak out when someone of the “victim” tribes of America is affected. And that makes us go silent when atrocities do not fall under such black-and-white American definitions of victim vs oppressor. Taking this attitude to the extreme isn’t only intellectual laziness, it might even be a savior complex that requires certain groups to be the victim groups so we feel good about ourselves when we jump into the outrage bandwagon. In this tribal mentality, who speaks for the liberals when they are killed in the “minority/oppressed group” countries of the world? Who speaks for the women, LGBT, or the atheists in these places? Is it a wonder then that Yemen or numerous other conflicts never reach our consciousness? Liberals must stand for the ideals of liberalism everywhere. Social liberalism must stand for the weak and the oppressed no matter who they are or where they are. It must call out those who oppress individuals or groups, no matter who they are or where they are. If we turn to tribal identities in our fight for social justice, we risk becoming silently complicit in a lot of atrocities and injustice. We risk seeing Rwanda or Sudan or Yemen repeat again and again. We risk abandoning liberals where being a social liberal might mean a death sentence.


Standing up for Science

Many of those on the Left mock conservatives’ anti-science beliefs regarding climate change and evolution, but is liberalism immune to pseudoscience and science denial? How much of the anti-GMO, anti-vaccine, naturopathy sentiments on the Left is related to liberals’ anti-corporatist feelings or influence of New Age beliefs? Standing up for science means standing up for the scientific method and being alert to our own biases. It means studying all issues with a dispassionate, rational, and analytical mind.  For scientists to be trusted as credible sources of information and rationality, we have a higher moral obligation to be rationalists in all aspects of our lives. Passion and emotions are not necessary for empathy, but they can blind our judgment in any topic. A rational mind can also be empathetic, but without losing our equanimity or being influenced by the daily ebbs and flows of life.

“It worked for me” isn’t a scientific statement. We must understand how our nature to remember exceptions, and not the norm, can make us fall prey to low-probability events and treat them as more common than they actually are. This trait also makes us believe in miracles, follow our intuitions, or believe in anecdotes. Our intuitions might tell us nature might be better than biotechnology, but history of our species has shown that it is nature that kills us, and science and technology has improved our health and quality of life. We must understand why randomly selected, placebo-controlled, double-blinded studies are important in weeding out outliers or entire populations with genetic or other variations. In the age of alternate facts, we must be aware of quackery posing in the name of alternative or traditional medicine. Just because it might not harm us (and many do harm us) doesn’t mean it is effective – one of the gold standards in pharmaceutical clinical trials. If we dismissed placebo-controlled trials and fell for anecdotes, the market would be awash with pharmaceutical drugs that “works” in many people.

Searching for ‘meaning’ is human nature. If some in the West find it in Abrahamic religions, many find it in spirituality, nature, or turning towards Eastern religions and traditions which look exotic to westerners. But not everyone of these exotic eastern people believe in their holistic treatments. For many it is an option out of poverty. Growing up in the East, I have experienced and have been subjected to many kinds of pseudoscience, and I have seen poor people turning to quacks while rich people going to cities for medical treatment. It is a privilege of not seeing these hardships and complaining about vaccines or glorifying eastern traditions which came out of necessity, and not necessarily some exotic scientific knowledge that only exists in the East. This doesn’t mean we must support pharmaceutical industry blindly. We can criticize its business practices and ask for improvement in clinical trials. We can support traditional cures that have been proven to be effective. Skepticism is the hallmark of science, but re-litigating debunked ideas regarding climate science, evolution, biotechnology or molecular biology is a waste of time and resources, while causing real harm to people’s health and lives. Similarly, celebrities waste people’s time, money, and health by becoming modern-day snake soil salespeople of unproven naturopathy/holistic/fad treatments. Finally, it is important to know that it is the dose that makes a poison. Working in a testing lab, I know very few products are devoid of harmful ‘chemicals’ like mercury or lead. They might exist in the range of parts per trillion, but exist they do.

In conclusion, if we subject facts to our own biases, we lose all credibility in calling out others who might deny facts. There is no eastern, western, or Islamic science. Science is the study of nature to the best of our technological abilities. As our technology and knowledge keeps improving, so will our scientific hypothesis and theories. Standing up for science means standing up for rationality and the scientific method, without subjecting it to our ideological beliefs. It means standing up for funding, resources, independent research, support for students, engineers, healthcare professionals, and everyone working in the scientific field. Turning science into an ideological battle is the very antithesis of the scientific method.


The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat: And Other Clinical Tales – a perspective

The Man Who Mistook his Wife for a Hat, the first book of Dr. Oliver Sacks that I read, had a profound effect on me. The book has 24 chapters, with each chapter being a standalone clinical tale from his career as a neurologist. Divided into four parts, the book delves into ‘Losses’, ‘Excesses’, ‘Transports’, and ‘The World of the Simple’. The first part, ‘Losses’, describes numerous clinical cases of people who have lost some aspects of neurological function. The protagonist in the title chapter has trouble identifying things around him, and once mistook his wife’s head for a hat which he tried to wear! There were also a few poignant tales of those who had lost their sense of self or identity. The second part, ‘Excesses’, has many stories of neurological ‘excessive’ disorders such as Tourette’s syndrome. These stories describe people whose lives have become either energetic or impulsive because of their disorders. Although the ‘Losses’ part showed how neurological defects can have a detrimental effect on quality of life, the ‘Excesses’ part showed how some neurological disorders can bring more color and ‘life’ to someone’s daily existence. And sometimes treating these symptoms can make the patients feel as if they have lost an important part of themselves.

The last two parts were quite special to me. ‘Transports’ has clinical tales about patients who have ‘transported’ to a different conscious state – imaginations, spiritualism/religiosity, dreaminess, and reminiscence. There were two touching clinical tales about ladies whose illnesses made them dream or hear sounds from forgotten parts of their childhood. This section also delves into epilepsies of the temporal lobe, which has been implicated in deep spiritualism, religiosity, seizures, and having ‘visions’. Finally, the fourth and last part of the books presents clinical tales about mentally handicapped people – a group that used to be shunned and misunderstood by society, yet whose unique gifts and talents were presented with empathy in this book.  This section showed Dr. Sacks’ empathy and talents in presenting mentally handicapped people as normal human beings. He gave a sense of normality to those with autism and various other traits that might be considered oddities or mental disorders. This book also led me to question what exactly is normality? What neurological or physiological disorder is ‘abnormal’, or just a different kind of normal?

One of the thoughts that occurred to me after reading this book was whether we should accept what nature has given us, or whether we should try to overcome nature’s limitations with biotechnology. It also got me thinking about many people’s fears about new technologies that tinker with nature’s status quo. Many people use the phrases “everything happens for a reason”, or “there is a meaning behind everything”. Even though it is said with good intentions, I want to give a differing perspective on why it isn’t necessarily empathetic or helpful. Many of us say it from our experiences, privilege, and by rationalizing outcomes after they have occurred. Yet many people might not appreciate these statements when it relates to tragedies like war crimes, suffering of the innocent, or a parent burying a child. How can we tell a mother that there is a meaning or reason behind the death of her child? I have personally found these statements to be unhelpful, and in contrast have appreciated the honesty that something bad happened because I made a mistake or because I didn’t have the foresight to make a wise decision. That honest appraisal has led me to make changes, rather than rationalizing or normalizing a mistake as if the outcome was part of a divine plan. If we say everything happens for a reason, it might not motivate us to try and change the status quo for a better outcome.

When I see people with mental and physical disability, what is the reason or meaning behind their situation? Many of them have made the most of their disabilities. But wouldn’t it be better if they had their full neurological and physiological capabilities? Why should we accept or rationalize pain or physiological handicaps, instead of trying to create a world without such suffering? I have read articles written by parents that they wouldn’t use gene therapy to treat their children’s physical disabilities before they were born, because those handicaps made their kids who they are today. I find such thinking selfish because the child doesn’t get to decide if it wants to be born with neurological or physical disabilities if potential preventive treatments are available. I find it incomprehensible that those of us healthy would rather choose and rationalize nature’s random mutations causing severe disabilities in others over biotechnology that can prevent or treat disabilities.

There are those who have lost their sense of self and identity, or are physically disabled to the point where their quality of life has diminished. We can empathize with their pain without telling them that there is a reason for their disability. It doesn’t mean that we should despair at finding no ‘meaning’ to our circumstances. We can accept that life isn’t always fair, or that bad things happen to good people without any supernatural machinations. And that unpleasant truth should be the impetus that drives us towards eliminating unfair situations in life, towards fighting for a better and just world, and towards eliminating pain and suffering. This should prompt us to invest more in biomedical research where disabilities and illnesses can not only be treated, but also prevented through gene therapy. Such therapy, whether for embryos or adults, requires society to reach a consensus as to what treatment is acceptable or not, especially when someone is incapable of giving consent. How should we treat those who have lost their sense of self and are incapable of informed consent? And should it be mandatory to use gene therapy on an embryo that has all the markers for severe disorders? And how should we distinguish between the ‘excesses’ and ‘losses’ disorders. If the ‘excesses’, as shown in the book, can enhance someone’s life, should they be treated in unborn fetuses? These are questions with no objective answers, but questions society must ponder with the increasing advances of biotechnology.

The other topic from this book that piqued my interest had to be with the section ‘Transports’. As a scientist and supporter of rationalism, I strive for knowledge and understanding of our natural world. Religion has affected me in numerous ways, both good and bad. Understanding religiosity also increases my understanding of human behavior. Our advanced brain has made us ponder existential questions, and spiritual and theological doctrines have helped answering many of those questions. But what makes some people more spiritual or religious than others? What is behind the visions, voices, and other types of religious experiences? For many years, I had read of temporal lobe epilepsy being implicated in extreme religiosity. Therefore, it was a pleasant surprise to read the neurological reasons behind such ‘visions’, hallucinations, or seizures. Specific doctrines and beliefs will always evolve or go extinct, but if we have unanswerable questions then some sort of supernatural beliefs will remain a part of our species. But the changes I would like to see relates to understanding doctrines and personal interpretations of doctrines as immutable facts.  Too often such ‘facts’ have been used for violence, prejudice, and discrimination. We can be spiritual and/or religious, yet be humble enough to accept that no one has the right answers to our existential questions. Our brains might revolt against uncertainty and grey answers, yet uncertainty should be the preferred outcome over false truths.

Finally, if religious doctrines are considered as subjective understandings of our world rather than as objective truths, it might give people courage to go against doctrines when they wish and explore more personal freedom. Too many of us, myself included in the distant past, have wanted to eat something, wear something, and explore other personal freedoms but felt guilty that we are committing a sin or going against immutable truths. I have seen people cry because they mistakenly didn’t follow some doctrine or rule. I have had people ask me wistfully “when will doctrines change”, or “why are doctrines the way they are”. No one should feel guilty if they go against doctrines for their freedom or happiness. I don’t want to see people cry or commit suicide if they cannot follow some of these doctrines. I don’t want to see judgment and nonacceptance on parts of those who take doctrines as literal truths. I think a world where religion isn’t absolute, but where religiosity can be explained as products of our brains’ quest for meaning, a world where people can be spiritual or religious for personal peace and happiness, will be a better and happier world. I want people to see the beauty that comes from our own brains, be it spiritualism or the ability to overcome nature’s deficiencies with scientific breakthroughs. I want people to be confident about themselves, their strengths, and their abilities to change the world.

Women and toxic families

Women dealing with toxic family – a topic that comes back to me every week, even at work after others become familiar with my writing. And these stories are overwhelming shared to me by women from the eastern part of the planet (doesn’t mean it only happens there). In popular culture, many times we easily call women “crazy”. Ignoring psychiatric illnesses, how often is it that someone who might seem “crazy” has been dealing with a ton of shit in life. Stress can easily break down any human being.

One of the most common effects of dealing with toxic family is that women have to live a double life if they ever want to create any sense of self. Families, especially who immigrated to the West in the 80s or 90s, still have the same social attitude as they had back home because they never immigrated. They try to control and mold every aspect of their daughter’s lives – for sake of control, sake of “honor”, and for her “marriageability”. In more conservative families, they have to give a “pure”, quiet, and obedient girl for marriage with the understanding that “you can do anything you want after marriage”. Which usually depends on future husband and in-laws and how liberal-minded they are.

All this control leads many women to start living double lives outside their home. It is like a person divided against themselves. How they want their lives to be vs how their parents or relatives want their lives to be. From clothing to activities to relationships, it is a life either hidden from everyone or from more conservatives friends/family members. But how long can a person live a double life? Some give up and accept their fate. Some know what their parents will never accept and never stray from the path decided for them. But some rebel and their everyday existence becomes a hell. Yet nearly all of them accept it as “love”.

For those living a double life, every moment is spent in fear of being caught. For those rebeling, every day is spent fighting. And when someone isn’t obedient, even if they are in their 30s, the constant criticism is what breaks them down. And that is the story I hear often – every cruel thing their parents or sibling tell them just because they didn’t follow the line. This happens even if they are married. And that makes me sad because I see the shit women deal from toxic relatives slowly trickling down in their behavior to their own children. It is said that abuse exists as a circle. Seeing that circle of abuse breaks my heart and boils my blood because another generation starts suffering. All because for too many people on this planet women are still objects and properties to be controlled. Somehow women represent their family’s honor. And finally, women are seen as an extension of their family/parents – not as an individual with her own agency and personhood.