This post stems from a very interesting discussion I had with my flat-mates today. The question was - Does our modern society have traits similar to the varna system of Hinduism?
For those unfamiliar with the Varna system - The Bhagavad Gita, the holiest book for Hindus, describes the system as "The four orders of society were created by Me [Krishna] classifying them according to the mode of Prakrti predominant in each and apportioning corresponding duties to them; though the author of this creation, know Me, the immortal Lord, to be a non-doer."
The four orders were brahmins (teachers, religious experts), kshatriyas (warriors, political leaders), vaishyas (merchants) and shudras (servants). Each had a fixed role in society and by and large one could not move from one order to another. Thus, the son of a shudra remained a shudra. The varna system is said to have led to the more draconian caste system in India, the effects of which are seen even in modern India. The fuedal system in Europe was very similar with the lord giving land to his vassals who would then force serfs to do the dirty work.
Do we still have an invisible caste system in the world? Is the son of a farmer forced to remain a farmer, etc.? To understand that, I propose the following 4 postulates of my theory:
a) Humans have always been divided into groups. And there is mostly some kind of ordering of those groups in terms of power/influence/social status - i.e. group A > group B > group C > ... > group Z
b) Let f(X) be the function which decides the ordering of groups. I propose that if X has parameters x1, x2 ... xN, there X is a weighted sum of all the parameters. And the weights keep changing as we "progress". For eg. let x1 = physical strength, x2 = caste, x3 = knowledge, then in the hunter gatherer era, x1 had the highest weights (practically 1) and all the other features had 0 weights. i.e. physical strength was most important and thus those with more physical strength had more power. So the ordering of groups would actually be a line in the x1 dimension. And all the groups fall on this line. Those in lower groups would have lower values of x1 than those in higher groups. Also, X is not equal to money. After all, money is just a payment for some good or service. Money does not affect f(X), f(X) brings money. Also, some people may have less money but still be higher in the order (e.g. Barrack Obama).
c) It is the natural tendency of humans to aspire to reach a group higher than the one they belong to. Say X and Y are groups and f(X)
d) I have said that weights of x1, x2, etc. change as we progress. I believe that this progress is due to technological advancement - the invention of fire, agriculture, speech, printing, guns, nucleur energy, computers, etc.
So given these, it is easy to see why the caste system, let's call it system A, was not an ideal system. Remember, if it were an ideal system, then it would never have been abolished. So I take it as a fact that it was not ideal. In that system x1 (physical strength) was not so important, but x2, the caste of your parent, was. {Brahmin,Kshatriya}>Vaishya>Shudra. Also, a person from one caste was rarely allowed to go up the ladder. In fact, the system prevented one from doing so. Thus (c) which is a natural tendency was suppressed leading to malcontent and finally revolt and the system was overthrown to be replaced with the system which we currently have in place.
I do not claim to fully understand our system, let's call it system B, but I would like to believe that our hierarchy gives a very high weight to knowledge, which is x3, and lower weights to everything else. What you know matters, not your physical strength or caste at birth. How does this system differ from system A? In B we still have people aspiring to reach higher levels, but the difference is that the system allows people from lower groups to reach higher groups by providing them with tools like education, welfare schemes, information, etc. Also, it is not allowed (in most civilized societies) for people from higher groups to actively obstruct the progress of those in lower groups. In fact, the higher levels play a very important part in designing the very tools which allow the lower groups to reach higher.
But our system is not ideal too, because the tools are inefficient. They do not guarantee success. Not everyone attaining education rises in society. Not everyone wanting education is given one. There are people being pushed from higher levels of society to lower levels. So B is definitely not the ideal state.
So what is the ideal state? Does one exist? Is that the end of progress? To understand how the ideal state will be, one must understand that the problems in both systems A and B have never been that the people have been divided in various groups in ascending order of importance/power/prestige etc. The problems have been with the way they are treated - not allowing them to go higher or actively suppressing their progress. So the ideal state will definitely have hierarchies. I think hierarchies are a part of nature as well as humanity and are actually good for us because it makes us all discontent and want something higher.
So I propose that then that even in the ideal system C the hierarchies will always exist. The only difference is in the weights of the parameters. I propose that in the ideal system we will completely understand all the parameters x1 to xN and provide the most efficient tools for anyone to increase their f(X). Also, no one will have a tool to decrease anyone else's f(X), and it is assumed in postulate (c) that everyone wants to progress, which means there should not be anyone in the system whose f(X) decreases with time.
It is very important to understand this last sentence as it means that humanity will always keep on progressing and never fall. To explain my ideal system, let us assume that we have 4 people - a farmer whose f(X) = 0, a trader (f(X) = 1), a CEO (f(X) = 2) and the President (f(X) = 3). As the system is completely efficient the farmer will be given all the tools to increase his f(X). But so will everyone else. So it is entirely possible that the farmer may become 1, the trader 2 and so on with the farmer remaining at the bottom. But the important thing is that this does not mean that the farmers life has not improved. It now means that when once he could not get food, provide his children education he is now able to do both. In the next generation, it could happen that his children aspire to achieve much more than he did and thus one of them could become the President. There is nothing stopping him from doing the same, and because tools are efficient, if he does not it will only because he did not aspire enough.
Also, I think it is not in human nature to push others down. That only happens because currently there is limited place at the top tiers and hence if 1 goes up, 1 has to come down. But in system C, each tier will have infinite capacity and thus no one will want anyone not to come to their tier.
So how will this system look like? Imagine it like a lift going constantly up. As technological progress happens, the top of the lift keeps going up. Also, as the lowest areas aspire, the bottom of the lift also moves up. Those in the middle levels who do not aspire do not go to the lower level, but just remain at the same height. But because the lift is moving up, the lower levels catch up and his level then becomes the lower most level, thus making it a fair system.
It looks like this system has no problem at all and is a utopian system. But it is not if the universe is deterministic, we may reach the peak of technological innovation and know everything there is to know about the universe. At this point the upper level of the lift stops going up. And with increasing time the lower levels will catch up and thus humanity will finally all be on the same level. There is nothing left to aspire for, hence everyone will be reduced to drones doing whatever they have been doing without there being any hope for progress. Such a future is really scary and I hope it never happens.
So the only hope for humanity to keep on progressing always is for there to be a reset button. As soon as we reach the peak, reset and we are back to square one. This may be the root of the belief in cycles of the universe. From Wikipedia - "This universe is simply the current one, which is in flux and constantly changing, when it finally ceases to manifest, a new one will arise.". This is also backed by physicists, with phenomenon called the Big Crunch - "In physical cosmology, the Big Crunch is one possible scenario for the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the metric expansion of space eventually reverses and the universe recollapses, ultimately ending as a black hole singularity."
I had not even thought about Hinduism and the Big Crunch when we started of this discussion. Urjit and I had concluded that actually humanity has a bleak future if the universe is deterministic and then we were depressed for a few seconds. Then suddenly I said "then the only way out is a reset button!" and voila! everything fell in place. Thus, my facebook status message - "I just concluded that either the universe is non-deterministic or Hinduism better be true. Otherwise humanity has a bad future"
