In the last two decades or so, people around the globe have been witnessing weather anomalies, which may well be the consequences of global warming.

During the month of June and the first week of July, an extreme heat wave affected much of Western North America. The Western parts Canada and USA got adversely affected by this rare weather anomaly. The heat wave resulted in the highest temperature ever recorded in Canada, that is 49°C, while cities like Seattle has recorded a temperature of 46°C. The exact data of human casualties is not known until now and the death is still rising, but according to various sources more than 840 people have died due to the heat wave; out of which almost 645 people have died in Canada, while more than 195 people have died in USA. In totality, the heat wave has affected a population of 50 million people living in these regions. This heat wave caused wildfires in some parts of the Western North America, which resulted in the destruction of several square kilometers of forest cover.

Even, the marine life was not spared by this heat wave. It has been reported that this weather anomaly has killed over 1 billion of aquatic lives along Canada’s Pacific coast. However, we need to understand, what is the cause of such catastrophic weather anomaly.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has said that in order to understand this current meteorological anomaly known as the heat dome, one should consider the Pacific Ocean to a large swimming pool in which the heater is turned on. Once the heater is on, the portions of the pool close to the heating jets will warm up faster and therefore, the temperature in that area will be higher. In the same way, the western Pacific ocean’s temperatures have increased in the past few decades and are relatively more than the temperature in the eastern Pacific.

This has resulted in creation of a strong temperature gradient, or pressure differences that drive wind, across the entire ocean in winter. Because of convection, the gradient causes more warm air, heated by the ocean surface, to rise over the western Pacific, and decreases convection over the central and eastern Pacific.

As prevailing winds move the hot air east, the northern shifts of the jet stream trap the air and move it toward land, where it sinks, resulting in heat waves. The high-pressure circulation acts like a lid or a dome, which forces the air downwards, increasing the air column, but even as the air becomes increasingly lighter and hotter due to the sun’s energy, it cannot escape the dome because of the high-pressure lid or dome. This situation is meteorological terms is called heat dome.

It may well be the case that it is a rare weather anomaly but the fact it became so severe, points out that, it would be virtually impossible without anthropogenic climate change. As warming continues, such weather anomaly will become a lot less rare and much more severe.

According to a study by ‘World Weather Attribution’ in a world with 2°C of global warming (0.8°C warmer than today which at current emission levels would be reached as early as the 2040s), this event would have been another degree hotter. An event like this – currently estimated to occur only once every 1000 years, would occur roughly every 5 to 10 years in that future world with 2°C of global warming. So, even a relatively small increase in mean global temperatures caused by climate change can pass a threshold that triggers a sharp increase in the probability of extreme heat wave phenomena. Also, according to their studies, weather anomalies such as these would be very rare but their likelihood has increased at least 150 times because of anthropogenic climate change.

But, in reality, can the whole of humanity be held responsible for the climate change? is it actually anthropogenic change? The answer to these question is just no, its not the whole humanity but more likely the privileged sections of the human population that has brought upon the climate change and hence one should see the reason behind the climate change to be capitalogenic. According to a 2015 study by Oxfam, top 10 percent of the population is responsible for the 49 percent of lifestyle consumption carbon

dioxide emissions, while the bottom 50 percent are only responsible for 10 percent of total lifestyle consumption carbon dioxide emissions. According to carbon measures report published in 2017, only 100 companies have been the source of more than 70% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions since 1988.

The weather anomaly in Western North America has posed serious questions globally. Have we reached the tipping point? How can humanity still thrive, if such anomalies become the norm?

For now, we must pressurize the governments worldwide to take effective measures against climate change. The struggle for environment conservation should become a mass movement. As, we have seen in Canada and USA, how people who were from underprivileged sections of the society, have been affected the most by this heat wave. So, the governments throughout the world must be made responsible towards such incidents and it must take necessary measures to protect the people against such meteorological anomalies.

But in the long time, we will have to start looking beyond these climate protocols, which do nothing at all. We must understand as long as this capitalist remains, our environment and climate will always be under threat. This current capitalist system, which has now become illogical must be replaced by more logical system, which knows the value of ecology and environment.

– Vivek

It has now been now almost two years but the corona pandemic is in its ever-varying mutations are still raging all over the world, showing no sign of a respite in the immediate future. Millions have already lost their lives and much more is the number of people across the world who have lost their livelihood. Both the extension and spread of the disease is almost unparalleled. But along with the pandemic the world is drowned by unrelenting waves of an infodemic. Deliberate misinformation, ignorance, fake news and conspiracy theories about the origin of the virus and its outbreak have spread worldwide at an equal pace (if not faster) and is growing exponentially.

There is a wide section of people who consider Covid-19 and the subsequent lockdown implemented by the government, all part of a greater conspiracy. The utter idiocy about covid-19 have earned such people the name “covidiots”. Some of them tell us that it is nothing new, merely the seasonal flu virus, so there is nothing in the corona virus to be afraid of. Then there are people who ‘know’ that the virus is manmade, and has its origin in a secret lab in China/ Bill Gates. There are also those people who believe that the virus is an outcome of a genetic mutation caused by the 5G bandwidth radiations. We also hear that it is the creation of the “big pharma” (the giant pharmaceutical industry) to create a world market of their pre-researched vaccine. The spectrum of these theories is stupendously wide. There are theories of “deep state” and comic-book like interpretations of the whole pandemic, whereby it has been claimed that the deep state wants to control the masses. All these theories are well entrenched and resonating in among the masses, whose reason must be sought in the common sense of the people. It is nothing but an eclectic soup of empiricism (something especially an idea is eclectic when it is chosen freely from diverse sources; an idea which appears best from diverse sources. Empiricism is a philosophy, a view that direct experience of an individual is the only source of knowledge and not the theoretical knowledge and indirect knowledge. It relies on immediate observations or experiments only, without any conceptual realization. Empiricism as a philosophy is popular among common masses, who in their daily struggle for existence are given no opportunity or time to think and hence to theorize. Disregard to theories is an essential feature of empiricism, so an empiricist knowledge of any social, biological phenomenon touches the phenomenon at the surface only, is perceptual and impressionist at its best and hence is incomplete and unscientific). Motely vulgar theories are having a free run, explaining the mechanisms and nature of society. Things get utterly unfortunate when such “unread”, “amazed” empiricists find themselves at the tail of the masses, but come forward to claim that, people do not believe in the existence of coronavirus. But what people believe and not believe cannot be a litmus test of the existence of the coronavirus. We have such empiricists among political activists as well who see the plea of the government that the lockdown was imposed to safeguard the lives of the people by mitigating the spread of the virus, a sham and was executed to kill two birds at a time, to open up new vistas for the profit of the corporate houses on one hand, and to introduce draconian, antipeople dictatorial laws, without the fear of any popular protests. Naturally they demanded that lockdown should be immediately lifted, to save the crashing economy and to end the deprivation of the workers robbed off their livelihood. But soon the spirit of the belief in the non-existence of the virus vaporized into thin air, and they ‘realized’ the reality of the virus, and the only way out then is to remove all road blocks to usher in the stage of herd immunity. This was the view of the believers, of ‘innocent’ people acting in good faith.

The Dream of Reason Produces Monsters – Francisco Goya

But the fascists, the status quoists in favor of the antihuman establishments all over the globe raised their clamor, insisting that the virus is not real, and there is no ground for the lockdown which has adversely affected the economy. Facing wide and sharp criticism these right wingers were forced to put the foot in their mouth and started seeing the virus, inviting herd immunity, which is possible only if all sorts of restrictions are removed, was alas the way out for them. Their logic also akin to that of empiricists when they said that only old and weak people would be vulnerable if restrictions are removed, and thus for the good of the younger generation and the healthy sections of the population mitigation procedures such as lockdown should be withdrawn and to be reimposed in the future to keep the economy running. The fascists and the right-wingers lied deliberately to hide the cleavage of haves and have nots of the society, while the empiricists have nothing to blame other than their ignorance and foolishness. But the common conclusion made both the camps conspiracy theorists. It is a case of wrong analysis of the situations leading to a wrong solution for curing and mitigating the disease. But the situation continues to evolve in stages and give birth to new theories. Now we find on stage a new category of “anti-vaxxers”; a category of naturalists who are asserting that vaccination is a conspiracy. Thus, there were popular protests against masks, lockdowns, and the handling of the disease.

This absurdity was generated and nurtured by the vulgar empiricist’s philosophy, and has been lapped up by the fascists and reactionary forces to propagate their ideology. But everything changes, new empirical facts emerge, contradicting theories based on earlier primitive facts, and so soon conspiracy theory fell into adverse waters, when newer facts started disproving their theories, and forcing them to take new recourse, and mysticism enters the arena. Every conspiracy theory is bound to conceptualize the existence of some mystical, unknown power playing behind the curtains of every phenomenon. Shallow empiricism and modern spiritualism are two opposites that coexist.

 As writer of ‘Dialectics of Nature’ and philosopher of natural science Engels explained that dialectical opposite of shallow empiricism is modern spiritualism: “It is not the extravagant theorising of the philosophy of nature, but the shallowest empiricism that spurns all theory and distrusts all thought. It is not a priori necessity that proves the existence of spirits, but the empirical observations of Messrs. Wallace, Crookes, and Co. If we trust the spectrum-analysis observations of Crookes, which led to the discovery of the metal thallium, or the rich zoological discoveries of Wallace in the Malay Archipelago, we are asked to place the same trust in the spiritualistic experiences and discoveries of these two scientists. And if we express the opinion that, after all, there is a little difference between the two, namely, that we can verify the one but not the other, then the spirit-seers retort that this is not the case, and that they are ready to give us the opportunity of verifying also the spirit phenomena. Indeed, dialectics cannot be despised with impunity. However great one’s contempt for all theoretical thought, nevertheless one cannot bring two natural facts into relation with one another, or understand the connection existing between them, without theoretical thought. The only question is whether one’s thinking is correct or not, and contempt of theory is evidently the most certain way to think naturalistically, and therefore incorrectly. But, according to an old and well-known dialectic law, incorrect thinking, carried to its logical conclusion, inevitably arrives at the opposite of its point of departure. Hence, the empirical contempt of dialectics on the part of some of the most sober empiricists is punished by their being led into the most barren of all superstitions, into modern spiritualism.”

The problem we are posed with is actually a complicated intricate set of problems. To raise the hidden essence at the phenomenal level, we need to untangle the web and to make the different components distinct. Empiricism is prevalent in medical sciences, over the society, in politics, and has a historicity, we will illustrate the understanding of the current problem with a historical insight of an incident that occurred in Soviet Russia: Lysenkoism.

Empiricism Prevalent in Natural Science

To understand the essence of any phenomena we must penetrate the outer appearance and reach its inner structure and constitution. It is achieved when our perceptual knowledge reaches to a stage of conceptual knowledge in practice. It is only in practice that our perception deepens to generalizations, to laws, causality, inner structure, and constitution of a process i.e. to conceptual knowledge. The dish of stars in the sky over us is an apparent reality. It is the past we’re looking into. If we look at the sky with a powerful telescope it is possible that we may be looking at a star that does not exist, it might have died, but its light is still reaching us and it appears that it is still there. Even the stars we see in night sky with naked eye are in range from few light years to thousands of light-years away and it takes thousands of years for light from some stars to reach us. It takes light around eight minutes to reach earth from sun. The sun we see is around eight minutes old. The night sky is an image of the past. We reach to the stage of conceptual knowledge that our sky, window to the universe, reflects a very dynamic picture of our universe. The Special theory of relativity gave us conceptual clarity on this concept. Breeding of larvae on rotten meat leaves the impression that a new form of life grew out of it. But it is only the microorganisms or flies present already in the environment which scavenge the meat and which makes it rot. Louis Pasteur proved it, leading to Germ theory. Robert Koch concluded that diseases are caused by various germs and not by the astrological positioning of planets and stars. Before it, the Miasma theory of Galen was popular according to which the diseases are caused by foul air. The concept of purity and naturalism is still conventional in traditional medical practices like Ayurveda, Yunani medicine and Homeopathy. All of them are based on empirical observations and some pre-modern biology concepts. Many correct observations are made by these empirical practices but that does not make them conceptual science. Many conceptions of these theories stand in contradiction to modern biology. Modern Biology is the study which is one of the youngest all modern sciences. First came the discovery of cell and then germ theory, and since then, each step has reduced the mystical forces to concrete material biological causes. Modern Physics rose with the rise of the bourgeoisie during the period of Renaissance. First it was proven by Copernicus and Galileo that the model of the universe was not Ptolemaic, which stated that the earth is the center of the universe. Apparently, the sun revolves around the earth, but science is required to know that appearance is not the reality and that it is the Earth that revolves around the Sun. Then in Chemistry, the phlogiston theory was also a similar concept according to which things catch fire because of a liquid substance called phlogiston present in them. Though phlogiston theory was a step forward but alchemy still hovered around the fire, explosion, and other chemical changes. Our knowledge of the constitution of chemical substances cleared the alchemy and phlogiston theories. After physics and chemistry matured modern biology was born. And with it grew modern medicine but cobwebs of old medicinal practices are present to this day.

Theory of Evolution and genetic theory are discoveries of modern science, and we got awareness regarding them only in the 19th and 20th century. Man first gained conceptual knowledge about galaxies and earth, and then only was able to understand himself and his descent. Newton preceded Lyell and Lyell preceded Darwin. The mechanical changes on the terrestrial level and cosmological changes were conceptualized in man’s knowledge before the motion of species, which is called evolution. In this sense, modern biology is a young discipline. Vaccination too, began only after knowing the immunity and other mechanisms of the human body and actions of germs on us. Edward Jenner discovered the vaccine for small pox and later Fleming discovered first antibiotic vaccine. Germ theory was discovered by Louis Pasteur and Koch and it could have developed in the 19th century only. It demolished the theory of spontaneous generation of life. Oparin and Bernal proposed the biochemical origin of life, which was, later proven correct by experiments of Urey and Miller. Discovery of cells, the establishment of the theory of evolution, germ theory and usage of vaccines are important steps in development of human knowledge. This knowledge is the reflection of eternally moving matter on our minds and hence is always relative. There is always a horizon of the unknown and a haziness of uncertainty for human knowledge. In the dialectic of ignorance and knowledge, there remain remnants or old skin of past theories over new conceptions. In science we should not use concepts like truth and error absolutely.

Remnants of theories of past get negated in practice. Empiricism is contrary to dialectical conception of natural science in the sense that it does not understand that the knowledge grows deeper and in practice, we reach from perceptual knowledge to conceptual knowledge. The spiral of practice-knowledge-practice is unknown to empiricists.  Modern science has proven that its worldview is dialectical. To be dialectical is to recongnize

unity of opposites. The unity of life and death, positive and negative, positron and electron, wave and particle all are examples of unity of opposites. But various empiricist conceptions are still persistent. As modern biology is a younger science the spots of old empiricist and metaphysical theories are still present on it. Popularity of conspiracy theories around Covid-19 is a perfect example of empiricism widespread in the common masses. If now we see the problem of Covid-19, we can easily understand the different conspiracy theories and their source of ignorance around such theories.

Covid-19 is caused by SARS Coronavirus-2 and it affects the upper respiratory system of the patient. The virus is a strain of Coronavirus. Common cold is caused by certain strains of Coronavirus, which are different from SARS Coronavirus-2. When defining a disease, we define objective statistical parameters like basic reproduction number R(o) (number of people an infected person can infect), case fatality rate, and infection fatality rate to assess the danger a disease presents. What is a virus? A virus is the genetic material in protein coating that can have a lipid coating. SARS Coronavirus-2 has protein spikes protruding through the lipid coating around protein envelope containing RNA strands. The presence of lipid coating is reason why alcohol-based sanitizers or soaps are effective against the virus. According to the genetic structure it has been predicted that the virus has zoonotic origins (which means that it has passed to humans from some non vertebrate animals) and it has species jumped to humans via an immediate host. Most probably it has jumped from source host bat. Bat virus is genetically very similar to SARS Coranavirus-2. Various genetic structure studies on the virus reject the possibility of its origin in laboratory. All evidences point towards evolution of virus via natural selection. The current state of art technology in lab does not allow such evolution to be carried out in laboratory.

Viruses do not have a metabolic mechanism and depend upon living organisms for their propagation. Genetic material inside protein envelope is either DNA or RNA, which is the material of heredity. All characteristic information of an organism is present in this genetic material. The virus attacks a multicellular organism body by entering inside the cell and makes use of the metabolism of cells to replicate itself. SARS Coronavirus-2 enters the human body and gets attached to enzyme present on human cells through its protein spikes. The immune system of our body tries to attack the virus and immune responses are triggered. There are two types of immune responses: innate and adapted. The innate response is associated with the release of certain chemicals like cytokines, which tries to kill the infected cell and thus produce a systemic response like fever. All other symptoms like runny nose, sore throat, and muscle soar are effects of our immune system’s innate response to the pathogens. Thus, symptoms of flu, common cold, and Covid-19 are similar. Empiricists postulating on phenomenal knowledge there upon declare these diseases to be identical. Empirically Covid-19 can be called a viral infection identical to flu and common cold. The reason for the common masses believing in conspiracy theories is precisely because of this reason. The various medical practitioners of Homeopathy and Ayurveda also propagate such mysticism appertaining to the different viruses. These are practices based upon empirical observations to counter diseases when the body is invaded by foreign bodies. These are symptom-based. How will it counter Covid-19? They cannot. Many medical quacks use these empirical similarities to disprove the existence of novel Coronavirus.

The second type of immunity response is called adapted immunity response. Adapted immunity responses involve lymphocyte cells and antibodies that have particular response to specific pathogen. This immunity triggers the response whenever identifies a pathogen (a foreign substance) and produces antibodies, and cells specific to them, counter these pathogens and memorize the characteristic structure, called antigen, of pathogen so to attack the virus if it enters into our body again. Adaptive immunity can be natural or artificial. Artificially adapted immunity is developed through vaccines. It is the introduction of a vaccine, which has characteristic structure of disease-causing pathogen but does not harm our body, and our immune system recognizes the characteristic structure of the pathogen and attacks the pathogen when it actually infects us. This is a very simplified picture of a very complex process, but it was necessary to understand the basics about pathogens, immunity system and vaccination. But our covidiots, including empiricists, in absence of knowledge regarding vaccine and virology or epidemiology start to sing in chorus with anti-vaxxers that vaccine is a fraud and to recover from infection we must let our natural acquired immunity to work. But this is rejection of modern biology and if anyone lauds it, he must not declare himself having scientific outlook. This is the logic they give in support for herd immunity likewise. They maintain that scientists are working for pharmaceutical corporate giants not to produce vaccines but a commodity and to secure their profits. But this does not mean that vaccination is fakery. E=mc2 was used by scientists to make nuclear bomb resulting in annihilation of lakhs of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki but that does not mean that equation is incorrect. We must differentiate the science from how this system utilizes it.

A virus is not a matter of speculation as you can observe the virus under a microscope. Sars Coronavirus-2 has also been observed under electron microscope. You can test it by testing the antigen, protein of SARS coronavirus-2, present in the body. Or through RT PCR (reverse transcript polymerase condensation reaction) test of the virus, this tests the RNA of virus in upper respiratory tract of patient. It is unique for the virus. It is an objective fact. The biological structure of the virus, which distinguishes it from other viruses, is an objective fact. But the lack of knowledge of science leads to belief in all sorts of conspiracy theories.

These theories help to put a veil over the contradictions of capitalism. The COVID-19 spread among humans is due to the destruction of the environment. The habitat of wildlife is shrinking on a large scale because of the blind and anarchic growth of industrialization and agriculture. When their habitat is destroyed virus specific to particular species of wildlife come into contact with our society. Since the time human society has come into existence, viruses have been infecting us. But the blind profit drive is the reason why such viruses have started to enter human society causing severely frequent pandemics since the 1970s. The process of a virus entering human hosts is through ‘species jump’ where a virus associated with species of wildlife encounters humans, and through genetic evolution, starts to affect humans.

In capitalism, we are cursed with frequent epidemics as capitalists try to “rule over nature like a conqueror” and on the other hand, the public health infrastructure has been dismantled and health has been made a commodity. This wrecks havoc on the poor population. The ‘angel of death’, as Engels referred to the pandemics, spreads its wings over slums but does not leave the housing of the rich also. Unable to understand this socio-ecological origin and spread of virus Covidiots claim that scientists working under Big Pharma are creating these viruses in laboratory. Empiricists also share these fantasies.

Another point to note is that, whenever scientists had to revise their analysis Covidiots celebrated that this proves that scientists are wrong. The revision of death counts in some countries or the revisions of analysis of origin of virus was ridiculed. Science does not have answer to every question and is historically conditioned by our observations. But on this uncertainty and unknown, the metaphysician comes with a fantastic explanation to it. Scientists can only answer questions with uncertainties and unknowns. This is what separates it from religion.

In the analysis of Coronavirus whenever there is an error in observation and analysis, it is used by propagandists of conspiracy theoriststo uphold that scientists are wrong. Conspiracy theorists exploit empiricism prevalent in masses and are backed by various half-cooked theories regarding genes and other scientific concepts. One version of the conspiracy theory claims that through the Covid-19 vaccine, quantum dot bots will be introduced into the body, which will control the humans. It is just a fallacious concept. It resemblant to the theory that the new 500- and 2000-Rupee currency notes in India introduced after demonetization will have nanochips to track currency through satelite! The incomprehension of Complexity leads to such absurd mystic explanations of things. This is the modern spiritualism prevalent as a shadow of empiricism.

The genetic mutation of the virus by 5G technology and other claims are impractical. But due to ignorance, these ideas always reverberate. The lack of knowledge due to empiricism is always full of mystic theories the way magic worked in the primitive era. A magical explanation has been found for the unexplained. The primitive man acted for the celestial and terrestrial phenomena and to increase the chances in hunting. Empiricism has always been followed by spiritualism as its shadow.

Furthermore, lockdown and its implementation under the profit driven capitalist system, even in liberal democracies, will always be dictatorial for the common people. Secondly, if the implementation of lockdown is not followed with testing, contact tracing, quarantine, and treatment then it will fail. Lockdown failed to control infection in many countries. The failure to control covid-19 was due to the downfall of public health services, which had been systematically destroyed in every capitalist nation to support the private sector. The failure of the public health system wrecked havoc in general. Patients of cancer, cardiovascular diseases also faced a severe health crisis. There was a mental health crisis. Indeed, these factors were absolutely aggravated during the pandemic, but the pandemic is not the source of these factors, but all these facts are merged by empiricists, and for every tragedy the lockdown was held responsible. This is a simplification of the problem by empiricists and unable to grasp the essence of pandemic they seek the shallow reason behind the various phenomena present. Yes, most certainly, Big Pharma looks for every opportunity in the pandemic to make profits. Many governments used the pandemic to pass draconian laws. Bailout packages were announced, and few capitalists made huge profits. But pandemic was not the cause of these factors. The causation is reversed here. Big Pharma will seek profit in every tragedy, Fascists and the right-wing will seek every opportunity to impose draconian laws. But to reduce the problem caused by the structural crisis of capitalism on the pandemic, in fact, gives it a clean chit. Thus, it can be seen how the narrow empiricism of Covidiots leads them to absurd conclusions.

Genetics and narrow empiricism in Lysenkoism

In USSR during socialist era a similar mistake was committed. By socialist era we mean 1917 to 1954. The Lysenko movement led to the hinderance in the study of genetics. It was made difficult to criticize the incorrect views of Lysenko. A very naïve solution to the problem in agriculture was sought by Lamarckian understanding of Lysenko, which got support from socialist state machinery in the name of criticism of reactionary philosophy in Science. But that does not shadow the great heights the Soviet science has reached. We will present a detailed critique of all these positions in another article but here we will limit ourselves to the empiricist and layman understanding of Lysenko and his ridicule of theory which must serve as a lesson for empiricists of various shades. It was a blunder to support a metaphysical empiricist theory against the correct dialectical materialist theory of change in species. This was an example of mechanist understanding prevalent in the leadership of Communist Party. The Zhadanov thesis of 1946 is an example of this mechanist trend when art works of Eisenstein, Shostakovich, Vakhtangov and others were criticized for being ‘abstract’. Overall, a tendency of production forces first and economism was prevalent in Bolshevik Party. To gain a better understanding we should briefly seek the historical setting in which Lysenkoism grew. The period when Lysenkoism grew was post-NEP and inception of collectivization movement. Famine created by hoarding of grains also put pressure on agriculture. Secondly, there was a wide gap between agriculture and industry. Agricultural surplus was utilized for industrial expansion. This was an objective limitation, as only with large scale production, socialism could have sustained. To increase the output of agricultural produce was thus an immediate objective requirement. The historical condition was the first of objective conditions which prepared the ground for the mistake of Lysenkoism.

Secondly, the conditions for agriculture are difficult in Russia geographically. In such situations any agricultural technique or theory which yields better produce will obviously gain. Lysenko utilized vernalization, grafting and hybridization to lead better agricultural produce. Vernalization is to freeze the seeds and sowing them in spring season. The word is derived from Latin- Vernum which means spring. Lysenko was experimenting with grafting of various plants. He claimed this to be following Michurin on this stand and developed a Lamarckian evolutionary theory. Lysenko’s genetic theory model was Michurin-Darwinian. The geography of Soviet Russia is very difficult for agriculture. Grafting and various techniques helped overcome this handicap. Also, the crisis of agriculture required urgent measures. Lysenko came with an immediate solution. This was the second objective condition.

Thirdly, the young generation which grew up in socialist Russia was reaching University and technical institutes. Sons and daughters of workers and peasants were at the front of socialist construction. They were reaching universities and challenging the university elite from the pre-revolutionary era. Wind of change was blowing all through the education institutes. In 1930 collectivization movement began. The situation of famine created by kulaks, need for agricultural surplus and the collectivization movement, all asked the soviet workers and peasants to stand for the socialist construction. Five year plans were initiated and a healthy socialist competition was building socialism. Lysenko was one among many peasants who responded to political situation. He was the one who took the challenge raised by conditions of agricultural crisis. Correct political response of Lysenko was the third reason for the rise of Lysenkoism.

Fourthly, the state of genetics at that moment was still in its infancy. The genetics was modeled on Morgan and Mendel’s experiments, hence called Morgan-Mendel genetics. It was the basis on which modern genetics grew. The best model of the study was Drosophila (fruit fly). The scientists associated, were ridiculed by Lysenko as theorists without practice. The genetics was still in its infancy and the experiments of the theory could only be smaller steps at that time. Various scientists of Genetics from the western world were openly racist and reasoned that the white race was genetically hierarchic to the black race. The rulers and the ruled were predetermined according to heredity. Genetics was still building castles in air and had no practical say on many questions faced by soviet economy. The crisis of agriculture required urgent measures, but genetics provided only cautions and confusion. Lysenko openly claimed that through grafting and vernalization he will increase the harvest. It was the one of major cause of the rise of Lysenkoism.

Morgan-Mendelian Genetics was presumed to be a reactionary science mainly due to its practice in west and the political positions of leading scientists of genetics. It was associated with the eugenetics which was a racist theory. An alternative Lamarckian understanding of genetics, Michurian-Darwinian was proposed by Lysenko which rejected the existence of genes. Furthermore, it was speculated that the Morgan-Mendelian genetic science was not practical and those geneticists were “fly breeders and people haters”. A narrow empiricism was the philosophical cornerstone of Lysenkoism which criticized the genetic theory by defining it as reactionary ideology. According to Lysenko, “It is better to know less, but to know just what is necessary for practice.” He used revolutionary slogans to support his theory and condemn Mendelian Morganist school for propagating reactionary philosophy. His peasant background was also used as propaganda to counter pre-revolutionary era intellectuals. Earlier healthy debate continued between Lysenkoist group and the genetic school. Whole philosophical shell to the kernel of grafting and vernalization of Lysenko was created by Prezent. Mitin rightly criticized Prezent in 1939 and asked to divide the result of agronomy of Lysenko from philosophical scholasticism of Prezent. Although the whole Lysenkoist problem is filled in academia with anti-Stalin Propaganda, anti-socialist propaganda and fake facts. Yes, a mistake was committed but not what is often claimed in academia. The so-called objective study of Loren Graham and Joravasky is also heavily biased with anti-Stalin and anti-Soviet point of view. Helena Sheehan presents an objective picture, but her analysis misses the historical analysis. Levins and Lewontin present the best analysis of the Lysenko problem claiming it a conjecture of historical, political and scientific development of that time, although their understanding of problems of socialist construction is amateurish. We will present a thorough critique of Lysenko problem in a separate article and will limit ourselves to the content of present article.

Lysenko proposed that species of grain can be altered by altering the environmental conditions. The acquired characteristics during the lifetime of a plant will be transferred to its progeny; this Lamarckian understanding that only Environment decides characteristics of the organism was the theoretical premise of Lysenko. But this is incorrect. This was an empiricist understanding of change in species. But the experiments of Lysenko were yielding results, and harvest did improve. The reason for this improvement was not a Lamarckian adaptation of the seeds, but it can be explained by multiple factors among which the primary factors were technique of grafting and vernalization. Lysenkoist position explained that the phenotype of an organism depends only on environment; while the genetics school pointed out that it depends only on the genotype. Although, the genetic school upheld that the expression of genes is only dependent on genes, but the expression is probable while Lysenko proposed deterministic solutions to the problems of speciation. On one hand, the Genetic school put emphasis only on genes and ignored the environment and on the other hand, the Lamarckian standpoint of Lysenko put emphasis only on the environment but rejected the existence and influence of genes. Both of the standpoints were incorrect, but genetics school was less erroneous than Lamarckian school. Genes primarily decide the phenotype, but environment provides condition for its development. Secondly, while genetic school was probabilistic and never cared to explain the probabilistic nature of its origin rather claimed it to be an intrinsic property. It put more emphasis on ‘contingency’. Lysenko’s theory was deterministic and emphasized on ‘necessity’. The dialectic of necessity and contingency was broken. The debates between Lysenko and Genetic school became a public topic. Workers’ magazines were debating both theories. Lysenko was winning the narrative because he responded to a political question and claimed that he can end the agricultural crisis. Contrary to the claims of academia and media Lysenko never was supported by state machinery because of his theory during Great Purge. In Great Purge, people both from Lysenkoist and the Genetic school side were persecuted for conspiracy against state and not for their biological standpoint. Only in 1948 after the Second World War and the announcement of the cold war, ‘wrong’ Genetics was condemned, and Lysenko was made the head of agronomical institute and Genetics institute of academy of science. Again, contrary to the claims of academia, research in genetics continued but with Lysenko as the head of the agronomical and genetic studies. Research on genetics was Lysenkoist i.e. Michurian Darwinian and not Morgan-Mendelian. This was incorrect standpoint of the party. The understanding contradicts the understanding of soviet union leader Lenin, who said that we must differentiate between the philosophical point of view of a scientist and his scientific theory. It is an important lesson which we must keep a note of, as Lenin was very clear on how we should treat the theory of natural science and philosophical position of scientists concerned. Lenin emphasized:

The method of natural science is dialectical. That is we must divide one into two and not merge two into one. First is the method of dialectics, while the other is the metaphysical method.

This dialectical treatment was blurred during the Lysenko debate, but it owes to the nascent state of genetics also. But the mechanist understanding prevalent in Soviet Russia allowed growth of such narrow empirical theory and pushed back the development of Soviet genetics. The reductionism of Lysenkoism also is repeated by Empiricists in Covid-19 that the scientists engaged in research are from rich class.

In the current scenario, the analysis of coronavirus has been refuted akin to Lysenkoism where slogans have replaced concrete analysis and narrow empiricism is prevalent instead of scientific analysis. Coronavirus is a virus that jumped species from a bat or some other wild animal and caused an upper respiratory infection. To just follow empiricism or layman stance our Covidiots claim the disease, to be only seasonal flu or common cold. The different infection fatality rate and case fatality rate are objective facts for the different diseases. They claim that government is conspiring and fooling people whenever facts appear which are contradictory to their stance. The implementation of lockdown, its autocratic implementation, its failure in some countries and aggravation of the economic crisis were not product of conspiracy of few capitalists and deep state. Narrow empiricist viewpoint is at root of all these conspiracy theories.

– Dr. Sunny Singh

The first step of human on earth

The study of the emergence of science also starts around this period. In one way, we can say that when human beings tried to find ways to protect themselves from the vagaries and dangers of their natural environment, human thought and creativity emerged. This thought and creativity manifested in the form of technologies, scientific ideas and expressive objects. The making of the simplest tool, like sharpening a stone so it could be used to break the hard shell of fruits, was a technological development and a manifestation of scientific thought aimed at fulfilling a basic need. The resultant tools that were created tell us the story not only of human scientific thought and its evolution but also of human society and culture, the ways of life and living and engagement between humans and nature, among individual persons and groups. In actuality, or in lived experience, in the early era of human evolution as in present times, there was no segregation between art, culture, science, technology. Anything that was created was created by human thought and effort, which was expressive- and so, it was artistic; involved logical thinking – and so, was scientific; required communication between people and learning from each other- and so, was social; and, was created as a result of interaction between people and their environment and to serve some need of living- and so, was cultural. This is also true for the ways in which our world and everything in it is created today. The magazine that you are reading, for example, is a result of the invention of printing technology. But it is also a tool of communication and expression. The words and images in it are created so someone can communicate certain ideas to someone else. If a thousand years from today this magazine is found by someone, they will look at it and learn about our culture, our society and the scientific and technological advances that our civilization had achieved. Thus the magazine of our present times, just like the stone tools of prehistoric times, is an object that encompasses within it a history of human culture, social customs, scientific ideas and technological advances.

Human beings evolved from the anthropoid ape. How did humans become differentiated from other animals? During the process of evolution from apes to humans, they had acquired various physical features from their ancestors which played an important role in their development and evolution. A crucial feature in this evolution was the shifting of humans from living on trees to walking on the ground. This shift meant that now their hands were free, and used for different things like touching and feeling objects that they found around them. Hand eye coordination improved, because of which, they could hold objects better, understand their shape and form. Their eyes were better able to perceive distance, and their complex nervous system was able to match the object in their hand to the image perceived by their eyes. These developments enabled early humans to make tools. In this process the creation or development of language was also extremely important because this allowed individuals and groups to share knowledge and ideas with each other. Without this sharing and collaboration, human beings would have been unable to make any creations or advancements.

The development of this consciousness is what differentiates humans from other animal species. Some apes also use tools but their usage of these is very very limited. Moreover, these animals carry out these activities as out of habit and as part of daily life, but without any particular consciousness of the act – very much like human babies cry or blink their eyes. Animals also create all sorts of simple and complex structures ranging from nests to hives to colonies to dams, canals and lodges, but what differentiates humans creation from that of these other animals is that human creations are based on an actively imagined idea, i.e., before the effort of creating comes idea of something towards which the effort is directed. This process is what is called work, labour or exertion- of thinking of or imagining something and then putting in effort to make it a reality.

It is this quality, this process of life, that made humans “human”. It is this process that leads to the creation of all other things that further differentiate humans from other animal species. In the words of Gordon Childe, humans made themselves.

Often in films or on television, we see a reconstruction of ancient times. If we could borrow a time machine from fantasy we could perhaps visit the time when human beings were first coming to ‘be’, when they were first beginning to see themselves as “human”- the formation of groups and tribes, the worship of totems, the making of tools, the beginning of language… But these imaginary devices are a winged form of the knowledge we have amassed through the hard work of historians and archaeologists.

What we have learnt about those times is based on a relatively small number of objects such as pieces of pottery or metalware found in the remains of prehistoric settlements, mummified skeletons, cave paintings, and so on. Unlike more recent human history, such as the Middle Ages or the Mughal Period, there is no written record from these prehistoric times, which we can read to learn about this period of time. Many of the objects that are found in archaeological excavations can be put through the processes of carbon dating through which we can learn about their age. In addition to this, we can use the science of biostatistics which helps us map the rate of human evolution by mapping the rate at which the human gene changes. But even with all this knowledge and technology the reconstruction of that period is quite difficult because the knowledge that we have about it is quite scattered. For one, the period itself that we refer to as prehistoric ranges from the start of human life- 3,3 million years ago, to the first signs of writing- which is only in 5300 years ago- so it is not a few hundred but many thousands of years. For another, throughout this period, human beings moved about from continent to continent, setting up bases here and there, moving because of the changing climate, and changing as their physical features, needs, ideas and ways of living evolved. Thus, in trying to study this period we are trying to cover a vast terrain- across time and across geography- and doing so with a relatively very small number of findings and evidence.

In comparison, it is easier to learn about the times in human history from where humans started “writing”, or developed “scripts” as visual forms of communication. This too, however, presents its own set of challenges in understanding history. For example, early written documents were either speaking about fantasies and imaginary worlds or were religious texts which have to be deconstructed and interpreted to understand what they say about the actual conditions of those times. In any age, history is written from a certain perspective and ideology. In order to find the ‘truth’ or the many truths that lie beneath the surface of what is written as ‘history’ we need to first brush off the preconceptions with which we first look at history. We can see the history of human species in looking at our own selves, our own times. We too, are living artefacts that hold clues about the long history of human evolution and it is in this story that we find the place of science.

Through the use of tools and their progressive brains, human beings developed the means to live a better life. These developments have sustained because of human culture, because all human knowledge- about gathering edible fruits, building fire, sensing danger, hunting animals, making tools, vessels and weapons, preserving meat, even stories of magic and illusions- was (and is) continuously passed on from generation to generation. Thus, the history of science is the history of human culture and not of the physical and biological evolution of human beings. Science is the knowledge of the laws of nature within the story of human life, a story made up of tools and technologies, myths and tales, music and paintings. Music and painting and science all emerge from human sociality- the interaction and sharing between human beings and the interaction between humans and their environment. Even though we think of science and art and music as separate, they are not- science forms an imprint on the art that is created in every era. The kind of art or science or music that is produced in any time is a product of that time, it is created as a result of several factors, some human, some non-human that make up the world at that period of time- thus, all of these- science, art, music, literature, technology- are, fundamentally, creations of history.

Science in Paleolithic Times

If we look at it from the perspective of the emergence of human civilization, in some ways we can say that the first phase of human history was the paleolithic age. Perhaps the first species to make a tool was the Austropethicus Robustus but this is not something that has been completely proven as yet and scientists are divided in their opinions on the matter. Homo Habilis, it has already been proven, were making tools. How did human beings start making tools?

If we look at the geological timeline, the paleolithic period coincides with the Plasticine Epoch. In this epoch (or era) temperature had reduced drastically all over the earth which brought on repeated Ice Ages. One third of the northern hemisphere was also covered in layers of ice. Considering the geography of today- New York City, London, Moscow and all the area between these cities was covered in ice. Between the many Ice Ages that made up this period, there would be some periods where the temperature would rise. These were called interglacial periods. In one of the interglacial periods which occurred about 1,12,000 years ago, homo sapiens came into existence. About 12,000 years ago, the era of Ice Ages ended. In the paleolithic period human beings spent a lot of evolutionary time adapting to the changes occurring in the earth because of the Ice Ages and the interglacial periods between these. They could only depend on gathering and hunting as means for survival. In studying the paleolithic period scientists look at it in a division of three parts. The first is the early paleolithic- which occurred about 26,00,000 years ago. After this came the mid-paleolithic period, about 3.5 lakh years ago, and then was the late paleolithic period which lasted from 40,000 to 10,000 years ago. Excavations at archaeological sites have thrown up various tools that show that human beings of this era had developed specialised skills to make tools of various kinds, for various uses. Through the use of carbon dating we have been able to place different tools in different period of the paleolithic age.

In this era, in the beginning, the productive activities of human beings were mostly limited to gathering food for survival. With the development of tools, human beings were able to develop their hunting skills, and thus came to be more dependent on hunting for their food. In all, the economic activity of the paleolithic age was limited to hunting and gathering. The life of the human beings at this time was made up of an earth covered with ice, of jungles and waterfalls, of caves and hills, and the difficulties encountered while wandering for food, and the night sky studded with bright stars. What we know as knowledge has been created in trying to understand and modify this very world. Knowledge of nature- or nature science- is a branch of knowledge. According to Marxist philosophy knowledge is created from behaviour. There are chiefly three sources of knowledge: production, class struggle, and scientific experimentation. In the period that we are talking about there was no segregation of classes but there were certain relations between different members of the society. The main source of knowledge then in this era must have been the practice undertaken in production of food, i.e., in hunting and gathering. Scientific experimentation has taken place continuously in both areas- of production, and that of social behaviour. Now we will divide our study of science in the paleolithic age into these two areas of behaviour- that of scientific experimentation and of social interaction and behaviour.

The Practice of Production: Tools, Weapons, Ways of Living and the Discovery of Fire

How was science created in the process of production? In order to learn about the science we will have to study the techniques used by humans, as well as the tools, utensils, clothes, spaces of living, et cetera that they made and used.

Tools made of animals’ teeth and claws greatly advanced human beings. Tools became like an extension of human limbs. Whether it is the axe, or the lathe machine, or the comet lander Philae, the story of tools is the story of humans gaining power. In the famous film ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ director Stanley Kubrick shows juxtaposes the images of a bone used as a tool by early humans with a spaceship – a tool created by contemporary humans. Bernal has written that tools are an extension of human limbs- the stone is an extension of the mouth and teeth, the stick is an extension of the hand or arm, the pouch or the basket is an extension of the mouth and the hand, or- a completely different kind of extension- a satellite of the body, when the stone is thrown to hit a target. First of all, it is important to know that humans do not create tools in accordance with some natural, inherent tendencies. This means that a tool is a social production. The creation or invention- and selection of tools is based on a social process. every tool is created based on social needs. In the tools that have been found in archaeological excavations, in spite of differences in time (within the lower Paleolithic period) and location of production, there are similarities in the objects themselves. This is indicative of the processes of making of these tools and the tradition of teaching and learning to make and use them. This tradition, which might have included teaching everything related to making of a plinth or a pear, starting from selecting the stone to polishing and sharpening it, is where we can find the seeds of today’s educational institutions.

In the beginning of the article we have spoken about the timeline of the prehistoric ages. Broadly, different kinds of tools can be differentiated based on different kinds of industries- by industries here we mean the cultures of making tools. The categorisation of these (tools or industries?) has today become extremely refined. They are labelled from Mode-0 to Mode-5, but we are not going to go into such details. The first known examples of stone tools are from 33,00,000 years ago. These were made by the species Australopithecus. But the creation of proper tools came about only with the genus Homo. The oldest culture of the stone age is Oldowan where ordinary tools were found which fal in the category of ‘core tools’. (prehistoric tools have been divided into two categories- ‘core’ and ‘flake’.) these tools were made from the core , i.e., inner nucleus of the stone (?) using stones from riverbeds. Scientists and archaeologists refer to the cultures that made such tools as ‘industries’. Core tools were also made in the acheulian culture but their specialty was that these were more carved or chiselled tools. The hand axe is an example of such a tool. A more developed culture (or industry) was the Mousterian in which sharp edged tools made of the ‘flake’ were made. Very long flake tools which are called ‘blades’ were made in the upper half of the paleolithic period (or the Upper Paleolithic period) which were more complex. Before the start of agriculture, i.e., the neolithic age, the most developed tools of the paleolithic age were composite tools in which microliths were used. This journey of the development of tools indicates improvements in hunting. Alongside this, it also indicates the development of science.

Advances in the processes of tool-making and the rise of natural sciences

How are tools made? We have discussed so far that human bodily structure, hand-eye coordination, complex neural machinery were preconditions for the development of tools. The earliest tools were stones found in nature which were occasional or circumstantial, i.e., stones found in their natural state which humans used as per their needs. Making use of this occasional stone, they brought out the form in which they could use it. They tried to make the form that they required, gaining independence from the ‘natural state’ of stone. This is where they tried to mould the stone into a standard form. Nicholas Toth has worked on this process of tool making. He has shown through his work that this was the output of an extremely complex mind. Before the making of the tool, the conception or the tool had to be present- selecting the appropriate kind of stone, hitting that stone with another using the correct amount of force and at a precise angle so that among the broken pieces one could find a piece which had qualities which matched that of the standard form of the tool. Gathering her experiences, the early human was giving rise to conception from behaviour or practice. Like Newton’s three laws, in that era too, there must have been laws for making tools from stone, even if they were simply an aggregation of random experiences. Only then could the process of tool making have been passed on from one generation to the next and developed generation after generation. These experiences can be seen as the foundation of the natural sciences, the foundation of the fundamental laws of force and speed. By studying the mechanism of stones crashing against each other and breaking, one learned about the properties of stones. This was the emergence of geology and mechanical science. In the beginning of the Paleolithic age these tools were used only to attack animals. Prey could be killed not only by attacking it with a great force but also by piercing its body with a sharp object. From this realisation came the beginning of sharp tools. Giving a sharp edge to tools was in itself a technological advancement. The hand axe is a physical manifestation of this need. The shape of these sharp edged tools was like a wedge, i.e., sharp at the front and thick at the back. This form was achieved by hitting the edge of the core towards the inside- thus using centripetal force. Then a smooth stone (steatite or soapstone) would be used to give the piece a sharp edge. By this time, early humans had created a categorisation of many different kinds of stones, just like today we have different categories for rocks and stones. This procedure started with understanding stones and their internal geometry. This technique of making a hand axe out of core stone was a more refined technique than that of making tools by crashing or hitting stones against each other, as had been practiced earlier in that period in the Oldowan culture. Peeling off the skin of the prey after killing it, separating the bone from the flesh- special tools were made for these tasks as well. The making of tools for specific purposes like chopping, cleaving and scraping also emerged around this time. Among the techniques used for making tools from stone, the Lavellois technique holds a special place. At Lavellois in France archaeologists found tools that were identical in shape to each other. In the technique used to make these tools, flakes- which are the shards that are carefully broken off from the core stone in the process of shaping it into a tool, were used to make flake tools. In the process of making these tools the makers had gone beyond simply hitting one stone with another- they had used sharp tools to separate pieces of flake from the core. The procedure is similar to peeling an onion- one layer of skin is to be removed from the layer underlying it. For carrying out a process like this, on many pieces of stone, producing what were identical pieces, language must have been a necessary precondition, because such a production had to have been a collective effort, which could not have been possible without language.

In throwing the spear what should be the angle and the force applied so that the tip of the spear may pierce the hide of the mammoth. In the act of hunting the fundamental mathematical formulae of speed and force were taking birth. Among all projectile tools the bow had to be the most advanced discovery of the paleolithic age. This reflects the science of the stone age. The bow was among the first machines used by humans which would transmit energy into the arrow. Alongside the bow, the bow drill was also discovered which could be used to pierce through the thickest of bones. This is an example of rotation mechanics. With the discovery of the bow, the first string instrument was also discovered. This first string instrument was the predecessor of all our string musical instruments… guitar, sitar, violin, cello, santoor. The most advanced of the paleolithic industries was involved in making microlith flakes. Microliths were very small flakes, carved with a lot of effort and skill, used as the sharp piercing tips in assembled tools such as spears and arrows. This concept that a tool can be made by joining multiple smaller parts was a major jump in the consciousness of early humans. The journey of tools, going from incidental or occasional tools to assembled tools shows the deepening of human knowledge.

With the use of tools, humans adopted many new materials. Caves were utilised for accommodation and shelter; animal hide, or leather, was used as clothing for protection from the cold. Sticks and tools for making fire were carried along, on the person of humans. Besides basic clothing created from animal hide, ivory and other animal bones were carved to make ornaments. This shows us that humans were conscious of their bodies. Although no remnants of leather clothing have been recovered, the discovery of sewing needles indicates that animal hide was made into cloaks and capes. The development of woven cloth was an evolution of the basic coverings made from animal hide. Moreover, lice, which must have evolved from the head lice of humans, were discovered in the remains of human clothing from that period. By studying the rate of DNA mutation of that lice, it has been calculated that it must have appeared about 15 to 8 lakh (15,00,000 – 8,00,000) years ago. These living fossils are important for the study of human evolution as a technique to connect artefacts. From various discoveries and findings, we can surmise that early humans first used intestines, veins and muscles of animals as thread for sowing.

One discovery by early humans, which animals are unable to do automatically or unconsciously, is that of controlling fire. How to make and how to control fire is among the most important of human discoveries. By making controlled fires, humans could survive cold nights, scare off predators, and ease the process of preparing food. This made it possible for them to eat many things which they earlier could not, to digest food items like animal flesh by expending less energy. We can only imagine how these discoveries might have come about. It must have been an extremely difficult process. Fire that was not made by humans existed in the form of volcanoes, in areas with natural gas, or wildfires raging in forests. Perhaps after the first time that humans ate animal flesh roasted in a wildfire, they were in search of fire and desired a way to control it too. Perhaps the spark created from the rubbing of stones in the process of being made into tools set fire to a nearby clump of dry grass. This might have given them a clue about how to make fire.

They might have seen flashing fire converting solid wood to ash and smoke. This sight must have given rise to abstract (but now clear) experiences and conceptions about fire. Translating this experience into their behaviour, they might have for the first time thought of roasting their hunt in the fire. Here, the culinary arts came into being. Culinary art, which is a unique merger of science and art, must have given humans several new challenges to think about. Meat could have been cooked directly but boiling it was still difficult because this would require a vessel. Water could, so far, be collected in empty animal bones or in large eggshells, but these would not be sufficient for boiling water in. In excavations of paleolithic sites, chipped stones have been found, which indicate that humans must have placed buckets made of leather onto stones heated on fire. But even so, it was a difficult task. A better technique or implement was required. Covering these buckets with clay opened up a new dimension. Clay replaced leather, another major development which gave rise to the skills of pottery. Now, clay utensils could be used to keep all sorts of substances. Fermentation and other chemical changes in various substances could take place in these vessels, and thus be observed by humans. This knowledge must also have given form to the knowledge of dyeing and working with leather- that materials could be dipped into different liquids to change their colour or form. The first experiments and principles of chemistry emerged from the kitchens of early humans. The animals and plants that humans ate also were part of the knowledge they gathered- knowledge of the prey’s habits and habitat were essential to hunting; knowledge of which plants were edible and which were not, and where the edible ones could be found. This, of course, is the foundation of contemporary biological science.

In the passages above we have summarised the knowledge created by the productive nature of human beings. Even though humans might have had little understanding of their times, in some areas the processes and concepts they amassed were rather complex. These were mostly an aggregation of experiences, which could be passed on to the next generation. In this period the concepts that humans developed to explain some of these experiences was ‘magic’. All the knowledge sources that have been discussed above were woven into preconceptions of magic. And this is what was possible. In the process of understanding their society and the natural world in which they lived, humans created abstractions and principles that explained the world as per their magical preconceptions.

Social behaviour – language, totem and art

in our excavations of paleolithic sites we find tools made by early humans, we find their fossilised skeletons, but what we do not find are their thoughts. An excavation of thoughts can be undertaken through an exploration of our thoughts, and in fact, of human thought across history. We learn about the evolution and development of human thought by studying the evolution of language, the aboriginal cultures of our times, and to some degree, the remnants of the paleolithic period. Humans of that period too buried their dead. In some excavations, tools that probably belonged to the buried have also been found alongside the body. The cave paintings of this period are examples of magical preconceptions of the world. Human society, which lived in tribes, was organised- it had a particular structure. The transformation of the social organisation from small groups into tribes was also reflected in the magical preconception of humans. Every tribe had its own totem, which was usually an image or a sign depicting an animal or a plant considered sacred or symbolic of the beliefs of the tribe. Totems, as representative of these beliefs, were used as the basis for exchange and communication between tribes. The creation of these totems, and the creation of tribes can be seen in conjunction with the human tendency to create new classes and categories as a means of understanding the social and natural worlds. Members of tribes created cultural artefacts such as dances, paintings and ornaments that propagated their totem, much like we create cultural artefacts to propagate our beliefs and ideas today. The rituals organised around these totems served to pass on knowledge and concepts about the world to the next generation. Some of these concepts, reflective of the magical preconceptions of the world, can be seen today in the cave paintings from this period or even in certain dance forms. Dance has always been a representation of the relationship between humans and nature. Commonplace activities such as hunting and complex ideas like the beliefs attached to a totem could all be depicted through dance. Cave paintings were the attempts to create this same kind of depiction through another medium- making visual marks. Shamans or the mendicants of the tribe would depict the process of the hunt at a site in the cave that was distant from other tribe members. She would make these images repeatedly, often at the same site. This subject of depiction and representation of the daily activities and beliefs in different forms is in itself a very interesting one, but for now, we return to the core subject of the discussion. These various depictions were an attempt by human beings to place the ‘created’ in place of the ‘actual’. This formed the conceptual basis of contemporary art as well as science. Both these disciplines are different forms of understanding and representing the ‘actual’ world that we live in, they are both made up of images and symbols. The act of placing food in the grave while burying one’s companions, or keeping it warm, shows us that humans had a conception of the soul as continuing to exist beyond death.

Human knowledge has emerged from ideas and scientific experiments in both of these areas- art and science. In this article we have discussed, very briefly, the origins of mechanics, the science of motion and speed, geometry, chemistry and biology. This knowledge was an aggregation of some experiments and experiences and some behavioural concepts. The gaps in knowledge and information in these were filled in with concepts of magic. While tools were made for hunting, those tools were validated through totem rites. Fire was created by rubbing stones against each other, but the fire was seen as a mythical power. Thus, in paleolithic times, humans’ scientific knowledge was trapped inside magical preconceptions of the world, which would eventually be broken down by progress.

We have seen here, in brief, the moments of emergence of science. The seeds of today’s CERN experiments can be found in magical preconceptions and the experiments carried out in developing tools. The space shuttles launched into the sky by humans are an extension of the first projectile tools made. In the next article, we will explore the role of science as humans enter the age of agriculture, discover metal, and move towards creating a new world, and through this, we will continue our study of science in history.

– By Dr. Sunny Singh

भारत की जनता द्वारा संघर्ष के जरिये पर्यावरण संरक्षण के लिए जिन कानूनों को बनवाने के लिए पूर्ववर्ती सरकारें मजबूर हुयी थी, आज मौजूदा भाजपा सरकार उन कानूनों को भी तिलांजलि देकर भारत की प्राकृतिक संपदा को देशी विदेशी पूंजी की लूट के लिए खुला छोड़ देने के लिए आमादा है ।

मार्च माह मे भाजपा सरकार ने EIA यानी एनवायरनमेंट इम्पेक्ट एसेसमेंट के प्रावधानों मे बदलाव प्रस्तावित किए थे । ज्ञात हो कि किसी भी औद्योगिक परियोजना को शुरू करने से पहले EIA के तहत उक्त परियोजना के कारण उस क्षेत्र विशेष पर पड़ने वाले प्रभाव का अध्ययन किया जाता है व उस क्षेत्र के लोगो की भी राय (पब्लिक कॉन्सल्टेशन) जानी जाती है। अगर उक्त परियोजना EIA के सारे नियामको पर खड़ी नही उतरती है तो फिर उसे मंजूरी नहीं देने का भी प्रावधान है । परंतु नया मसौदा EIA जो इस वर्ष मार्च मे पेश किया गया था, उसमे कई खामियाँ है । 40 औद्योगिक परियोजनाएं जैसे मिट्टी व रेत खनन, सोलर थर्मल पावर प्लांट आदि के लिए अग्रिम एनवायरनमेंटल क्लीयरेंस लेने से ही छूट दे दी गयी है ।

बी 2 श्रेणी की परियोजनाओं जैसे सिंचाईं, रसायनिक खाद उत्पादन, बायोमेडिकल वेस्ट ट्रीटमेंट संयंत्र , हाइवे निर्माण आदि को शुरू करने के पहले पब्लिक कॉन्सल्टेशन की प्रक्रिया से मुक्त रखा गया है । साथ ही अगर कोई उद्योगिक परियोजना का विस्तार अपने पूर्ववर्ती आकार का 25 फीसदी से कम हो, तो फिर उसे EIA अध्ययन से दोबारा गुजरने की अवश्यकता नही होगी, यह तो अजीब मूर्खता हुयी कि परियोजनाओं का विस्तार हो व उससे पर्यावरण को भले ही नुकसान हो, परंतु ऐसी परियोजनाओं पर कोई प्रश्न उठे । खनन व नदी घाटी परियोजनाओं को मिलने वाली एनवायरनमेंटल क्लीयरेंस की वैधता की सीमा तक बढ़ा दी गयी है । परंतु, जो प्रावधान सबसे ज्यादा आपत्तिजनक है वह यह है कि अगर कोई परियोजना नियामको का उल्लंघन करती है तब भी वहाँ की जनता इस पर शिकायत दर्ज नही करा सकती है । सरकार इस मामले मे सिर्फ सरकारी संस्थाओं व उक्त उल्लंघनकर्ता की रिपोर्ट पर संज्ञान लेगी । अब इससे ज्यादा हास्यास्पद क्या हो सकता है !

कहने के लिए तो EIA के नए मसौदे को जनता की राय शुमारी के लिए 11 अगस्त तक खुला रखा गया था । परंतु, इसकी उम्मीद कम है कि सरकार मूल मसौदे मे ज्यादा बदलाव करेगी । गोदी मीडिया ने इस पूरे मामले मे चुप्पी सी साध रखी है व विपक्ष ने भी इसपर जुबानी जमाखर्ची के अतिरिक्त कुछ नही किया है । अगर EIA मे प्रस्तावित नए सुधार पारित हो गए, तो यह देश की प्राकृतिक संपदा के लिए विनाशकारी होंगे । इन नए सुधारों का विरोध करना अति आवश्यक है । साइंटिस्ट्स फॉर सोसाइटी इन पर्यावरण विरोधी बदलावों को विरोध करता है व मांग करता है कि केंद्र सरकार प्रस्तावित बदलावों को वापस लें ।