I feel like a tiger. Not like the ones in Mumbai. The real ones. In other words, I’m endangered.

But there’s no need to start mourning celebrating (Note: Edited to reflect popular opinion!) just yet…..I have 5 million more years to go (which is considerably more time than tigers have), according to Prof. Jennifer Graves of the University of Canberra. Prof. Graves has confirmed the inevitability of every woman’s secret and guilty sci-fi fantasy: a world without men.

Another blow to my macho sensibilities came from a study conducted in Israel by Prof. Marek Glezerman. Not only am I endangered, it turns out I’m not even a tiger. I am a wimp. A tabby. WTF?!

I mean, it’s bad enough that I have no future, but then you rub it in by telling me that I’m weak and that manly is actually, well, unmanly. Like I said, WTF??

But let’s make the best of this; let’s not go out without a fight (no pun intended!)…..we should start organizing ourselves, demanding rights and privileges – including protected habitats where I can scratch my crotch and smash things without fear – so that our unique way of life can be preserved. Next demand: Reservations, as in quotas. Not as in habitats. I am also currently accepting subscriptions and donations for the WWF (World WeakerSex Fund!)…… please give generously!


The media in India are so busy with politics that there has been no coverage of some really important news.

For example, how many of you are aware of this revolutionary scientific study that claims to have solved a problem plaguing humankind since the dawn of civilisation? No, it’s not about hunger, disease, mortality or global warming. We finally know the secret behind navel lint! If this isn’t a path-breaking study that genuinely expands the frontiers of human knowledge, I don’t know what is. If only someone could now solve the mystery behind lost and mismatched socks, the pinnacle of human achievement will have been reached.


After a schoolboy was arrested for farting in class last November, Florida continues its crusade against teenage gas. Here’s the story: A boy allegedly farted on a school bus. His schoolmates laughed. The bus driver complained. School officials then issued a suspension order, prohibiting the boy from using the school bus for three days. The boy’s father termed the decision harsh and excessive.

I think the kids should have been sent to Gitmo. If India can invoke the NSA for some verbal farting, surely, in the US, the real thing should attract the severest punishment? And besides, how dumb were these boys? Didn’t they realise that in the land of the free, the home of the brave, there’s no place for the flatulent? Duh!

Professor Steve Jones, a genetics expert at the University College of London, has a theory that says humans – or at least humans in the more affluent countries – have stopped evolving. And why does he say this? Well, simplistically, it’s because today’s combination of science, technology and lifestyles insulates us from the very forces – like environment and nature – that precipitated and shaped our evolution as a species.

How does ‘survival of the fittest’ work when you don’t really have to be ‘fit’ to survive, when science and the development of technology have led to advances in health, medicine, nutrition and agriculture that have led to lower mortality rates, more sedentary lifestyles, better nutrition and higher life expectancies? When we are hardly ‘challenged’, in the Darwinian sense, anymore? Could one credibly argue that the push for survival is consequently weaker today? That today’s civilization (at least in most places) allows the ‘unfit’ (speaking again from a Darwinian standpoint) to survive and thrive?

There is another interesting aspect to Prof. Jones’ argument. According to him, as we have fewer older fathers, the chances of a mutation (a cell division that goes wrong and so creates a sperm different from his father’s) decrease – since younger men have undergone fewer cell divisions. And as we have fewer mutations, the chances of a beneficial mutation that could benefit the species are also reduced. This, coupled with a weakening of the natural selection process, implies that not only are the chances of an advantageous mutation lowered, but the chances of a disadvantageous mutation surviving, and more importantly, being propagated, remain high.

Logically, one could counter this train of thought by pointing out that for most of history – including less than 100 years ago – parenthood came very early, and most people did not live to cross 50. Going by Jones’ theory, therefore, evolution should have died out much earlier in our history, since there would have been very few mutations in an average man’s life. Also, considering the millions of years it took us to evolve, isn’t one being presumptuous in basing one’s judgments on 50 years of relative prosperity in a small section of our planet?

But his larger argument throws up some very interesting questions. For instance, is evolution a one-way street? In other words, do species only ‘progress’, or can they regress as well? In which case, if Homo Sapiens has stopped evolving, does that mean we have hit a steady-state evolutionary plateau, or does that mean that we could also head down the slope? Do we see another branching off of the species? Was HG Wells eerily prescient?

So, in a sense, what I am asking is this: do we, someday, go back to being primates? Sounds ridiculous? Well, The Intelligent Designer knows we in India are two small steps away from being full-blown Neanderthals. So perhaps it’s not all that ridiculous.