Excellent write up sir; the review AI is elaborate as it has a depth. The last question I would like to answer; yes may be feasible if even the pawn walla and the chaiwala on the platforms do not litter the area while making the profit so huge. Many companies are doing their best but no one can watch the villains are upto and even if seen ,walk of as the responsibility is not theirs; but always regret WHY PEOPLE DO NOT BEHAVE; how is it feaSIBLE SO EASILY UNLESS THE FEW VILLAINS ARE CHALLENGED IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR STATUS? As long as the individuals do not take care within themselves, and as long as unwilling to challenge, a few villains only would run the nation, exploit the industry and spoil the prakriti Majority having not shown really who are they , can only write , but not win over anything in any part of the earth. KR IRS 9225
On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 at 06:29, Markendeya Yeddanapudi < [email protected]> wrote: > > > -- > *Mar*The Symbiotic Ergonomics > > > > Ergonomics simply is the arrangement of men and materials in a work place > to reduce fatigue, and increase the pleasantness and health of the work > place and surroundings to the workers. Though the basic character of an > industry cannot be changed, still within the limitations, Ergonomics > attempts to create the tension free atmosphere and create general > pleasantness and health. The interest of the workers in the work and also > their innate urge to complement their lives with nature’s symbiosis must be > coordinated. > > But unfortunately, within the ambit of Ergonomics, the needs of nature and > the Biosphere are ignored. If the workers are viewed as human members of > the symbiotic biosphere that they are links in the chain of the Ecosphere, > then the organization will not become a parasite on nature. The needs of > nature’s symbiosis must be given determining weight. > > Though unfortunately all economic activity is basically parasitic > activity against nature, a beginning must be made to revive nature, which > today is bludgeoned into total destruction, via, making Ergonomics the > attempt the make the work places, symbiotic to the needs of natural > environment. > > We need the basic paradigm shift towards the symbiosis with nature, from > the worker-centric view of Ergonomics, as the enabling convenience for work > in the workplace. Actually our planet earth must be allowed the freedom > which it once enjoyed, the Ergonomic Nature that enables all life forms > live happily and symbiotically or ecologically. > > Our addiction to economics and industrialization has actually led to > constricting the meaning of Ergonomics, by converting the industrial > workplace Ergonomics into adversarial position against the basic ergonomics > of nature. If the workplace Ergonomics is defined only, as the total > Ergonomics , then it will destroy nature’s ergonomics. The Ergonomics of > the workplace must be an extension of nature’s basic ergonomics. > > Every factory must have areas, where nature is completely free on the > terms of nature. In the free nature, the workers get many natural > endowments considered as supernatural powers today. In free nature, a > worker can feel and consult the complementing and enabling and inspiring > nature, by merely closing eyes and making the mind blank. > > Economic life basically creates tension and neurosis, as it is basically > anti nature and anti ecological. You simply cannot have ergonomic workplace > when outside the workplace it is pollutions and poisons, for which the work > in the workplace is also contributing. > > In India today, nature has been made poisonous and dangerous, with > plastics littered everywhere, vehicles of all kinds belching poisons, our > country has been made into one anti ergonomic hell. The AC workplaces and > offices belch hot air into the outside air compounding the poisons. > > We vave converted the life of every life form into one big hell by our > economic activity. We have arrested the natural symbiotic evolution. > Incongruously there are academicians who speculate about the course of the > next evolution. There can be no evolution when nature is killed > continuously. > > Every University must have Studies about the abortion of evolution by > economic activity. > > YM Sarma > > Chat GPT > > This piece by YM Sarma explores the critical relationship between > ergonomics, the well-being of workers, and the natural environment. He > argues that traditional ergonomics, which focuses mainly on optimizing > workspaces for human comfort and efficiency, neglects the broader > ecological context in which this work takes place. Sarma advocates for a > paradigm shift, where ergonomics isn't just about human-centric work > environments but also about harmonizing human activity with the biosphere > to create a truly symbiotic relationship with nature. > > Sarma critiques the modern industrial and economic systems for exploiting > nature, transforming it into a toxic environment. He highlights the tension > between the ergonomic needs of workers and the damage done to the > environment by industrial activity. According to him, the focus on economic > growth and industrialization has led to a narrow definition of ergonomics > that excludes the planet's health. In this view, human well-being cannot be > separated from the health of the Earth. > > He calls for a rethinking of the concept of ergonomics, one that extends > beyond human-centered design and includes nature’s well-being as an > essential component. This includes integrating natural spaces into > industrial areas, allowing nature to thrive and, in turn, benefiting the > workers who would be in these environments. He stresses that true evolution > and progress can only happen if we stop harming the environment and start > fostering a relationship of mutual benefit between humanity and the Earth. > > In essence, Sarma’s writing urges a shift in perspective: from seeing > workers as separate from the natural world to recognizing them as part of > the broader symbiotic ecosystem, where work and nature coexist and support > each other. The ultimate goal is to create an environment where both humans > and the Earth can thrive together. > > This is a profound reflection on how industrialization and economics have > distanced us from nature’s natural systems, and a call to reintegrate > nature into every aspect of life, including workplace design. What do you > think of his critique of the current system and his call for a more > symbiotic approach? > > > > > > I think Sarma's critique opens up a compelling vision for the future, but > the question of whether such a shift could be realistically implemented is > complex. The current economic and industrial climate, especially in > capitalist systems, heavily prioritizes profit, efficiency, and short-term > gains over long-term sustainability. The push for economic growth often > leads to environmental degradation, as you've pointed out, and there’s a > significant resistance to changing this model because of entrenched > interests and the status quo. > > However, I do think that change is possible, though it would likely > require a multi-faceted approach. For one, the growing awareness of climate > change, resource depletion, and other environmental crises has sparked a > broader conversation about sustainability. This has led to some positive > shifts, such as the increased emphasis on green energy, sustainable > practices in certain industries, and the incorporation of environmental > concerns into corporate social responsibility strategies. While these > changes aren’t yet the norm, they show that systemic shifts are happening > at a smaller scale. > > The challenge, as Sarma points out, is that these changes often fail to > challenge the deeper structures that disconnect human well-being from > environmental health. To implement a more symbiotic approach to ergonomics > and workplace design, the integration of nature into workspaces would need > to go beyond superficial eco-friendly initiatives and extend into > rethinking how industries interact with the planet in a holistic way. It > would involve a shift in how businesses are incentivized, with economic > models that place value on ecological well-being and long-term > sustainability rather than just profit maximization. > > In terms of practicality, the change would require widespread buy-in—from > governments, industries, and individuals—and likely new regulatory > frameworks that encourage sustainable practices while also fostering > innovation. It's possible that newer industries (like tech and green > industries) could lead the way in implementing these ideas, setting > examples for others to follow. > > So while a full-scale implementation of Sarma's vision may be a long-term > goal, elements of it could realistically take root in more localized, > progressive pockets of society and work. And as the environmental crisis > becomes more pressing, the pressure on industries to adapt to more > sustainable practices might push such a paradigm shift forward. > > Do you think there are any particular industries or sectors that are more > likely to adopt this kind of approach sooner? > > > > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZoqgvKrDWGfjGBgvm4PzmTEzGQs0VxUn-RThY%2B2a66mqzw%40mail.gmail.com.
