human civilisation has

Human civilisation has always been scared of forgetting

ByJustpaste.in

By Syed Tahir Rashdi

A time ago before the first computer, the first library or even the first book people thought memory was the most important thing for knowledge. Whole societies relied on it. People remembered laws and stories by heart. Passed them down to their children. To remember something was not just to recall facts it was to keep your identity, culture and history alive.

A time ago in ancient Greece people started to worry about memory.

In a book called “Phaedrus” Socrates tells a story about a god named Theuth. Theuth invented writing. Thought it would make people wiser and help them remember more.. The king of Egypt, Thamus did not agree. He said that writing would actually make peoples memories weaker. People would start to rely on written words of trying to remember things themselves. They would think they know something just because they can read it. They would not really understand it.

Course that is not what happened. Writing did not hurt society it changed it. Books became a way to store knowledge and share ideas with people all over the world.

Socrates was worried about something that is still important today.

The question now is not whether we remember things because of books.

It is whether we remember anything all.

Today we have information stored somewhere than ever before. Our phones remember our conversations. Computers store our photos forever. We can find answers to questions in seconds. Machines can summarise books. Help us find information fast.

Never before has much information existed outside of our own minds.

This is a change in how people relate to knowledge.

A man named Marshall McLuhan said that every new technology is like an extension of our abilities. The wheel is like an extension of our feet. The telescope is like an extension of our eyes. By that logic our phones are like an extension of our memories.

They help us remember things.

The problem is obvious.

As we get better at storing information outside of our minds we get worse at remembering things ourselves. We do not remember phone numbers because our phones do. We do not remember birthdays because our computers do. We do not remember how to get places because our phones tell us. We are not trying to remember things much as we used to.

We are just looking them up.

That small change might be one of the most important things that has happened to our minds in the past century.

It is easy to see why we like to store information outside of our minds. Who would want to go to using paper maps or big books to find answers? Digital technology has made it easy for everyone to get information. We can find things out in seconds that used to take days.

The question is not whether this is useful.

It is whether it is changing our minds in some way.

Some psychologists did a study in 2011. Found out something interesting. They found out that when people know they can find information easily they do not try to remember it much. They just remember where to find it.

This is a deal.

Our minds are changing from storing information to finding it.

We are getting better at finding the path. Not the destination.

This is not a habit it is how we think. Remembering things is not about storing facts it is about using them to make decisions to imagine things and to be creative. When we remember things we can connect them in ways and have new ideas.

When we store information outside of our minds that changes.

A man named Nicholas Carr said that digital technology is not just changing how we get information it is changing how we think. The internet is great at giving us answers. It is not so good at helping us really understand things. If we get used to getting answers we might not be as good at thinking deeply about things.

This does not mean that technology is making us less smart.

It means that our intelligence is changing.

The problem is not that we do not know things.

It is that we are too dependent on technology to remember them for us.

A student might think that they can just look up answers and not really learn anything. A professional might rely much on reminders that they do not even try to remember things. Machines are getting better at remembering things for us. That might mean we do not have to try as hard.

Slowly remembering things is becoming more like looking them up.

Knowledge is becoming about getting access to information.

Thinking is becoming more about getting things done.

Technology has definitely helped us store information than ever before.

The question is whether it is also making us less likely to try to remember things ourselves.

Memory is not just about storing information.

It is about how we experience life.

A computer can store every document ever written. A machine can look up every photo ever taken.. They cannot turn experience into wisdom. Our memories are not just storage they are how we interpret things. We forget some things we remember others. We use them to understand ourselves.

A writer named Jorge Luis Borges wrote a story about a man who could remember everything.. This gift was actually a curse. The man could not forget anything so he could not think about things in a way. He was trapped by his memory. Borges was saying that forgetting is not a thing it is actually necessary for thought.

This is not about how we think as individuals.

It is about how we learn and how we understand ourselves as a society.

Education used to be about more than learning facts. It was about learning how to think. If we just store information outside of our minds education might just become about looking things up.

The same thing applies to our society.

Every society relies on shared memories. We keep records, histories and monuments because they help us remember who we are. If we forget our past we do not just lose information we lose perspective.

The digital age has stored information than any other time in history.

It has also made it easy to forget things. Yesterdays news is replaced by todays notifications. History is not just competing with people who want to deny it.

It is competing with distractions.

This is the problem with technology and memory.

We have made machines that can remember perfectly. We might be creating a culture that remembers less deeply.

This is not an argument against technology. Every new technology has changed how we remember things. Digital memory has made it easier for us to learn and access information.

The problem is not with the technology.

It is with how we think about it.

We need to decide whether we will use technology to help our minds or replace them.

Because the biggest danger of technology is not that machines will remember everything.

It is that we will forget that memory is not about storing the past.

It is, about helping us imagine the future.

(The writer is a Shahdadpur-based contributing columnist, book reviewer, and climate change activist. He holds a BS degree in Pakistan Studies from University of Sindh and can be reached at syedtahir926@gmail.com.)

 

Similar Posts

  • |

    America’s premier tourist destination

    ByJustpaste.in

    During the early 1860s, an unexpected location ranked as the second most visited tourist spot in the United States: Green-Wood Cemetery in Brooklyn. Trailing only Niagara Falls in popularity, the vast burial ground welcomed roughly 500,000 visitors every year. Families routinely spent their afternoons strolling through the peaceful grounds. They took horse-drawn carriage rides and admiring the elaborate grand monuments across the landscape. When Green-Wood first opened its gates in 1838, New York City had virtually no public parks, as Central Park had not yet been conceived. By the time the early 1860s arrived, Central Park was only beginning to open its initial sections to the public. As a result, rural cemeteries like Green-Wood filled a massive void for city dwellers seeking fresh air, natural beauty, and a quiet escape from urban density. The unique charm and sweeping vistas of the cemetery caught the attention of Rudolf Cronau, a German-born illustrator and artist. Born in Solingen in 1855, Cronau trained at the prestigious Düsseldorf Art Academy under Andreas Müller before establishing his own studio. In 1881, he ventured across the Atlantic on an assignment for Die Gartenlaube, a popular German illustrated magazine. His mission was to document the landscapes, bustling cities, and diverse people of the United States, bringing the American experience to life for European readers through a mix of written reports and detailed artwork. While visiting Brooklyn in 1881, Cronau captured the cemetery’s famous skyline view in a artwork titled View from Greenwood Cemetery, Brooklyn. Rendered in delicate watercolor and black ink, the piece now resides in the permanent collection of the Brooklyn Museum. Cronau arranged his view in three distinct planes: an elaborate mausoleum anchored the foreground, Green-Wood’s iconic Gothic main entrance gates framed the middle ground, and the vast expanse of New York Harbor and the New Jersey coastline stretched out in the background. The mausoleum highlighted in the foreground of Cronau’s illustration belonged to John Anderson, a prominent NYC figure who amassed a massive fortune in the tobacco trade. Anderson, born in 1812, ran a well-known shop near Manhattan’s City Hall before eventually passing away in Paris in 1881.   Beyond serving as his final resting place, Anderson’s tomb was built as a bold political statement. Commissioned during the heights of the American Civil War, the Greek Revival-style structure was purposefully designed to symbolize a commitment to republican governance over monarchical rule, while serving as an unmistakable declaration of pro-Union support. Through art and architecture, a single cemetery hilltop managed to weave together personal wealth, national ideology, and one of the finest views of 19th-century New York.

  • Vaping risks for young people

    ByJustpaste.in

    A major review by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has raised concerns about the growing use of e-cigarettes among children and teenagers. Researchers reviewed thousands of studies looking at how vaping may affect the health of young people. Vaping has increased sharply According to the report vaping among young people has increased 10 times over the past decade.  Many teenagers are also starting to vape at a very young age, increasing concerns about long term health effects. Vaping may harm lung health The review linked vaping among young people with several breathing problems including: •Coughing •Wheezing •Symptoms of bronchitis Worsening asthma symptoms Experts also warn that young people who vape may be more likely to start smoking traditional cigarettes later. Other possible health effects The report also highlighted several other concerns linked to vaping including. Nicotine addiction •Poor oral and dental health •Anxiety •Depression •Suicidal thoughts •Possible sleep problems •Potential effects on eye health •Allergies Researchers say more studies are still needed to fully understand some of these effects. Experts warn parents and young people Professor Will Carroll a co-author of the report said vaping should not be viewed as a harmless part of growing up. The evidence shows clear links between vaping, breathing problems nicotine dependence and future cigarette use. Vaping may look less harmful than traditional smoking but experts warn that it can still pose serious risks for children and teenagers. Preventing young people from starting vaping could help protect their health both now and in the future.

  • Why your brain may need a phone break

    ByJustpaste.in

    Smartphones have become a major part of everyday life. Many people check their phones as soon as they wake up and continue using them until bedtime. But have you ever wondered how constant phone use may affect your brain? A new study suggests that limiting smartphone use for just 72 hours may lead to changes in brain activity. What did the study find? Researchers from Heidelberg University and the University of Cologne in Germany studied 25 young adults between the ages of 18 and 30. The participants were asked to reduce their smartphone use for three days. They could still use their phones for essential tasks and important communication. Before and after the three-day period the participants underwent MRI brain scans and psychological tests. The researchers noticed changes in brain areas linked to the brain’s reward system and addictive behaviors. How did smartphones affect brain activity? During the brain scans participants were shown different pictures, including smartphones as well as everyday objects such as boats and flowers. After just three days of limited smartphone use researchers observed changes in how certain areas of the brain responded to these images. The findings suggest that our relationship with smartphones may involve more than simple communication.  The desire to check a phone can also be connected to social interaction and the brain’s reward system. Should you take a break from your phone? The study raises an interesting question about how regular smartphone use may affect the brain over time. If reducing phone use for only 72 hours can be linked to changes in brain activity researchers say it is worth exploring what might happen when people reduce their screen time for longer periods. Could a digital detox help? Taking regular breaks from smartphones may be a useful habit. Spending less time on your phone can give you more opportunities to focus on other activities spend time with people and take a break from constant notifications. A simple digital detox may also help you create healthier phone habits and give your mind some much needed time away from the screen. The bottom line Smartphones are useful tools but using them constantly may not be ideal.  Taking short regular breaks from your phone could be a simple way to build a healthier relationship with technology.

  • |

    Subjective aesthetics versus literary brilliance

    ByJustpaste.in

    Litigation over artistic quality reveals more about the critic’s personal taste and ideological leanings than it does about the intrinsic value of the literature itself. A prominent Bangladeshi academic initiated a debate across literary circles when a short video clip went viral online. In this brief excerpt from a presentation delivered at a university literary festival, the scholar dismissed the acclaimed author Shahidul Zahir. He claimed that Zahir does not even qualify as a third-rate artist. He  labeled him instead as a third-class writer whose language is thoroughly uninteresting. He similarly critiqued another modern Bengali prose writer, Akhteruzzaman Elias. For this case, he dismissed his writing style as endlessly monotonous. This judgment raises critical questions about literary aesthetics and the metrics used to evaluate global literature. Does a critic’s subjective boredom justify reducing a writer’s work to a low rating? Analytically, the fiction of Shahidul Zahir demonstrates the exact qualities that define world-class literature. Shahidul Zahir was never a conventional storyteller who somehow aimed to comfort his audience. Rather than offering comfortable narratives, his work exposes uncomfortable truths beneath established historical accounts. His portrayal of wartime violence, political opportunism, and societal compromise during and after the 1971 Liberation War forces readers to confront disturbing realities. Zahir connects the grim details of local life with magical and surreal elements. He utilizes oral storytelling traditions. He also combined surreal metaphors with layered depictions of the human condition. His narratives have bizarre occurrences such as animals acting as caretakers or war collaborators feeding human flesh to animals appear surprisingly believable against the background of ordinary towns like Sirajganj or Old Dhaka. His surrealism reflects real-world atrocities that were often equally unimaginable far from being mere fantasy. The academic’s critique centered primarily on two claims. Firstly, Zahir’s writing is dull. Secondly, his portrayal of the 1971 war is historically inaccurate. However, a closer look at these claims exposes significant flaws in the critic’s premise. The critic in question strongly favors traditional, highly formal, Sanskritized prose (sadhu bhasha) and rejects everyday spoken dialect (cholito bhasha) for serious discourse. In contrast, Zahir’s prose relies on the living, informal, and at times raw language spoken by everyday people. Therefore, rejecting an author because their prose reflects the authentic cadence of public speech reveals an elitist preference rather than an objective literary standard. The scholar accused Zahir’s acclaimed novella Jibon O Rajnoitik Bastobota (Life and Political Reality) of presenting stereotypical representations. He further pointed the supposed depiction of war collaborators wearing skull caps. Yet, nowhere in the actual text does such a detail exist. The critic appeared to project his own assumptions onto the text rather than reading what was actually written. Zahir’s novella accurately captures the painful political reality of post-liberation Bangladesh, where former wartime collaborators were gradually integrated back into mainstream power structures. Literary scholars often define world literature as creative work that responds to the global dynamics of modern capitalism and political change. Zahir’s novels illustrate how global economic forces interact unevenly with local feudal structures. In his masterpiece Shei Raate Purnima Chhilo (It Was Full Moon That Night), Zahir explores the rise of a powerful rural leader under state-sponsored political reform. The narrative illustrates how modern capitalist development mixes with lingering feudal mentalities. This mentality then creates a system where local elites hold unchecked power. Zahir constructs a portrait of a society caught between tradition and modern governance. Furthermore, Zahir’s treatment of the 1971 war connects local experiences with international geopolitics. In his stories, wartime memories constantly surface like fresh grass breaking through soil. His words speak about how national liberation was simultaneously a local struggle for survival and an event influenced by global Cold War tensions. The argument that a nation must produce literature directly accessible or marketed to Western readers in order to be considered world-class relies on a flawed premise. Global literary status should not depend solely on English translation or commercial visibility. Countless profound authors around the globe write within their local contexts. Such marvelous authors produce works that match the thematic depth of international figures like Franz Kafka or Gabriel García Márquez. As a matter of fact, dismissing Shahidul Zahir as third-class overlooks the artistic, historical, and linguistic power of his work. His fiction stands as an extraordinary accomplishment in modern literature. He is the one that challenges, provokes, and immortalizes the complex human experience far beyond the boundaries of narrow critique.  

  • How baby shark built pinkfong’s empire

    ByJustpaste.in

    When South Korean company SmartStudy uploaded a simple 90-second children’s song to YouTube in June 2016, few people could have imagined that it would become a worldwide sensation. The company now known as The Pinkfong Company, created the “Baby Shark” video which later became the most-watched video in YouTube history. It has now crossed more than 16 billion views. The company recently made another big move as its shares began trading on the Korea Exchange.  The stock rose by more than 9% at the start of trading. At the listing ceremony, CEO Kim Min-seok celebrated by playing a traditional drum while the company’s Baby Shark mascot stood beside him. SmartStudy was founded in 2010 with only three employees. According to Kim the first office was so small that the company struggled financially during its early months. It later focused on creating simple, educational and interactive content for children. That was when the idea for Baby Shark began to take shape. In 2022, the company changed its name to The Pinkfong Company inspired by its popular cartoon character, Pinkfong Fox.  Today it has more than 340 employees and offices in cities including Los Angeles, Tokyo and Shanghai. The Baby Shark melody was inspired by an old American camp song from the 1970s. Pinkfong gave it a faster beat simple lyrics and easy dance moves that children could quickly learn. The song did not become an instant hit.  However after its dance moves appeared in children’s programs across Southeast Asia social media users began sharing their own videos. The trend quickly spread around the world. Baby Shark soon became a major source of income for the company.  Toys animated shows licensing deals and live performances helped turn the song into a much bigger entertainment brand. The company also faced a copyright dispute in 2019 when an American composer accused it of copying his melody. Pinkfong argued that the song was based on a traditional folk tune. South Korea’s Supreme Court eventually ruled in the company’s favor removing a major legal concern ahead of its public listing. Today Baby Shark still contributes around 25% of the company’s revenue.  However Pinkfong’s newer franchise, Bebefinn, has grown even faster and now accounts for more than 40% of revenue. The company says it is working on new characters films and digital content to reduce its dependence on one hit song.  It also plans to explore artificial intelligence and use audience data to create content that better matches children’s interests. Many parents praise Pinkfong for making educational content fun and engaging while others feel some of its songs are too energetic. Still Baby Shark remains a familiar part of children’s birthday parties school events and family entertainment around the world.

  • |

    World’s tallest bridge features 300-meter artificial waterfall

    ByJustpaste.in

    China has completed several remarkable engineering projects in recent years but the Huajiang Grand Canyon Bridge stands out as one of the most extraordinary. Often described as an engineering marvel, the bridge is not for the faint-hearted. Anyone with a fear of heights may find crossing it a nerve-racking experience. The bridge is situated 625 meters (2,051 feet) above the ground and was opened to the public in September 2025 making it the world’s tallest bridge. However, its height is not the only feature that makes it unique. The bridge also includes a spectacular artificial waterfall making it a major tourist attraction rather than just a transportation route. Chinese authorities designed the bridge as both an infrastructure project and a tourist destination. Visitors can enjoy glass walkways, cafes inside the bridge towers and adventure activities such as bungee jumping. The bridge’s most eye-catching attraction is its 300-meter-long artificial waterfall which creates a dramatic curtain of water. A laser lighting system has also been installed allowing the waterfall to put on a dazzling display at night. According to local authorities, thousands of tourists visit the site every day. The bridge gained further recognition when Time magazine ranked it as the No. 1 destination in its list of the World’s Greatest Places for 2026. Located in Guizhou Province in southwestern China, the Huajiang Grand Canyon Bridge was primarily built to reduce travel time across the mountainous region. Guizhou’s rugged terrain previously made travel between many locations slow and difficult. Thanks to the new bridge, a journey that once took two hours can now be completed in about one minute. Constructed from 20,000 tons of steel roughly equivalent to the amount used in three Eiffel Towers, the bridge stretches 9,482 feet (about 2,890 meters) in length. Construction began in January 2022 and the bridge officially opened to the public in September 2025.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *