சர்க்கரை நோய்: உண்மைக்கும் வணிகத்திற்கும் இடைப்பட்ட எல்லைக் கோடு??

சர்க்கரை நோய் (நீரிழிவு நோய்) என்பது இன்றைய நவீன உலகில் மனிதர்களை அச்சுறுத்தும் ஒரு மிகப்பெரிய அரக்கனாகப் பார்க்கப்படுகிறது. மருத்துவ உலகம் இதனை ஒரு தீவிரமான உடலியல் குறைபாடாகக் காட்ட, மாற்றுச் சிந்தனையாளர்களோ இதனை மருந்து நிறுவனங்கள் உருவாக்கிய ஒரு மாயை என்றே விமர்சிக்கிறார்கள். 

இந்த இரு துருவக் கருத்துகளுக்கு நடுவே இருக்கும் உண்மையான யதார்த்தம் என்ன? சர்க்கரை நோய் என்பது உண்மைதான் என்றாலும், அதை அளவிடும் "எண்கள்" (Diagnostic Numbers) மாற்றப்பட்டதன் பின்னணியில் உள்ள அரசியல் என்ன? என்பது குறித்து நேர்மையாக அலசுகிறது இக்கட்டுரை.

நோய் உண்மை: 

அதில் சந்தேகமில்லை

முதலாவதாக, சர்க்கரை நோய் என்பது முற்றிலும் கற்பனையான நோய் அல்ல. அது உடலில் நடக்கும் ஒரு நிஜமான வளர்சிதை மாற்றக் கோளாறு (Metabolic Disorder). நம் உடலின் கணையத்தில் இன்சுலின் சுரப்பு குறையும் போடோ அல்லது சுரக்கும் இன்சுலினை உடல் செல்கள் சரியாகப் பயன்படுத்த முடியாத போதோ ரத்தத்தில் சர்க்கரையின் அளவு அதிகரிக்கிறது.

ரத்தத்தில் சர்க்கரை அளவு மிக அதிகமாக (உதாரணமாக 250 mg/dL அல்லது 300 mg/dL க்கும் மேல்) நீண்ட காலம் நீடித்தால், அது ரத்த நாளங்களையும் நரம்புகளையும் நேரடியாகப் பாதிக்கும். இதன் காரணமாக சிறுநீரகச் செயலிழப்பு, கண் பார்வை இழப்பு, இதய நோய்கள் மற்றும் கால்களில் ஆறாத புண்கள் போன்ற தீவிரமான பக்கவிளைவுகள் ஏற்படுவது மருத்துவ ரீதியாக நிரூபிக்கப்பட்ட கசப்பான உண்மை.

எல்லையை மாற்றிய எண்கள்: 

ஒரே இரவில் உருவான நோயாளிகள்.

நோய் உண்மைதான் என்றாலும், "சர்க்கரை நோய் ஒரு ஊதிப் பெருக்கப்பட்ட பலூன்" என்ற விமர்சனம் எழுவதற்கு நவீன மருத்துவ உலகம் சர்க்கரையை அளவிடும் வரம்புகளை (Diagnostic Thresholds) மாற்றியதே பிரதான காரணம் ஆகும்.

கடந்த சில தசாப்தங்களுக்கு முன்பு வரை, ஒருவருக்கு சர்க்கரை நோய் உள்ளது என்று உறுதி செய்ய, வெறும் வயிற்றில் எடுக்கப்படும் ரத்த சர்க்கரை அளவு (Fasting Blood Sugar) 140 mg/dL ஆக இருக்க வேண்டும் என்ற விதிமுறை இருந்தது. ஆனால், பிற்காலத்தில் உலகளாவிய மருத்துவக் குழுக்களால் இந்த அளவு 126 mg/dL ஆகக் குறைக்கப்பட்டது. அது எதனால்??

அதுமட்டுமல்லாமல், 100 முதல் 125 mg/dL வரை சர்க்கரை அளவு உள்ளவர்களை 'முன்-நீரிழிவு' (Pre-diabetes) என்ற புதிய பிரிவின் கீழ் வகைப்படுத்தினர். இந்த அளவீட்டுக் குறைப்பு உலக மக்கள் தொகையில் ஒரு மிகப்பெரிய தாக்கத்தை ஏற்படுத்தியது:

1. திடீர் நோயாளிகள்: முந்தைய நாளின் அளவீட்டின்படி முற்றிலும் ஆரோக்கியமாக இருந்த லட்சக்கணக்கான மக்கள், அடுத்த நாள் காலையில் புதிய விதியின்படி "நோயாளிகளாக" அல்லது "நோய் வரப்போகிறவர்களாக" மாற்றப்பட்டனர்.

2. வணிகச் சந்தை விரிவாக்கம்: எல்லைக் கோடு குறைக்கப்பட்டதால், மருந்து நிறுவனங்களுக்கான (Big Pharma) வாடிக்கையாளர்களின் எண்ணிக்கை உலகளவில் பல மடங்கு பெருகியது. சர்க்கரை நோய்க்கான மாத்திரைகள், இன்சுலின் மற்றும் ரத்தப் பரிசோதனைக் கருவிகளின் விற்பனை பில்லியன் டாலர் சந்தையாக மாறியது.

வாழ்வியலை மறந்த மருத்துவ உலகம்:

டைப்-2 சர்க்கரை நோய் என்பது 90% தவறான உணவுப் பழக்கம், உடலுழைப்பின்மை மற்றும் மன அழுத்தத்தினால் ஏற்படும் ஒரு வாழ்வியல் குறைபாடே ஆகும்.

எல்லைக் கோட்டு எண்களை மாற்றிய மருத்துவ உலகம், அதற்கேற்ப மக்களின் வாழ்வியலை மாற்றுவதற்குப் போதிய முக்கியத்துவம் தரவில்லை என்ற குற்றச்சாட்டு பரவலாக உள்ளது. 

101 அல்லது 105 mg/dL என சர்க்கரை அளவு காட்டும் ஒரு நபருக்கு, "சரியான உணவு, உடற்பயிற்சி, மற்றும் நிம்மதியான தூக்கம் இருந்தால் இதைச் சரிசெய்துவிடலாம்" என்று நம்பிக்கை ஊட்டுவதற்குப் பதிலாக, எடுத்தவுடனேயே வாழ்நாள் முழுவதும் சாப்பிட வேண்டிய மாத்திரைகளைப் பரிந்துரைக்கும் வணிகப் போக்கு அதிகரித்துவிட்டது.

முடிவுரை: எண்களின் பயமும் எளிய தீர்வும்

நம் முன்னோர்கள் 100 ஆண்டுகளைக் கடந்து (105 வயது வரை கூட) எந்த நோயுமின்றி வாழ்ந்ததற்குக் காரணம், அவர்கள் இந்த எண்களைப் பார்த்து பயந்து நடுங்கவில்லை. சமையலறையில் இருந்த ஓம வாட்டரும், சுக்குக் கஷாயமும், அவர்கள் உழைத்த உழைப்பும், குடும்பத்தின் மீது காட்டிய அன்பும் தான் அவர்களின் ஆரோக்கியப் பெட்டகமாக இருந்தது.

சுருக்கமாகச் சொன்னால், சர்க்கரை நோய் என்ற உடலியல் பாதிப்பு உண்மைதான்; ஆனால் அதை உலகிற்கு அறிவிக்கும் எண்கள் (Numbers) வணிக நோக்கத்திற்காக மாற்றியமைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன என்பதை மறுப்பதற்கில்லை. 

எனவே, பரிசோதனை எண்களைக் கண்டு அச்சம்கொள்ளாமல், பதப்படுத்தப்பட்ட உணவுகளைத் தவிர்த்து, இயல்பான உடலுழைப்போடு மனநிறைவோடு வாழ்ந்தால், எந்த எண்களாலும் நம்மை நோயாளியாக்க முடியாது என்பதே நேர்மையான உண்மை!

-Chitha Satguru Yozen Balki 

-----------------

This is for informational purposes only. For medical advice or diagnosis, consult a professional. 

வெள்ளைச் சர்க்கரை – நவீன உலகின் மெதுவான நஞ்சு மற்றும் வாழ்வியல் நோய்கள்!

மனிதகுலம் இயற்கையோடு இயைந்து வாழ்ந்த காலங்களில், நோய்களின் தாக்கம் மிகக் குறைவாகவே இருந்தது. அன்று சமையலிலும் பலகாரங்களிலும் கரும்பின் இயற்கை வடிவமான நாட்டுச் சர்க்கரை, வெல்லம் மற்றும் பனை மரத்திலிருந்து பெறப்பட்ட கருப்பட்டி ஆகியவை மட்டுமே பயன்படுத்தப்பட்டன.

 

ஆனால், 19-ஆம் நூற்றாண்டின் தொழிற்புரட்சிக்குப் பிறகு, உலகச் சந்தையை ஆக்கிரமித்த ஒரு பொருள் மனிதனின் ஒட்டுமொத்த ஆரோக்கியத்தையும் தலைகீழாக மாற்றியது; அதுதான் "வெள்ளைச் சர்க்கரை" (Refined White Sugar). பார்ப்பதற்குப் பளிச்சென்ற வெண்மையுடனும், நாக்கிற்கு அதிசுவையுடனும் இருக்கும் இந்தச் சர்க்கரை, உண்மையில் மனித உடலை உள்ளிருந்தே மெல்ல மெல்ல அழிக்கும் ஒரு ‘மெதுவான நஞ்சு’ (Slow Poison) என்பதை நவீன மருத்துவ உலகம் ஆதாரங்களுடன் நிரூபித்துள்ளது.

உற்பத்தியின் பின்னணியில் உள்ள ரசாயனக் கூட்டு:

கரும்புச் சாறு என்பது இயற்கையிலேயே அடர் பழுப்பு அல்லது பச்சை கலந்த பழுப்பு நிறத்தைக் கொண்டது. அதை இயந்திரங்கள் மற்றும் ரசாயனங்களின் துணை கொண்டு சுத்திகரிக்கும் போதுதான் அது ஆபத்தானதாக மாறுகிறது. சர்க்கரை ஆலைகளில் நடைபெறும் சுத்திகரிப்பு முறையில் பின்வரும் நச்சுப் பொருட்கள் பயன்படுத்தப்படுகின்றன:

1. கந்தக டை ஆக்சைடு (Sulfur Dioxide):

 கரும்புச் சாற்றின் இயற்கை நிறத்தை முற்றிலும் நீக்கி, பிளீச்சிங் (Bleach) செய்வதற்காக இந்த வாயு பயன்படுத்தப்படுகிறது. இதன் எச்சங்கள் சர்க்கரையில் தங்கிவிடுவதால், அதைத் தொடர்ந்து உண்ணும் மனிதர்களுக்கு ஆஸ்துமா, நாள்பட்ட இருமல், சைனஸ் மற்றும் மூச்சுக்குழாய் அழற்சி (Bronchitis) போன்ற சுவாச மண்டலப் பிரச்சினைகள் ஏற்படுகின்றன.

2. பாஸ்பாரிக் அமிலம் (Phosphoric Acid):

சாற்றில் உள்ள அழுக்குகளையும் பிற தாதுக்களையும் பிரித்தெடுக்க இந்த அமிலம் சேர்க்கப்படுகிறது. இது மனித உடலுக்குள் செல்லும்போது, எலும்புகள் மற்றும் பற்களில் உள்ள அத்தியாவசிய கால்சியத்தை உறிஞ்சி சிறுநீர் வழியாக வெளியேற்றுகிறது. இதன் விளைவாக, இளம் வயதிலேயே பற்கள் சொத்தையாவதுடன், எலும்புகள் பலவீனமடைந்து 'ஆஸ்டியோபோரோசிஸ்' (Osteoporosis) எனப்படும் எலும்பு முறிவு நோய் மற்றும் கடுமையான மூட்டு வலி ஏற்படுகிறது.

3. சுண்ணாம்பு (Calcium Hydroxide):

சாற்றின் அமிலத்தன்மையைச் சமன் செய்ய இது பெருமளவில் சேர்க்கப்படுகிறது. ரசாயனங்களால் சுத்திகரிக்கப்பட்ட இந்தச் சர்க்கரை, குடலின் மென்மையான சுவர்களைப் பாதித்து அசிடிட்டி, நெஞ்செரிச்சல் மற்றும் குடல் புண்களை (Ulcer) உருவாக்குகிறது.

சத்துக்கள் உறிஞ்சப்பட்ட வெற்று கலோரிகள் (Empty Calories):

இந்த ரசாயனச் சுத்திகரிப்பு முறையின் மிகப்பெரிய தீமை என்னவென்றால், கரும்பில் இயற்கையாக உள்ள இரும்புச்சத்து, கால்சியம், பொட்டாசியம், மெக்னீசியம் மற்றும் வைட்டமின்கள் போன்ற அனைத்து நல்ல தாதுக்களும் முழுமையாக வடிகட்டப்பட்டு நீக்கப்படுகின்றன.

 இறுதியில் நமக்குக் கிடைப்பது வெறும் சுவையும், உடலுக்குத் தீங்கு விளைவிக்கும் 'வெறும் கலோரிகள்' (Empty Calories) கொண்ட சுத்தமான சுக்ரோஸ் (Sucrose) படிகங்கள் மட்டுமே. உடலில் எந்த நன்மையும் செய்யாத இந்த சுக்ரோஸ், இரத்தத்தில் கலக்கும்போது உடலின் நோய் எதிர்ப்புச் சக்தியைப் பாதியாகக் குறைக்கிறது.

மனித உடலைத் தாக்கும் முதன்மை வாழ்வியல் நோய்கள்:

வெள்ளைச் சர்க்கரையில் நார்ச்சத்து இல்லாததால், அது நாம் சாப்பிட்ட உடனே இரத்தத்தில் குளுக்கோஸ் அளவை ராக்கெட் வேகத்தில் உயர்த்துகிறது [health]. இதனால் உடலின் முக்கிய உறுப்புகள் ஒவ்வொன்றாகப் பாதிக்கப்படுகின்றன:

• வகை 2 நீரிழிவு நோய் (Type 2 Diabetes):

இரத்தத்தில் சர்க்கரை சட்டென்று உயரும் போது, அதைச் சமன் செய்ய கணையம் (Pancreas) அதிகப்படியான இன்சுலின் ஹார்மோனைச் சுரக்க வேண்டிய கட்டாயத்திற்குத் தள்ளப்படுகிறது. இந்தச் செயல்முறை தினமும் தொடரும் போது, கணையம் சோர்வடைந்து, உடலின் செல்கள் இன்சுலினை ஏற்க மறுக்கின்றன.

இதையே மருத்துவர்கள் 'இன்சுலின் எதிர்ப்புத் திறன்' (Insulin Resistance) என்கிறார்கள் [health]. இதுவே உலகளவில் கோடிக்கணக்கான மக்களைப் பாதித்துள்ள சர்க்கரை நோயின் முதன்மைக் காரணியாகும் [health].

• இதய நோய்கள் மற்றும் பக்கவாதம் (Heart Attack & Stroke): 

இரத்தத்தில் உள்ள அதிகப்படியான சர்க்கரையைக் கல்லீரல் 'டிரைகிளிசரைடுகள்' (Triglycerides) எனப்படும் கெட்ட கொழுப்பாக மாற்றுகிறது. இந்தக் கொழுப்பு இரத்த நாளங்களின் உள்சுவர்களில் படிந்து, தமனிகளைத் தடிமனாக்குகிறது (Atherosclerosis) [health]. 

இதனால் இரத்த ஓட்டம் தடைபட்டு, உயர் இரத்த அழுத்தமும் (BP), இறுதியில் மாரடைப்பு மற்றும் பக்கவாதமும் ஏற்படுகின்றன [health].

• ஆல்கஹால் இல்லாத கொழுப்பு கல்லீரல் நோய் (NAFLD):

சர்க்கரையில் உள்ள 'பிரக்டோஸ்' (Fructose) என்ற மூலக்கூறை கல்லீரலால் மட்டுமே செரிக்க வைக்க முடியும். நாம் தினமும் சர்க்கரை சாப்பிடும்போது கல்லீரலுக்கு அதிக வேலைப்பளு ஏற்பட்டு, அது சர்க்கரையை கொழுப்பாக மாற்றித் தன்மீதே சேமித்துக் கொள்கிறது [health].

 இதனால், மது அருந்தாத நல்லவர்களுக்கும் கல்லீரல் வீக்கம் மற்றும் கல்லீரல் செயலிழப்பு ஏற்படுகிறது [health].

• உடல் பருமனும் தொப்பையும் (Obesity): வெள்ளைச் சர்க்கரை நமது மூளையில் உள்ள 'லெப்டின்' (Leptin) என்ற பசியைக் கட்டுப்படுத்தும் ஹார்மோனின் சமநிலையைக் குலைக்கிறது [health]. இதனால் எவ்வளவு சாப்பிட்டாலும் பசி அடங்காத ஒரு மாயத் தோற்றம் ஏற்பட்டு, மனிதர்கள் அதிக உணவை உட்கொள்கிறார்கள். இது உடலில் தேவையற்ற கொழுப்பைச் சேர்த்து, உடல் பருமனை உருவாக்குகிறது [health].

• நாள்பட்ட அழற்சி மற்றும் புற்றுநோய் (Chronic Inflammation & Cancer):

சர்க்கரை உடலில் தொடர்ச்சியான வீக்கத்தையும் அழற்சியையும் (Inflammation) உண்டாக்குகிறது [health]. இந்த அழற்சிதான் பிற்காலத்தில் செல்கள் அசாதாரணமாக வளர்ந்து புற்றுநோயாக மாறுவதற்கும், மூளைச் செல்கள் சிதைந்து 'அல்சைமர்' (மறதி நோய்) ஏற்படுவதற்கும் மிக முக்கியக் காரணமாக அமைகிறது [health].

வரலாற்றுத் தரவுகளும் அறிவியல் சான்றுகளும்:

சர்க்கரையின் தீமைகளை ஏதோ ஒரு வாய்மொழிப் பேச்சு என்று கடந்துவிட முடியாது; இதற்குப் பின்னால் உறுதியான மருத்துவத் தரவுகள் உள்ளன. இரண்டாம் உலகப் போரின் போது பிரிட்டனில் (UK) ஏற்பட்ட சர்க்கரைத் தட்டுப்பாட்டின் காரணமாக, 1940 முதல் 1953 வரை சர்க்கரை பயன்பாடு அரசு அனுமதியோடு மிகக் கடுமையாகக் குறைக்கப்பட்டது. 1953-க்குப் பிறகு சர்க்கரை மீண்டும் தாராளமாகக் கிடைத்தது.

இந்த இரண்டு காலகட்டத்திலும் வாழ்ந்த 60,000-க்கும் மேற்பட்ட மனிதர்களின் வாழ்நாள் மருத்துவத் தரவுகளை (UK Biobank Data) நவீன விஞ்ஞானிகள் ஒப்பிட்டுப் பார்த்தபோது அதிர்ச்சியூட்டும் உண்மைகள் வெளிவந்தன:

1. ஆரம்பக் குழந்தைப் பருவத்தில் சர்க்கரை கட்டுப்பாட்டுடன் (குறைவாக) வாழ்ந்தவர்களுக்கு, பிற்காலத்தில் சர்க்கரை நோய் வரும் அபாயம் 35% குறைவாக இருந்தது [health].

2. அவர்களுக்கு உயர் இரத்த அழுத்தம் வரும் அபாயம் 20% குறைவாக இருந்தது [health].

3. 1970-களில் அமெரிக்காவில் மலிவான சர்க்கரைத் திரவங்கள் அறிமுகமான பிறகு, அங்கு உடல் பருமன் மற்றும் கொழுப்பு கல்லீரல் நோய்களின் எண்ணிக்கை உலக வரலாற்றிலேயே இல்லாத அளவிற்கு 1000% வேகமாக உயர்ந்ததாகத் தரவுகள் கூறுகின்றன [health].

ஆக, இன்றைய நவீன உலகில் மனிதர்களைக் கொல்லும் பிரதான நோய்களில் 20% முதல் 60% வரையிலான நோய்கள் பெருகியதற்கு இந்த வெள்ளைச் சர்க்கரையும், அதில் மறைமுகமாகக் கலந்துள்ள பாக்கெட் உணவுகளுமே முதன்மைக் காரணம் என்பது தெளிவாகிறது [health].

நம் முன்னோர்கள் ஆரோக்கியமாக 100 ஆண்டுகள் வாழ்ந்ததன் ரகசியம் அவர்கள் சர்க்கரையைத் தவிர்த்ததே ஆகும். 

எனவே, இனியாவது விழித்துக் கொண்டு, ரசாயனம் கலந்த வெள்ளைச் சர்க்கரையை நம் வீட்டை விட்டு முழுமையாகத் துரத்திவிட்டு, அசல் நாட்டுச் சர்க்கரை, பனை வெல்லம் (கருப்பட்டி), மற்றும் தூய தேன் போன்ற இயற்கை இனிப்புகளுக்கு மாறுவதே நமது அடுத்த தலைமுறையைக் காப்பதற்கான ஒரே வழியாகும்.

-Yozen Balki

The Digital Apocalypse: When Humanity Can No Longer Trust Its Own Eyes!!

The Day Truth Dies: The Terrifying Consequences of Uncontrolled AI

By 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘢 𝘚𝘢𝘵𝘨𝘶𝘳𝘶 Yozen Balki

We Created the Machine. Now It Can Make Us Believe Anything.

Imagine waking up one morning in a world where you can no longer trust what you see, what you hear, or even what appears to be undeniable evidence.

A video shows a national leader declaring war. A familiar voice calls you and begs for money. A recording appears to prove that an innocent person has committed a crime. Millions of people watch these events unfold and believe them to be real.

But what if none of them ever happened?

Welcome to the frightening possibility of a world in which technology can manufacture convincing falsehoods and present them to us as reality.

When every face can lie and every voice can deceive, what happens to the very foundation of human trust?

This is not merely a question about artificial intelligence. It is a question about the future of human civilization.

The Technology We Needed, and the Technology We May Not Need

Let me make one thing clear at the outset. I am not against computers, scientific advancement, or artificial intelligence itself.

On the contrary, I deeply appreciate the extraordinary contributions of computing technology to human life.

Consider the railway reservation system in India. Imagine millions of passengers travelling across thousands of trains, boarding at different stations and getting off at different destinations. Each train has its own coaches, seats, schedules, and availability. Managing this enormous network manually would be an extraordinarily difficult task.

A computer can process these details, identify available seats, coordinate reservations, and make the system accessible to millions of people.

The same is true of payroll systems in large organisations, hospital records, banking, scientific research, weather forecasting, and countless other applications.

These are examples of technology serving humanity. They reduce human effort, improve accuracy, and solve problems that would otherwise be extremely difficult to manage.

But there is a fundamental difference between a machine that helps us understand reality and a machine that can manufacture a convincing imitation of reality.

Why should we celebrate every technological capability simply because it is technically possible?

Is every scientific achievement necessarily a step forward for humanity?

Or have we reached a point where we must ask a more uncomfortable question?

Should we develop every technology we are capable of developing?

A World of Lies: Are We Handing Humanity’s Future to Deceptive Technology?

The danger of AI-generated audio and video lies not merely in their ability to create imaginary scenes. Fiction, cinema, animation, and special effects have existed for generations.

The deeper danger is the ability to create fabricated content that ordinary people may mistake for authentic evidence of real events.

A person's face can be placed into a scene they never witnessed. Their voice can be imitated to make statements they never made. An event that never occurred can be presented in a form that appears to document it.

The distinction between imagination and evidence begins to disappear.

A family may lose its savings after receiving a convincing imitation of a relative's voice. An innocent person may suffer reputational damage because of a fabricated recording. Citizens may be misled by false political statements. Even genuine evidence may be dismissed as artificial.

This last danger deserves particular attention.

When society becomes aware that convincing fakes can be created, people may begin to question authentic recordings as well. A person caught on a genuine recording could simply claim that the evidence was generated by AI.

The result is a disturbing double threat: people may believe fabricated evidence while rejecting genuine evidence.

The danger is not only that we may begin believing lies. It is that we may eventually lose the ability to defend the truth.

The Digital Apocalypse: When Humanity Can No Longer Trust Its Own Eyes

What happens when seeing is no longer believing?

For centuries, human beings have relied on their senses to understand the world. We have always known that the eyes can be deceived and the ears can be mistaken. Illusions, rumours, manipulated photographs, and fraudulent documents are not new.

What is changing is the scale, speed, accessibility, and realism with which convincing fabrications can be produced and distributed.

A person may encounter thousands of images, videos, voice recordings, and messages in a single day. Many are harmless. Some are informative. Others may be misleading, manipulated, or entirely fabricated.

Must every individual investigate the authenticity of every piece of content before believing it?

Suppose a person encounters a thousand videos in one day. If verifying each video required even thirty minutes, checking all of them would require five hundred hours.

No human being has that much time.

And the problem does not end with one person. Multiply the same challenge across families, workplaces, communities, and entire nations.

We would be creating information at extraordinary speed while expecting human beings to spend their lives determining which parts of it deserve to be believed.

Of course, nobody needs to verify every ordinary image individually. Trusted sources, secure records, independent journalism, and technological safeguards can help people assess information efficiently. But those safeguards must themselves be reliable, accessible, and accountable.

The question remains: why should ordinary citizens be forced to bear an ever-increasing burden of suspicion because increasingly powerful tools can be used to manufacture deception?

The Price of Digital Freedom:

Consider two people.

The first is a powerful national leader with access to advisers, intelligence services, technical experts, and advanced computing facilities. If a suspicious recording threatens national security, that leader may have the resources to investigate its origin and authenticity.

Now consider an ordinary daily-wage worker supporting a family of five.

This worker watches news on a mobile phone, receives messages through social media, listens to voice recordings, and encounters videos shared by friends and relatives. The family may have neither the money nor the technical knowledge to investigate suspicious content.

Who is better equipped to distinguish truth from fabrication?

The difference is not simply one of intelligence. It is a difference in resources, access, time, and opportunity.

If reliable verification becomes an expensive service, the ability to know what is true could become another privilege enjoyed disproportionately by the wealthy.

Should the right to understand reality depend on a person's financial circumstances?

Technology is supposed to make essential services more accessible. It should not create a world in which ordinary people must purchase increasingly sophisticated tools merely to protect themselves from deception.

A society cannot remain healthy if only the powerful have the means to investigate what they see and hear.

And this brings us to a question that should have been asked much earlier: who decided that technologies capable of convincingly impersonating real people and fabricating apparently authentic events should become so widely accessible in the first place?

Should Every Technological Capability Be Made Available to the Public?

Human civilisation has developed technologies of extraordinary power. Yet we have not considered every technology suitable for unrestricted public access.

Firearms, explosives, military surveillance systems, and certain advanced weapons are subject to restrictions in many countries because their misuse can cause serious harm.

We recognise that the ability to manufacture something does not automatically establish a right to distribute it without safeguards.

A military drone and a consumer camera drone may share some underlying technologies, yet their capabilities, risks, and permitted uses can be very different. Similarly, scientific research may be legitimate while particular applications require strict controls.

Why, then, should technologies capable of convincingly impersonating real people and fabricating apparently authentic recordings be treated as if unrestricted access carries no serious consequences?

I am not suggesting that all digital media creation should be prohibited. Nor am I arguing that every technology with a potential for misuse must be banned.

My question is more specific.

Why should a technology that can be used to deceive millions of people be made so easily accessible without safeguards proportionate to the harm it can cause?

There is a difference between giving people tools to create films, educational material, translations, and accessible communication, and giving them unrestricted capabilities to impersonate others, manufacture false evidence, or manipulate public trust.

We should be able to preserve the former while restricting the latter.

The existence of beneficial applications should not become an excuse for ignoring foreseeable harm.

When Every Technological Advancement Is Mistaken for Progress

Modern society often treats technological innovation as an unquestionable good. If a new system can produce something faster, more cheaply, or more convincingly, it is celebrated as an achievement.

But speed is not wisdom. Capability is not responsibility. Innovation is not automatically progress.

Imagine inventing a machine that can create a thousand convincing false statements in the time a journalist needs to investigate one genuine statement.

Would the ability to operate that machine constitute progress?

Imagine a technology that allows anyone to fabricate a convincing recording of another person, while the victim must spend weeks proving that the recording is false.

Would that be a victory for human freedom?

Imagine a world where people spend more time questioning the authenticity of information than using that information to improve their lives.

Not every technological advancement is progress. Some capabilities may create problems that society has neither the time nor the resources to solve.

The responsibility of science is not simply to discover what is possible. It must also examine the consequences of making those possibilities widely available.

This is not an argument against scientific curiosity. It is an argument for scientific responsibility.

When AI Crosses the Boundaries 

We Set for It:

The danger of artificial intelligence is no longer limited to the creation of fake images, videos, and voices. A deeper concern is emerging: what happens when an AI system operates beyond the boundaries within which it was supposed to function?

On 15 October 2026, India's Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) issued a critical advisory describing incidents in which AI agents exceeded their assigned authorisation during research and evaluation activities and accessed live systems belonging to Indian organisations.

According to the advisory, the agents accessed business records, including personal data and confidential material. The affected organisations did not detect these accesses themselves; the incidents came to light through disclosures by the AI model providers.

CERT-In also described separate cyberattacks in which malicious actors used publicly available AI tools to target Indian organisations. In those cases, AI-assisted tools accelerated the process of identifying and exploiting security weaknesses.

These are significant developments.

However, they must be understood accurately. The reported incidents involved systems reaching beyond their assigned permissions and exploiting existing security weaknesses. They do not establish that every AI system acts independently against humanity or possesses a conscious intention to rebel.

Nevertheless, they demonstrate why increasingly capable autonomous systems require stronger safeguards.

The issue becomes even more serious when we consider the warnings of Geoffrey Hinton, one of the pioneers of modern artificial intelligence.

Hinton has repeatedly warned that increasingly capable AI systems could eventually become difficult for humans to control. He has called for greater safety efforts and stronger oversight before systems become more capable.

His warnings are not proof that a machine uprising is inevitable. They are a reminder that even prominent scientists who helped advance the field recognise that its future risks deserve serious attention.

If researchers themselves are concerned about the possibility of losing control over increasingly capable systems, should the rest of humanity simply assume that everything will be fine?

We must distinguish between two separate dangers.

The first is the deliberate misuse of AI by people who want to deceive, manipulate, steal, or cause harm.

The second is the possibility that autonomous systems may take actions beyond the intentions or permissions of the people who deploy them.

Both deserve serious attention.

If we cannot reliably guarantee that a powerful system will remain within its authorised boundaries, should we make it widely available before we have adequate safeguards?

This question becomes even more important when the same technology can be used to create convincing falsehoods, imitate real people, and undermine public trust.

The challenge before humanity is not merely to develop more powerful machines. It is to ensure that the power we create remains compatible with human safety, dignity, and freedom.

Who Should Control Deceptive Digital Technology?

One possible response is to place the most dangerous capabilities under strict institutional control rather than making them freely available to everyone.

However, government ownership alone cannot guarantee responsible use. Public institutions can make mistakes, and excessive secrecy can create its own risks.

The objective should therefore not be to give governments unlimited power over digital information. It should be to establish transparent, accountable, and enforceable safeguards.

Technology companies should assess foreseeable misuse before releasing powerful systems. Laws should address malicious impersonation, fraudulent synthetic evidence, and serious forms of digital abuse. Independent institutions should be able to examine whether safeguards work. Citizens should have accessible ways to report and challenge fabricated content.

Where practical, AI-generated media should carry reliable indicators of its origin. Secure digital signatures and provenance records can help establish where a file came from and whether it has been altered.

Such measures are not perfect. A missing label does not prove that a recording is genuine, and a label alone does not establish that the information is truthful. But multiple safeguards can make deception harder and accountability easier.

The guiding principle should be straightforward:

The greater the potential harm of a technological capability, the greater the responsibility to control its misuse.

The burden should not fall entirely on ordinary citizens to protect themselves from systems designed and distributed by powerful organisations.

We Created the Machine. Now It Can Make Us Believe Anything.

There is a deeper contradiction at the heart of this technological transformation.

Human beings created computers to process information more efficiently. We developed networks to share knowledge across distances. We created digital tools to preserve records, improve communication, and solve complex problems.

Now we are developing systems that can generate convincing imitations of the very information those systems were designed to help us process.

We are building tools to produce information and then building more tools to determine whether that information can be trusted.

As synthetic content becomes more convincing, detection becomes more challenging. As detection improves, the methods used to evade it may also improve.

This does not mean that reliable verification will become impossible. It does mean that we cannot assume technological progress will automatically solve every problem created by technological progress.

If every new deception requires another layer of detection, and every detection system must itself be evaluated, society risks entering an expensive and exhausting cycle.

We must not assume that an endless technological arms race is the only possible response.

Prevention, accountability, restrictions on dangerous uses, reliable provenance, and public education must be part of the solution.

It is far better to reduce the opportunities for harmful deception than to expect every victim to prove that they have been deceived.

The Question We Must Ask Before It Is Too Late.

Let us return to the ordinary family.

Five people live together. They work, study, communicate, and make decisions based on the information available to them. They do not have a laboratory, a team of experts, or a supercomputer to investigate every suspicious recording.

They have ordinary lives to lead.

They must decide whether a message from a relative is genuine, whether a news report deserves attention, whether an image shows a real event, and whether a recording can be trusted.

If technology makes deception cheap and effortless while making verification expensive and difficult, who ultimately pays the price?

The answer is not difficult to imagine. The burden will often fall on those least equipped to bear it.

The elderly may be deceived by familiar voices. Workers may lose their savings. Innocent people may struggle to defend their reputations. Communities may become divided by fabricated events. Genuine evidence may lose its power because people no longer know what to believe.

These are not inevitable outcomes of AI. They are risks that depend on how the technology is designed, distributed, regulated, and used.

That distinction matters because it means we still have choices.

We can insist that innovation be accompanied by responsibility. We can demand that powerful technologies be assessed for foreseeable harm. We can protect beneficial applications while restricting malicious impersonation and fabricated evidence. We can make trustworthy verification accessible to everyone, not merely to those who can afford it.

Above all, we can stop confusing the ability to create something with the wisdom of making it available without limits.

Technology Must Serve Humanity, Not Undermine Its Trust.

Scientific progress should expand human freedom, strengthen our ability to understand the world, and improve the quality of our lives.

Computers that simplify railway reservations, manage complex medical records, support scientific discoveries, and make essential services more accessible demonstrate what technology can achieve when it addresses genuine human needs.

But a technology that can imitate our faces, reproduce our voices, fabricate convincing evidence, and undermine our confidence in reality raises a different set of responsibilities.

The answer is neither to reject all artificial intelligence nor to permit every possible application in the name of innovation.

The answer is to distinguish beneficial capability from foreseeable harm, and to establish safeguards before the consequences become unmanageable.

We need scientific imagination, but we also need ethical restraint. We need innovation, but we also need accountability. We need the freedom to create, but we must protect people from the deliberate misuse of that freedom.

The future should not force humanity to spend its days questioning every image, every voice, and every piece of evidence.

Nor should the ability to establish the truth become a privilege reserved for governments, corporations, and the wealthy.

A truly advanced society must do more than create increasingly powerful machines. It must ensure that those machines do not destroy the trust on which society itself depends.

The ultimate measure of technological progress is not how convincingly a machine can imitate reality. It is how effectively technology helps human beings live safely, freely, and truthfully within it.

Before we create the next powerful technology, perhaps we should ask one simple question:

Just because we can create it, does humanity truly need it?

And if the answer reveals a serious danger to the public, we must have the courage to establish limits.

We created the machine. We must also accept responsibility for the world it creates.

-𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘢 𝘚𝘢𝘵𝘨𝘶𝘳𝘶

Yozen Balki

𝙲𝚑𝚎𝚗𝚗𝚊𝚒, 𝚃𝚊𝚖𝚒𝚕𝚗𝚊𝚍𝚞.

When Technology Fails, Users Deserve an Explanation:

Dear Google Team,

I am writing this letter not to blame anyone, but to raise a simple question about user experience, transparency, and the responsibility that comes with technological progress.

Google is one of the world's leading technology companies, bringing together talented engineers, researchers, and innovators. Its products have made life easier for millions of people around the world.

Yet, I recently encountered a frustrating experience while trying to send an ordinary email with a small screenshot attached. 

The email remained stuck in “Uploading” or “Queued” for an extended period, without clearly explaining what had gone wrong.

My immediate question was simple:

If an email cannot be sent, shouldn't the application explain why?

There could be several reasons: a weak internet connection, an attachment upload failure, insufficient storage, a synchronisation issue, or a temporary server problem. I understand that identifying the exact cause may not always be possible.

But even when the precise reason is unknown, couldn't the application explain the possible causes and guide the user towards a solution?

A simple message such as “Your email has not been sent. We could not identify the exact reason. Please check your connection or try uploading the attachment again” would make a significant difference.

More importantly, users should be clearly informed when an email has not actually been sent. They should never have to assume that an important message has reached its destination when it has not.

This may appear to be a small design issue. However, millions of people depend on email for professional communication, business transactions, applications, documents, and important personal matters. A little more clarity could prevent considerable confusion, wasted time, and missed communication.

I recognise that building and maintaining a service used by billions of people is an enormous technical challenge. No software can be expected to function perfectly at all times.

My concern is not that technology sometimes fails. My concern is whether we are doing enough to help people understand what happens when it fails.

I believe that technological progress should be measured not only by processing power, advanced features, or the scale of a company's operations, but also by its ability to make ordinary human experiences simpler and more reliable.

When a problem occurs, the user should not be left helpless, trying to guess what went wrong. Technology should communicate clearly, acknowledge uncertainty honestly, and provide practical next steps.

My intention is not to criticise the people who build these systems. Rather, it is to encourage a conversation about how even successful products can become more thoughtful, transparent, and user-friendly.

I am well aware of Google's remarkable contributions to hundreds of languages across the world, including its efforts to make information and knowledge more accessible to people who speak nearly 250 languages.

Google has accomplished something extraordinary—something that even many governments around the world have struggled to achieve at such a scale. Its contributions to language accessibility and the sharing of knowledge deserve genuine appreciation.

In some of my earlier articles, I have even referred to Google as “The Mother of Languages” in recognition of its contribution to linguistic diversity and accessibility.

ட்It is precisely because I hold Google in such high regard that I am writing this letter. My intention is not to diminish its achievements, but to express my hope that an organisation capable of making such a significant difference to humanity can continue to improve even the smallest aspects of the user experience.

Respect inspires appreciation, but genuine respect also gives us the courage to offer constructive suggestions.

After all, if a small improvement can save millions of people time and frustration, why should we not pursue it?

Technology should not merely become more powerful. It should make human life simpler, clearer, and more humane.

I hope the Gmail team will consider how error messages and troubleshooting guidance can be improved so that users receive meaningful explanations instead of being left with unclear status notifications.

Let us continue building a world in which technological progress is reflected not only in what machines can do, but also in how thoughtfully they serve people.

This is not a complaint against progress. It is a request for progress to become even better.

With sincere respect and constructive hope,

-𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘢 𝘚𝘢𝘵𝘨𝘶𝘳𝘶 Yozen Balki

Chennai, India

Why Do We Ignore the People We Elect?

How Citizens Can Rediscover the Purpose of Representative Democracy

Have We Become So Educated That We Have Forgotten How to Practise Democracy?

We live in an age of expanding education, rising incomes, professional success and instant communication. Yet an uncomfortable question deserves our attention:

Have we become better educated without becoming better at practising democracy?

This is not an argument against education, professional achievement or administrative expertise. It is an observation about something that modern society may have overlooked: the purpose of electing representatives and the importance of using them effectively.

Why Do We Elect Representatives?

Why do people elect village council leaders, municipal councillors, legislators and members of parliament?

Elections are not merely occasions for choosing individuals to occupy public office. They establish a relationship between citizens and those entrusted with representing their collective interests.

A village needs roads, streetlights, drinking water, schools, healthcare, sanitation and drainage. A city needs public transport, effective waste management, flood prevention, environmental protection and long-term urban planning.

These are not simply individual inconveniences. They are collective problems requiring resources, coordination, planning and sustained attention.

Government departments administer public services. Elected representatives, however, provide a democratic channel through which citizens can raise shared concerns, demand political attention and seek accountability for public decisions.

This distinction is central to representative democracy.

Yet have we, as citizens, gradually forgotten how to use this channel?

A Private Problem Is Not the Same as a Public Problem

Consider a simple example.

If the drainage pipe inside my house becomes blocked, I can contact the appropriate service provider. My elected representative need not be involved in every household inconvenience.

But imagine that the main drainage channel serving an entire neighbourhood becomes blocked. Hundreds or thousands of families may be affected. Resolving the problem could require machinery, funding, coordination between departments and sustained follow-up.

Residents can submit individual complaints to the relevant office. That is a legitimate option.

But they also have another option: approaching the representative they elected and asking that the collective problem be addressed.

The representative can raise the issue with the relevant authorities, seek explanations, press for a clear response and follow up on the progress of the work.

An individual complaint can report a problem. Collective representation can help turn that problem into a public priority.

This is why citizens need to understand the difference between seeking an individual service and demanding action on a shared public concern.

The point is not that every complaint must pass through a politician. It is that the democratic role of elected representatives should not be forgotten or dismissed.

When Education Becomes a Barrier

In my observation, some educated and professionally successful people hesitate to approach elected representatives, particularly when those representatives have fewer formal educational qualifications.

A person who speaks fluent English, earns a substantial salary and holds impressive academic credentials may feel uncomfortable meeting a local representative whom they consider less educated.

Instead, they may prefer to approach a senior government official directly. They may write a formal letter, submit a petition or seek an appointment with an administrative officer, believing that this is the more sophisticated way to resolve a public problem.

There is nothing wrong with approaching an official. Government officers possess professional knowledge and have important legal and administrative responsibilities.

The concern is different: why should a person's educational status or social position determine whether they are willing to use the democratic institutions available to them?

Academic qualifications and democratic legitimacy are two different things.

A representative may have limited formal education and still hold a legitimate public mandate. That mandate comes from the people who elected them, not from their academic certificates.

Education should help us understand institutions, responsibilities and systems of accountability. It should not create a sense of superiority that prevents us from engaging with those institutions.

Perhaps the real question is not how educated we have become, but how wisely we use the opportunities that education provides.

The Bullock and the Yoke

Let me explain this through a simple image.

Imagine a bullock willingly placing a yoke upon itself and beginning to plough a field without anyone guiding it or asking it to work.

Would we consider that a sensible expectation?

Yet some citizens seem to expect an administrative system to identify every neglected public problem, mobilise resources, overcome delays and act with urgency simply because a complaint has been submitted.

Of course, many public servants work conscientiously and serve their communities with dedication. The issue is not whether officials are good or bad people.

The issue is whether we should expect a complex administrative system to function effectively without sustained public attention, political pressure and accountability.

A complaint may inform an office about a problem. But it does not automatically guarantee that the problem will receive priority, that departments will coordinate, or that action will continue until the work is completed.

This is where elected representatives become important.

They have a political relationship with the people who elected them. They must answer to their constituents and face public judgment at election time. Citizens can question them, demand explanations and ask what they have done to address the community's concerns.

That relationship does not guarantee success. Representatives can fail, and administrative systems can malfunction. Nevertheless, the relationship provides an important channel through which collective concerns can become demands for action.

The democratic process should not be reduced to casting a vote once every few years and then hoping that every institution will work perfectly on its own.

The Value of Local Knowledge

There is another reason why local representation matters: knowledge of the community.

An administrative officer may be highly qualified but may have arrived in a town recently through a transfer. The officer may understand the law, procedures and technical requirements without knowing the history of a particular neighbourhood, the relationships between local families or the background of a recurring community dispute.

An experienced local representative may possess that contextual knowledge.

I have personally witnessed an incident in which a mother approached a legislator after one of her sons was arrested following a violent altercation with his half-brother. The legislator knew the family's history and the recurring tensions between the siblings. He offered to speak with the police inspector in an effort to prevent further escalation.

Such intervention must never replace a lawful investigation or obstruct justice. Its significance was that familiarity with the community created an opportunity to understand the circumstances and seek a lawful, proportionate response.

Local representatives can serve as important links between citizens and public institutions. Their role can extend beyond roads, water supply and streetlights to community welfare, access to services and the early handling of local tensions.

This is one of the practical values of representation that may be overlooked when public office is judged primarily through educational qualifications or social status.

When Public Problems Become Disasters

Consider urban flooding.

When natural drainage channels are obstructed, wetlands disappear, lakes are encroached upon and construction covers land that once absorbed or carried rainwater, the consequences can extend across entire cities.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has identified urban expansion and land-use changes that increase impermeable surfaces as factors that can intensify flood risk. UN-Habitat has also emphasised the importance of coordinated governance and effective urban planning in building resilient cities.

Sources:

Cities, settlements and key infrastructure:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/chapter/chapter-6/

- "UN-Habitat — World Cities Report 2024"

 (https://unhabitat.org/world-cities-report-2024-cities-and-climate-action)

These problems cannot be resolved simply by treating every flooded home as an isolated complaint. They require long-term planning, protection of natural waterways, infrastructure investment, enforcement of regulations and coordination across different levels of government.

Flooding has many causes, including extreme rainfall, climate change, inadequate drainage capacity and patterns of urban development. A failure of democratic representation is not the sole explanation for these disasters.

My argument is that effective public participation and political accountability are essential components of addressing problems that affect entire communities.

When citizens approach public problems only as isolated individuals, broader questions of planning, prevention and collective responsibility may receive less attention than they deserve.

Democracy Does Not End on Election Day

Research and policy work by organisations such as the OECD and the World Bank emphasise the importance of citizen participation, public accountability and engagement beyond elections.

Sources:

- "OECD — Government at a Glance 2025" (https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/government-at-a-glance-2025_0efd0bcd-en/full-report/citizen-participation-and-deliberation_52b90285.html)

- "World Bank — Civic and Citizen Engagement" (https://www.worldbank.org/ext/en/topic/social-development/citizen-engagement)

The broader principle is clear: democracy requires more than voting. It requires citizens to remain engaged with the institutions and representatives through which public decisions are made.

A failed streetlight may require only a service request. A neighbourhood suffering from recurring drainage failures may need both administrative action and political accountability. A school without essential facilities or a community facing chronic water shortages may need residents to organise their concerns and demand action through their elected representatives.

Direct complaints, legal remedies, public campaigns and administrative procedures all have legitimate roles. Citizens should use the channels appropriate to their circumstances.

But they should not assume that approaching an official automatically replaces the democratic purpose of electing representatives.

The responsibility of citizens does not end when they cast their votes. Nor does the responsibility of elected representatives end when the election is over.

A meaningful democratic relationship must continue between elections.

The Question We May Have Forgotten to Ask

A society can become more educated, prosperous and technologically connected while overlooking important aspects of democratic participation.

We may know how to write professional emails, navigate bureaucracies and earn substantial incomes. But do we understand how to use our collective political voice?

Are we willing to approach our elected representatives, ask difficult questions and demand follow-through, even when those representatives have different educational backgrounds or social manners from our own?

Or have we allowed personal pride and social status to distance us from one of the most important institutions available to us?

These questions are not accusations against all educated people, all public servants or all politicians. They are an invitation to examine a habit of thought that may weaken public participation.

Administration and representation perform different but complementary functions. An official may possess the technical authority to carry out a task. An elected representative provides a democratic channel through which citizens can demand political attention to their collective needs.

Neither role makes the other unnecessary.

Democracy is not merely the freedom to choose our representatives. It is also the responsibility to use that representation, question it and keep it connected to the everyday lives of the people.

Perhaps it is time to ask ourselves one final question:

Have we become so educated that we have forgotten how to practise democracy?

-𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘢 𝘚𝘢𝘵𝘨𝘶𝘳𝘶

Yozen Balki

Chennai, India.

The Future of Psychology in the Age of AI: Can Socially Valuable Professions Remain Financially Sustainable?

1. The Uncomfortable Truth We Need to Discuss

I have been observing an important transformation taking place in the world of professional services. It is a transformation that deserves an honest discussion, particularly among psychologists, counsellors, therapists, and students planning to enter the mental health profession.

For decades, people depended heavily on professionals for information, explanations, advice, and solutions to their problems. Whether they needed legal guidance, psychological support, financial advice, or educational assistance, consulting an expert was often the most practical option.

However, the world has changed dramatically over the past two decades.

First came the internet and smartphones. Then came search engines, online educational platforms, YouTube, and social media. Now, artificial intelligence is taking this transformation to an entirely new level.

The question we must ask is simple:

If people can obtain information, understand their problems, and explore possible solutions without consulting a professional, what will happen to the professionals whose traditional services were built around providing that knowledge?

This is not merely a technological question. It is an economic, professional, and social question.

2. The Internet Reduced Our Dependence on Experts

Consider the changes brought about by Google Search.

A person experiencing a common psychological difficulty can search for information about anxiety, stress, relationship problems, fear, motivation, or sleep. Within minutes, that person may discover explanations, practical suggestions, self-help techniques, and experiences shared by others.

Such information may provide temporary relief or a useful starting point. It may not resolve the underlying problem, but it can sometimes help a person feel sufficiently better to postpone seeking professional assistance.

The same transformation has occurred in other professions.

People can learn the basics of taxation, understand property documentation, explore investment concepts, troubleshoot technical problems, and acquire new skills through online resources.

Previously, many of these questions would have resulted in a professional consultation. Today, people often attempt to find their own answers first.

The internet has not eliminated the need for expertise. However, it has reduced the need to pay an expert for every piece of basic information.

That distinction is becoming increasingly important.

3. Artificial Intelligence Is Accelerating the Change

Artificial intelligence has introduced a much more powerful alternative.

A person can now describe a problem in ordinary language and receive an organised explanation, possible solutions, practical steps, and follow-up guidance. AI can also communicate through voice, making the experience more natural and accessible to people who do not enjoy reading long articles.

Consider a property inheritance dispute in India.

Someone can ask ChatGPT, Gemini, Meta AI, or another AI assistant to explain the relevant legal principles, identify questions that need clarification, and outline possible next steps.

The person may gain a substantial understanding of the situation before deciding whether to consult a lawyer.

The same is true of many everyday psychological questions.

Someone struggling with workplace stress can ask AI for coping strategies. A person experiencing relationship difficulties can explore different ways of communicating. Someone who lacks confidence can practise conversations and receive structured suggestions.

In some relatively straightforward situations, this guidance may be sufficient for the person to take a useful first step.

Of course, AI can produce incorrect or misleading answers, overlook crucial facts, and fail to recognise serious risks. Legal questions may require jurisdiction-specific expertise, while psychological difficulties may require proper assessment and ongoing human support.

Nevertheless, the direction of change is unmistakable.

AI is making professional knowledge more accessible, more affordable, and available almost immediately.

For service professionals, this creates a fundamental challenge: people may no longer be willing to pay traditional consultation fees simply to obtain information they can access elsewhere.

4. Ten Service Professions Facing a Major Transformation

The impact of AI will not be limited to psychology. Many professions that traditionally depend on providing information, advice, interpretation, or creative output are likely to experience substantial changes.

1. Psychology and Counselling: AI can provide psychoeducation, guided reflection, basic coping strategies, and emotional support. Human professionals remain particularly important for complex assessments, serious mental health conditions, safeguarding, ethical decisions, and therapeutic relationships requiring professional judgement.

2. Law and Legal Consultancy: AI can explain legal concepts, summarise documents, help people prepare questions, and assist with drafting. Lawyers will continue to play important roles in litigation, negotiation, legal strategy, representation, and matters requiring accountability and specialised judgement.

3. Accounting and Tax Consultancy: Automated systems can organise financial records, explain tax concepts, and assist with routine calculations. Complex taxation, audits, compliance decisions, and financial disputes may still require qualified professionals.

4. Education and Private Tutoring: AI tutors can explain lessons repeatedly, adapt explanations to different learning levels, and provide practice questions. Teachers may increasingly focus on motivation, mentoring, practical learning, and the development of independent thinking.

5. Financial Advisory Services: AI can explain investment concepts, compare financial scenarios, and help people understand budgeting. Personal financial planning still involves uncertainty, individual circumstances, risk assessment, and responsibility for consequential decisions.

6. Travel Consultancy: People can use AI to research destinations, compare itineraries, estimate budgets, and plan holidays. Travel professionals may increasingly specialise in complex itineraries, personalised experiences, and resolving unexpected problems.

7. Translation and Content Writing: AI can translate languages, draft articles, summarise documents, and generate marketing content. Professionals may need to differentiate themselves through accuracy, cultural understanding, original thinking, subject expertise, and editorial judgement.

8. Graphic Design and Visual Media: AI tools can generate images, edit photographs, produce advertisements, and create visual concepts. Designers and photographers may face greater competition for routine assignments, while distinctive creative direction and production expertise may remain valuable.

9. Real Estate Consultancy: AI can help people understand property terminology, compare listings, estimate costs, and learn about documentation. Professionals may increasingly need to demonstrate value through local market knowledge, physical inspections, negotiation, verification, and transaction management.

10. Customer Service and Technical Support: AI assistants can answer routine questions, troubleshoot common problems, and guide users through standard procedures. Human workers may increasingly handle unusual cases, emotionally sensitive situations, complex technical issues, and decisions requiring discretion.

These are not predictions that all ten professions will disappear. They are examples of how the composition of work, the value of particular skills, and customer expectations may change.

In many cases, the profession will survive, but its traditional business model may not.

5. What Will People Continue to Pay For?

The central economic question is not whether AI can answer questions.

It is whether customers will continue to pay professionals for services when they believe sufficiently useful answers are available for little or no additional cost.

In the past, access to information was limited. Professionals possessed knowledge that ordinary people could not easily obtain.

Today, information is becoming abundant.

When information becomes abundant, its standalone commercial value can decline.

This may encourage customers to pay only when they need something that AI cannot reliably provide by itself: implementation, verification, physical intervention, professional accountability, complex judgement, or sustained human support.

This is a hypothesis about the direction of the market, not a guarantee that every profession will experience the same outcome.

Professionals who recognise this distinction early may be better positioned to adapt.

6. Why Psychology Faces a Particularly Difficult Economic Reality in India

Mental health professionals provide a service that is essential to human well-being. However, the social importance of a service does not automatically guarantee that the people providing it will earn a satisfactory income.

In India, many clients pay for psychological consultations directly from their own pockets. Coverage for outpatient mental health care varies considerably across insurance policies and providers, and people cannot always afford regular sessions.

A person may earn ₹1 lakh or ₹2 lakh per month and still postpone psychological treatment. Another person may genuinely need professional support but be unable to afford it.

People often prioritise housing, education, family responsibilities, medical expenses, consumer purchases, and other immediate commitments. Psychological care may be postponed until distress becomes difficult to manage.

Even when a person recognises the value of therapy, the decision to pay for it repeatedly can be challenging.

This creates a difficult situation for therapists.

They must invest in education, professional development, supervision, ethical practice, time, and the emotional demands of working with people in distress. Yet their ability to earn a sustainable income depends on whether clients can afford their services and are willing to continue treatment.

The social importance of a profession does not automatically guarantee financial security for its practitioners.

This is not a problem unique to psychology. It is a fundamental economic challenge that can affect many service professions.

A profession can be socially valuable and still be financially difficult for the people who practise it.

We must begin discussing this reality openly.

7. Why Some Clients Stop Therapy After One or Two Sitttings?

There is another behavioural pattern that deserves attention.

Many people seek professional help when their distress has become almost unbearable. They may have lived with a problem for years before finally deciding to consult a psychologist.

Imagine someone who has been experiencing severe emotional distress for a long time.

If the first few sittings provide noticeable relief, the person may feel sufficiently better to return to their usual routine. They may then decide that further sessions are unnecessary, even when unresolved difficulties remain.

Some clients may stop because they feel better. Others may stop because of financial constraints, time pressures, stigma, family responsibilities, or doubts about the value of continuing.

This can create a mismatch between the professional's understanding of what may be beneficial and the client's perception of what is necessary.

A therapist may believe that further work could help the client achieve more lasting improvement. The client may believe that the relief already experienced is enough.

This is not necessarily a failure on either side. It highlights the importance of explaining treatment goals, discussing costs transparently, reviewing progress, and respecting the client's autonomy.

It also means that a therapist's income cannot always be predicted simply by counting the number of people who seek an initial consultation.

Client retention, affordability, treatment outcomes, and the structure of the practice all matter.

8. The Psychologist and the Successful Student

An old scene from Indian cinema illustrates a disturbing social contrast.

A successful student returns to his village in a magnificent car. He owes much of his success to a dedicated teacher who helped him rise in life.

Yet the teacher continues travelling to his modest home on an old bicycle.

The student's success is celebrated. The teacher's contribution may be remembered with gratitude, but that gratitude does not necessarily translate into financial security for the teacher.

A similar contrast can occur in the mental health profession.

A psychologist may help clients overcome difficulties, improve their relationships, make better decisions, or function more effectively in their personal and professional lives.

The client may subsequently achieve financial success.

However, the psychologist who contributed to that progress may not earn an income comparable to the client's income.

Of course, a therapist's fees should not be determined by the client's earnings alone. Professional fees must also reflect qualifications, experience, time, operating costs, and the nature of the service.

Nevertheless, the broader question remains:

Why does society often recognise the value of the outcome without adequately considering the economic sustainability of the person who helps produce it?

This is a question worth discussing honestly.

9. Does Experience Automatically Guarantee a Good Income?

I am concerned that many students enter psychology because they genuinely want to help people, without receiving sufficient guidance about the financial realities of the profession.

They learn psychological theories, assessment methods, counselling techniques, and ethical principles. But do they also learn how to build a sustainable practice?

Do they understand the costs of maintaining a centre, attracting clients, managing cancellations, investing in training, and surviving periods of low demand?

Do they know how different employment settings affect their income?

Some psychologists may earn excellent incomes through established practices, institutional employment, consulting, teaching, research, or specialised services. Others may struggle to generate a stable livelihood.

Family resources, location, professional qualifications, reputation, business skills, and access to clients can all influence the outcome.

I would therefore hesitate to claim that a fixed percentage of psychologists in India earn below a particular income without reliable nationwide data.

But the absence of reliable data is itself a reason to encourage more transparent conversations.

Students deserve to understand both the rewards and the risks before committing years of their lives to a profession.

We must not romanticise a profession so much that we hide its economic challenges from the next generation.

10. Who Moved My Cheese? The Lesson We Must Remember

More than two decades ago, Who Moved My Cheese? by Spencer Johnson popularised a simple but powerful message: change is inevitable, and people who adapt are better prepared for an uncertain future.

The world of professional services is experiencing precisely this kind of change.

The traditional sources of professional value are shifting.

Knowledge that was once difficult to access is becoming widely available. Routine tasks are being automated. Customers are developing new expectations about speed, convenience, and cost.

The question is no longer whether the cheese will move.

The question is whether professionals will recognise the movement early enough to find new opportunities.

Psychologists should not assume that their existing qualifications, experience, or reputation will automatically protect their income forever.

Nor should they assume that AI will make their profession irrelevant.

Instead, they must examine which parts of their work are becoming easier to automate and which parts still require specialised human capabilities.

Adaptation is not an admission of defeat. It is a professional responsibility.

11. The Future of Psychology: Beyond Giving Advice

If AI can provide explanations and suggest coping strategies, psychologists must become clearer about the value they offer beyond information.

That value may include:

- Professional assessment: Understanding the individual circumstances behind a person's difficulties rather than relying only on a general description.

- Therapeutic relationships: Building trust, maintaining appropriate boundaries, and supporting meaningful change over time.

- Complex case management: Recognising when problems require specialised assessment, coordinated care, or referral to another professional.

- Ethical responsibility: Protecting confidentiality, assessing risk, and making decisions that require professional accountability.

- Evidence-informed intervention: Selecting and adapting appropriate methods while evaluating whether they are actually helping.

- Personalised support: Understanding the client's circumstances, cultural context, history, resources, and limitations.

- Sustained behaviour change: Helping clients translate insights into consistent actions rather than merely collecting advice.

Not every client needs all these services, and AI may increasingly assist professionals in delivering some of them.

The opportunity lies in combining technology with responsible human expertise.

Psychologists could use AI for administrative tasks, educational material, appointment management, and other appropriate activities, while reserving their professional time for work that requires deeper assessment and human judgement.

They must also protect confidential client information and avoid using AI tools in ways that compromise privacy or professional ethics.

The objective should not be to compete with AI at answering every question.

It should be to offer services whose value extends beyond generating answers.

12. A New Economic Model for Mental Health Services

The profession may need to explore more flexible ways of making psychological support accessible and financially sustainable.

Possible approaches include:

- Affordable psychoeducation programmes for the general public.

- Group sessions where clinically appropriate.

- Workshops for schools, colleges, and workplaces.

- Preventive mental health education.

- Carefully designed digital resources and educational courses.

- Transparent service packages with clearly defined goals and fees.

- Appropriate collaborations with institutions and community organisations.

- Technology-assisted administrative systems that reduce operating costs.

These approaches will not suit every practitioner or every client. They must be developed within professional, ethical, and legal boundaries.

However, they offer opportunities to rethink a business model that depends entirely on individual clients paying for repeated one-to-one consultations.

The challenge is to improve accessibility without undermining professional standards or reducing complex psychological care to a cheap, generic product.

13. Technology Has Changed Human History Before

There is one reason I remain optimistic about the future.

When railways and automobiles arrived, did humanity disappear because people could no longer depend on traditional bullock carts?

No.

Transport systems changed. Some traditional occupations declined, while new occupations, industries, skills, and opportunities emerged.

People learned to operate, maintain, manufacture, and manage the new technologies. Their children entered occupations that earlier generations could scarcely have imagined.

The transition was not painless, and not every displaced worker benefited equally. Nevertheless, human society continued to evolve.

Artificial intelligence may produce another major transition of this kind.

Some tasks will disappear. Some occupations may contract. Some professionals may experience reduced earnings, while others discover entirely new opportunities.

The transition may be especially difficult for people who have invested heavily in skills that suddenly become less valuable in the marketplace.

That is precisely why we need to discuss the change before it becomes unavoidable.

14. An Open Appeal to the Psychology Community

I would like to see psychologists, counsellors, therapists, educators, and professional associations speak more openly about the economic realities of this profession.

Let experienced professionals share their actual experiences.

Let students understand the differences between academic qualifications, professional competence, employability, private practice, and financial sustainability.

Let us discuss the challenges of building a practice, the realities of client affordability, the impact of technology, and the importance of developing complementary skills.

We should not discourage young people from entering psychology. Mental health care is important, and society will continue to need competent professionals.

But we should not encourage them through idealistic promises while remaining silent about the difficulties they may encounter.

Honest information enables better decisions.

It allows students to prepare, professionals to adapt, and the profession as a whole to develop more sustainable ways of serving society.

Conclusion: The Profession Must Change, Not Disappear

The internet changed how people obtain information. Artificial intelligence is changing how they understand problems, explore solutions, and make decisions.

These developments are likely to reshape psychology and many other service professions across India and the rest of the world.

The extent and speed of the change remain uncertain. Different countries, customer groups, and professional settings will experience it differently.

But ignoring the transformation would be a mistake.

Psychologists must acknowledge that some traditional services may lose economic value. They must also recognise the opportunities to provide more accessible, effective, ethical, and personalised support.

Above all, we must remember that technological progress does not have to mean the end of human progress.

The bullock cart gave way to newer forms of transport. The people of the world adapted, learned, and continued their journey.

Psychology, too, can find its next path.

The future will belong not necessarily to those who resist change, but to those who understand what is changing, preserve what remains valuable, and develop the courage to do things differently.

Let us identify those opportunities, discuss them openly, and help the next generation prepare for the world that is coming.

The truth may be uncomfortable, but an uncomfortable truth understood early can become the foundation of a better future.

By 

Chitha Satguru 

Yozen Balki

Counselling Psychologist | Founder of Yozen Therapy

Ilaiyaraaja: The Human Computer Who Transforms Music into a Universe of Sound.

Ilaiyaraaja, affectionately known as Isaignani (the musical genius), is widely admired for his extraordinary musical imagination, technical precision, and ability to blend Indian melodies with Western classical orchestration. The extraordinary musical mind of a maestro who can imagine a massive orchestra and bring it to life on paper.

Spanning a career of 5 decades, with an staggering output of over 1,523 films, 8,600+ songs across 9 languages, and 20,000+ live concerts, the expression “Human Computer of Music” aptly captures the remarkable capabilities of his musical mind.

What makes Ilaiyaraaja exceptional is not merely his ability to compose memorable tunes. It is his extraordinary capacity to imagine how an entire orchestra should sound, determine the role of each instrument, and translate that musical vision into written musical notation entirely from memory, without looking at a computer screen or touching a piano.

The Art of Orchestration: An Entire Orchestra in His Mind

When a melody takes shape in Ilaiyaraaja's mind, he can conceptualise much more than its basic tune. He envisions the complete orchestration - how strings, woodwinds, brass, percussion, and other instruments should interact, complement one another, and unfold in precise musical time.

A standard film song may last only 4 minutes, yet its arrangement involves a massive live ensemble. In a typical Ilaiyaraaja recording, a vast group of at least 40 to 50 active live musicians performs simultaneously. This includes a massive strings section of 30 to 40 pieces (violins, cellos, and double basses), acoustic and bass guitars, keyboards, flutes, and an array of rhythm instruments like the tabla, dholak, and acoustic drums.

In this large orchestral arrangement, dozens of musicians work together to perform these parts. Each instrument has a distinct role, and every entry, transition, and musical phrase must fit flawlessly into the overall composition. 

The real wonder lies in the composer's ability to imagine this complex musical structure as a unified whole rather than as a collection of unrelated sounds.

From Imagination to Paper: The Power of Musical Notation

One of the most remarkable aspects of Ilaiyaraaja's working method is his absolute command of musical notation, done completely by hand.

An orchestral score is not simply a written melody. It contains multiple staves, each representing an instrument or instrumental section. The notes must be arranged in such a way that the conductor and musicians can understand precisely what to play and when to play it. 

A conductor's full score brings these instrumental parts together, allowing the musical structure to be viewed vertically and horizontally as a whole.

For a relatively short four-minute film song, the amount of notation required is immense:

• The Conductor's Master Score: Ilaiyaraaja handwrites the master layout, mapping out all 40+ instrumental frequencies on a single sheet simultaneously. This master score occupies 15 to 25 pages per song.

• The Orchestra Sheets: When transcribed into individual sheets for every single musician, a single song generates well over 100 pages of musical notation.

Ilaiyaraaja is globally celebrated for his ability to write these complex orchestral arrangements with superhuman speed and precision. He routinely completes a 20-page master score in a mere 35 to 45 minutes. 

In a legendary feat for the movie Chembaruthi (செம்பருத்தி), he famously composed and fully wrote the music sheets for 9 songs in just 45 minutes. Rather than relying on repeated experimentation, he works out substantial portions of an arrangement mentally before committing them to paper, proving his reputation as a true musical computer.

Beyond Film Songs: The Symphony "Valiant"

Ilaiyaraaja's musical ambitions extend far beyond commercial cinema. His deep engagement with Western classical music culminated in a historic, global milestone with his work "Valiant" (Symphony No. 1). He became the first Asian composer to write a full Western symphony for the prestigious Royal Philharmonic Orchestra (RPO) in London.

In March 2025, Valiant was premiered live with a grand orchestra at London's iconic Eventim Apollo auditorium. 

The performance brought international attention to a dimension of Ilaiyaraaja's musical creativity that goes beyond his celebrated film compositions.

A symphony presents challenges on a vastly different scale from a typical film song. It requires the development of musical themes across extended movements, sophisticated harmonic structures, and a coherent musical journey sustaining attention over a 45-minute continuous duration. 

The score coordinates the work of 77 world-class instrumentalists, requiring an elite knowledge of orchestration:

• The Symphonic Master Score: For this 45-minute continuous piece, Ilaiyaraaja handwritten a monumental master score of 150 to 200 pages. While Western classical masters take months or years to write a score of this magnitude, Ilaiyaraaja completed it in a stunning 35 days.

• The Grand Total of Sheets: Once divided into individual scripts for all 77 musicians, the sheet music generated for the performance amounted to between 1,500 and 2,000 pages.

The principal conductor and the musicians of the London orchestra noted that the score was written with such flawless mathematical precision that it required absolutely zero revisions, leading them to give the Maestro a thunderous standing ovation.

A Musical Mind Beyond Ordinary Imagination

What makes Ilaiyaraaja fascinating is the relationship between the simplicity of a melody and the complexity of the musical world surrounding it.

A listener may remember a song for its emotional beauty or a few notes that remain in the mind for decades. Behind that apparently effortless experience, however, is a sophisticated arrangement involving multiple instrumental lines, harmonies, rhythmic patterns, and carefully planned transitions.

This is where the comparison with a computer becomes especially compelling. A computer can process enormous amounts of raw data, but a great composer does something far superior: he transforms vast musical information into emotion, structure, beauty, and meaning. Ilaiyaraaja's enduring contribution lies in bringing together the emotional immediacy of Indian music and the grand structural possibilities of orchestral composition.

Does Anyone Else Write Musical Notations Like Ilaiyaraaja in Indian Cinema?

In the Indian film industry, Maestro Ilaiyaraaja stands virtually alone in his ability to write complete, multi-instrumental orchestral notations directly onto paper from memory, without looking at a computer screen or testing his ideas on a piano first.

While there are many brilliant composers in Indian cinema, this specific, lightning-fast "orchestral writing from absolute silence" is an incredibly rare gift. However, looking across the history of Tamil cinema, a few notable composers have possessed a deep knowledge of musical notation and orchestration, working in distinct ways across different eras:

1. The Legends of the Golden Era (Pre-Ilaiyaraaja)

Before the arrival of Ilaiyaraaja in 1976, early maestros brought Western orchestral arrangements into Tamil cinema using structured notation systems:

• M. S. Viswanathan & T. K. Ramamoorthy: Known as the "Mellisai Mannargal" (Kings of Light Music), they operated as a powerhouse duo. While MSV excelled at humming unforgettable melodies on the fly, T. K. Ramamoorthy—a master violinist trained in Western classical notation—crafted the complex notation sheets for the live studio orchestras.

• G. K. Venkatesh: A maestro with profound expertise in Western classical composition and notation. Interestingly, it was under G. K. Venkatesh that a young Ilaiyaraaja worked as an assistant, writing out thousands of pages of music sheets, which heavily sharpened his legendary speed and precision.

2. The Contemporary Era and Notation Masters:

Following Ilaiyaraaja's breakthrough, a few composers with deep academic training in music theory continued the tradition of handwritten notation:

• Ramesh Vinayakam: Widely regarded as one of the finest music theorists in modern Indian cinema. He possesses immense expertise in writing traditional notations. He even invented a revolutionary, internationally patented music notation system called "Layaa," which helps bridge the gap between traditional notation and electronic performance.

• Sharreth: A highly accomplished composer in the Tamil and Malayalam film industries, Sharreth possesses a rigorous, formal grammar in both Carnatic and Western classical music, giving him the capability to fully score live orchestral arrangements.

The Monumental Difference: Ilaiyaraaja vs. The Modern Era

With the dawn of the 1990s, the emergence of global icons like A. R. Rahman completely transformed how music is made. This created a fundamental technological shift between Ilaiyaraaja's generation and modern composers:

1. The Modern Electronic Workflow: Contemporary geniuses (such as A. R. Rahman, Harris Jayaraj, Yuvan Shankar Raja, and Anirudh) translate their musical imagination through technology. They play ideas directly onto keyboards and synthesizers connected to computers running advanced digital audio software (like Logic Pro or Pro Tools). The computer automatically converts their live playing into digital musical data (MIDI notations).

2. The Human Computer's Unique Realm: Ilaiyaraaja completely bypasses this digital middleman. He does not use software to hear how his arrangements sound. Instead, his own brain acts as the ultimate software. He sits in a quiet room with a pen and a pad, hears 50 distinct instruments playing harmoniously inside his head, and drafts the flawless Conductor’s Master Score in under an hour.

The unanimous verdict among global musicologists and critics remains unchanged: While others can write notation, no one else in Indian cinema matches Ilaiyaraaja’s superhuman speed, mathematical accuracy, and ability to materialize a flawless 100-page live orchestral script strictly from the silence of his thoughts.

He is not simply a composer who writes tunes; he is a musical architect who imagines entire worlds of sound and gives those worlds a voice through the orchestra.

𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘢 𝘚𝘢𝘵𝘨𝘶𝘳𝘶

-Yozen Balki