Human beings are the most efficient and intelligent creatures on Earth, a statement for which I require no citations. This efficiency and intelligence is what affords human beings their huge capabilities. The power of anyone to do anything.
Capability to do anything
Say capability (C) is a function of variables: intelligence (i) and labour (l).
i.e. C = C(i,l,…)
Say intelligence is a function of a constant of being a human (H), and a variable aptitude training (a).
i.e. i = i(H,a,…)
It has been proven through multiple studies that aptitude can be further increased by training.
So, if people are different in intelligence, the only thing amiss is their training in aptitude. That would mean, take any random, or the most unconnected person in this world and train him/her in aptitude, it’s only a matter of time, s/he will crack the SAT.
i.e. a = a(r, t,…)
Aptitude is thus a function of resources (r) in the form of training and time (t).
C = C(H,r,t,l,…)
Capability is a function of Human Constant, resources available, time and labour; given the proportionate amount of resources and time, a human being can labour and become capable as much as required.
labour being a resource; time being a resource; and all other things being a resource and easily transactable from a pure economic angle, let’s simplify it.
i.e. C = C(H,r,…)
therefore, capability equates to being Human, and amount of resources at disposal.
Hence follows that everyone has the capability to become anything. Here by anything I mean, taking the New York Bar exam, the Indian UPSC, becoming a doctor, a lawyer, a chartered accountant, a scuba diver, a photographer, an astronaut, etc.
Difference among human beings
If everyone has the capability to do anything, then where lies the difference?
The differences at a prima facie look may seem to emanate from being Human. As human beings we have already understood the existence of diversity, and how an elephant is ill-equipped for climbing a tree, juxtapose to which, a monkey can not pick up logs. Thus, there can not be one test to discriminate among living beings. Therefore, accepting that there probably are differences in the qualities of fellow human beings, that is, there probably can exist a worthless human and a super-human, it will be wrong on our part to discriminate among them.
The only rational and ethical way to go forward from here should be taking out the variables out of being Human and putting the variables into the resources part, that is why even when I do realise Humans are different, they are constant at a genetic level and undifferentiable.
So to adjust the variables in being Human, it is prudent to put them in the resources part of the equation.
Simply, the amount of resources (r) which need be spent is the variable causing differences, as being humans H is constant among all.
So when capability to achieve something hinges on being human, which everyone reading this is (except for some search engine bots), the only thing which matters is if the right amount (also accounting for the differences among human beings) of resources is being spent.
Amount of resources and variance
This amount of resources which is to be spent in making a person capable is a constant at the least (people with similar environment), variable at the most (people with different environment).
The amount of resources is mostly a variable as we all have different cultures and different environments, and also because as resources tend to get accumulated in the hands of a few there exist a lot of disparity.
For an extreme example, some dogs have been taught a few words of English, which even some humans would not understand. That also means given that resources are extremely high and flexible, even non-humans can be capable of doing things. 🙂
Like apes riding horses, parrots recognising color cards, etc.
This makes even people do stuff which are supposedly impossible (like double hattricks in cricket matches, exploring the north pole, scaling Himalayas, etc., though these do not enhance our productivity, have a lot of abstract value which we care about).
While anyone and everyone can do anything and everything, all that matters then is who can do it at the least expenditure of resources.
That is when it needs to be analysed if anyone can do anything, what is the value of tests where preparation (investment of resources) can be huge, like the UPSC ?
I extend the application of this hypothesis to my next post on: May be the UPSC is failing!
What are your thoughts on this? You may have your comments below.
 Luxemburg, Rosa (1913). The Accumulation of Capital: A Contribution to an Economic Explanation of Imperialism, Die Akkumulation des Kapitals: Ein Beitrag zur ökonomischen Erklärung des Imperialismus
- What to do when you don’t know what to do?
- The UPSC might be failing – slogging is bad