Submit your Article

What is the difference between a living body and a dead one? In the dead, similar to the living, all the organs are precisely where they are supposed to be (except if the dead had endured significant damage in any of the organs or bones). The difference is the dead are not breathing; that is to say, the food is not being oxidized, energy is not created; hence, all the major biological processes are stagnant. But what truly makes us breathe? Why do we breathe? What makes life live? Hypothetically, if we configure a body from scratch, engineering every organ, every bone, and every piece of flesh precisely where they are supposed to be, do we create a fully functional living body? No. According to the eastern philosophy based on Sri Isopanisad, too, an ‘organic whole’ cannot arise from parts that have to be assembled. That process can only produce inorganic, mechanical, or chemical processes, not living organisms. Hence, even if we successfully integrate all the organs, flesh, and bones to engineer a body, an entity that is missing what truly makes life live is consciousness. In this article, I’ll subtly try to answer the pressing mysteries about the origin of consciousness using a molecular and cellular perspective. 

A conscious cell

All human beings, and other living beings, have an ancestral cell that, some billion years ago, was divided into two; that is to say, the ancestral cell passed on its genetic information onto another one, and so on and so forth, forming organs, systems, and organisms. It can be hypothesized that the energy, or an entity, that someday drove the passing of information from one cell to another is the same energy (consciousness) that today enables us to think, perceive, learn, and live. Moreover, cells can interpret chemical messages, communicate via cell signaling, regulate internal functions, and perform programmed cell death, illustrating coordinated, intelligent responses to environmental stimuli. These behaviors suggest that consciousness and cognition have biological bases at the cellular and molecular levels. According to Eshel Ben-Jacob, a pioneer in the study of bacterial intelligence and social behavior of bacteria, consciousness also exists in most primitive organisms without a brain, like plants and unicellular organisms like bacteria. Jacobs states that unicellular organisms also display learning, memory, anticipation, risk management, and other aspects of cognitive behavior. These examples, ultimately, provide more legitimacy to the idea that cells are sentient beings.

Cell consciousness, evolution, and Darwinism 

The notion that consciousness could emerge from cells challenges neo-Darwinism and the theory of evolution. Darwinism suggests that some random changes in the genetic code within DNA give rise to a genetic diversity that undergoes a natural selection pressure within the environment; and upon surviving the selection pressure, organisms and species adapt, change, and evolve. If the cells are conscious on their own, it can be hypothesized that mutation could be a conscious act—and not just a ‘random’ change in the genetic code. James A. Shapiro, a molecular biologist at the University of Chicago and the author of the book Evolution: A View from the 21st Century, states that “A shift from thinking about gradual selection of localized random changes to sudden genome restructuring by sensory network-influenced cell systems is a major conceptual change. It replaces the “invisible hands” of geological time and natural selection with cognitive networks and cellular functions for self-modification. The emphasis is systemic rather than atomistic and information-based rather than stochastic.”

Moreover, Richard Dawkins, in The Selfish Gene, also argues that organisms are merely a survival machine for the genes that created cells, synthesized proteins, and formed sophisticated membranes and cellular mechanisms to eventually create bodies and minds to protect themselves and their legacies.

Consciousness and quantum mechanics 

As a kid, I was always confused about what the fundamental particles of nature were. In chemistry, I learned that electrons, protons, and neutrons were the fundamental particles. In physics, I learned that protons and neutrons can further be divided into quarks. And in biology, I learned that cells are the fundamental building blocks of life. I never really understood the difference between an atom and a cell. It was not until high school that I realized that cells that contain a nucleus, mitochondria, cytoplasm, ribosomes, and vacuoles can further be divided into proteins, water molecules, and other organic compounds that are fundamentally made up of particles like electrons and quarks. So, it can be hypothesized that the nucleus that contains DNA, which works to synthesize proteins with the help of RNA and also triggers the process of cell division (nuclei are the brains of cells), is guided by the quantum phenomena that take place deep within the atoms that form these cell bodies. 

There have been numerous theories and pieces of evidence that have worked to find connections between quantum theories and consciousness. One such theory is the Orch OR (Orchestrated Objective Reduction) theory, which posits that tubulin proteins within neuronal microtubules engage in quantum computations via superposition and objective reduction events that generate discrete moments of conscious awareness. 

Furthermore, Goodman et al. state that the theoretical models suggest that weak force interactions and electron neutrino exchanges might also support long-range quantum coherence across cellular assemblies, thereby linking quantum mechanics to large-scale neural synchrony. These perspectives collectively emphasize that quantum-level biomolecular interactions provide mechanisms for the integration of information across both spatial and temporal scales, which is essential for the emergent property of consciousness.

In summary, these theories and ideas give strength to the fact that consciousness arises from the cells, not from the brain. Evidence from cellular biology indicates that individual cells exhibit rudimentary forms of awareness through membrane dynamics, laying the foundation for conscious processes. Ultimately, the synthesis of molecular, quantum, and integrative theories provides a robust framework for understanding how consciousness could emerge from the fundamental interactions of biomolecules.

Chirag Timilsina

In recent years, Nepali society has witnessed the rise of a troubling phenomenon: the conversion of social work into a stepping-stone for publicity, wealth, and political clout. What once symbolized sacrifice and service has now become a strategic entry point for individuals seeking personal gain. These pseudo-social workers, equipped with smartphones, cameras, and clever messaging, masquerade as reformers while exploiting society’s trust. Their actions raise an urgent question: are we being served, or merely deceived?

The new breed of social worker is less a servant of the people and more a performer for the public eye. Social media has amplified this shift, turning compassion into a commodity. With every post, video, and reel, these individuals craft an image of benevolence. But behind the carefully staged acts lies a motive far removed from public good—building a base of followers to leverage in the pursuit of political power or business advantage.

This culture of spectacle-driven social work reduces serious societal issues to photo opportunities. It prioritizes visibility over substance, popularity over impact. In doing so, it not only trivializes the meaning of service but also entrenches cynicism in a society already disillusioned by corruption and betrayal.

The pathway from pseudo-social work to politics is well established. Figures across Nepal have used their social presence to launch themselves into the political sphere, where power multiplies opportunities for wealth. The formula is simple: gain public sympathy through visible gestures of service, translate that sympathy into votes, and then leverage political office for personal or partisan gain.

The case of Kathmandu Metropolitan Mayor Balen Shah exemplifies both the promise and the peril of this phenomenon. He rose to prominence as an outsider, admired for his energy and reforms. Yet, his conduct during recent Gen Z protests and shifting political dynamics has sparked suspicion about his long-term ambitions. Some now question whether his mayoral role is merely a springboard for larger political goals. Others even speculate—however conspiratorially—that his rise is tied to foreign interests. Regardless of the truth, the doubts underscore a wider problem: when leaders rely on image rather than transparency, public trust inevitably erodes.

At the core of pseudo-social work lies a profound illusion. On the surface, these individuals appear to champion causes—healthcare, education, environment, or culture. In reality, their contributions are often superficial. Schools, for instance, invest in glossy infrastructure and fleets of buses to impress parents, while neglecting essential laboratories, libraries, and trained staff. Doctors promote wellness on social media while failing to make healthcare affordable or accessible in their own communities. Business magnates donate for public visibility but rarely tackle systemic issues such as pollution, unemployment, or inequality.

This illusion is dangerous. It diverts attention from what truly matters—sustainable reforms, accountable governance, and long-term investment in communities. Worse, it conditions people to mistake performance for progress. Nepalis clap for social media heroes while overlooking genuine reformers who, away from the limelight, are quietly building schools, innovating in technology, and building roads for the community. Speaking of genuine reformers, my heart brims over with pride and joy at the thought of Chandrabir in Dang, who built a community road manually toiling for years for the convenience of his blind wife and blind children.

When pseudo-social workers ascend into politics, the costs are borne by ordinary citizens. Their shallow understanding of social needs translates into shallow policies. Their hunger for publicity fosters divisive rhetoric. Their networks of followers create personality cults that discourage criticism. And once in power, their reliance on crony capitalism ensures that decisions serve a narrow elite rather than the broader public.

This cycle is not new. It echoes decades of Nepali politics where populism has repeatedly trumped principle. But in the age of social media, the scale and speed are unprecedented. Today, a viral video can launch a political career. Tomorrow, that career can shape laws, allocate budgets, and influence generations. The stakes could not be higher.

The question, then, is not whether pseudo-social workers exist—they clearly do—but how we, as citizens, respond to them. Should we continue to idolize every charismatic figure who claims to serve us? Should we mistake Instagram reels for real reforms? Or should we demand evidence, transparency, and accountability before extending our admiration?  

Across Nepal, business tycoons and professionals alike have found in “social work” a convenient platform to polish their image and prepare for a political career. In Dang, a doctor has become famous through morning-walk videos with locals, preaching fitness while ignoring the more pressing community needs around him—garbage burning, lack of public parks, and absence of infrastructure for exercise. He could have lobbied for cleaner air or built walking trails, yet he has chosen the easier route of self-promotion.

The wiser course is clear: take every self-proclaimed social worker and politician with a pinch of salt. Celebrate their achievements when they are real, but interrogate their motives when they are not. Separate spectacle from substance. Learn to distinguish between those who build institutions and those who merely build images. Nepal today stands at a crossroads. Our politics is fragile, our institutions are weak, and our youth are restless. In such a context, pseudo-social workers thrive, exploiting hope and disillusionment alike. But their rise is not inevitable. If citizens remain vigilant, if we question before we clap, if we demand action over appearance, we can ensure that service regains its true meaning.

Let us not be fooled by the holy grail of publicity, power, and money. Let us judge our leaders—and our social workers—not by the noise they make, but by the lives they transform. Only then can we break the cycle of deception that has for too long defined our politics and society.

Ganesh P Paudel

The author is a teacher

Have you ever wondered how simply touching a screen on your smartphone instantly opens the phone app, or how tapping your fingers on the keys of a keyboard displays a letter on the computer screen? It feels like magic that it knows what you are trying to do and seamlessly executes the command. However, reality is far more fascinating than magic. It’s the power of two numbers. Behind all these processes and complex devices lie just two numbers: 0 and 1.

0 and 1 are collectively known as the binary number system. It is the language of the digital world and all electronics. Similar to how we use decimal numbers (0 to 9) as our basic number system, computers use the binary system to store data, perform tasks, and run operations. For simplicity, 0 and 1 can be considered as True and False values; 0 represents False while 1 represents True. Another analogy for these numbers is sending an electrical pulse (on state) and not sending one (off state); 0 being the off state whereas 1 is the on state.

To manipulate these two numbers, different electrical components are used, such as transistors, switches, and logic gates. Collections of thousands of components are used to make processors and circuit boards, which are later engineered into sophisticated systems. Most electrical components are designed to operate on 0’s and 1’s, specifically in the on/off state.

The concept of binary is not new. It was first formalized in the 17th century by mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who saw the potential of using two symbols to represent all numbers. Centuries later, with the invention of transistors, this abstract idea became the backbone of modern computing.

This binary foundation explains how even the simplest digital tasks take place. When you send a message, the computer first converts your text into its language, i.e., binary numbers, and then processes it to send to another user, converting the binary back into human language. Similarly, a smartphone responds to your touch on the screen through changes in electrical signals and their positions, and performs those calculations using only 0’s and 1’s, which triggers the application to open.

An inevitable question emerges: how are these two numbers doing all the tasks so fast, within the blink of an eye? Devices have become so fast and intricate that binary operations are performed at incredible speed. For instance, the fastest computer, El Capitan, has been benchmarked at about 1.742 exaFLOPS (1.742 × 10¹⁸ floating-point operations per second) using the standard High-Performance Linpack (HPL) test. To put this in perspective, El Capitan can perform in a single second what 125 billion people would collectively do if each performed one floating-point operation per second. This astonishing scale demonstrates the efficiency of binary at its peak.

Binary’s role is not limited to speed; it also underpins how data is stored and secured. A QR code or barcode, with its patterns of black and white spaces, is an image storing 0’s and 1’s. Scanning the QR code or barcode means receiving that stored binary data into our devices, which is subsequently decoded into human-readable form to give us the required information. Similarly, biometric features such as fingerprint and facial recognition rely on binary principles. The biometric data provided by the user is stored in cryptographic form, which can only be decrypted by the device’s key. When the data matches the scanned biometric data, you gain access to the device’s interface. In short, it is the work of binary numbers and data. Likewise, streaming music or videos is also transmitted and played in the form of binary. The musical and video data are stored in the form of binary.

From calculators that rely on binary calculations to users calling each other, to ChatGPT responding to your inputs, all of it relies on just those two foundational digits. With the growth of digital devices and the number of users accessing the digital world, along with increasingly intensive tasks and the demand for faster operations, one may ask: can just 0 and 1 handle everything? An article published by Federica Laricchia suggests that in 2021, the number of mobile devices operating worldwide stood at almost 15bn. And yes, everything is possible by 0 and 1. This underscores the potency of binary numbers.

Binary is powerful because its two-state system is ideal for electronic implementation, allowing for reliable and simple hardware that can store and process data, perform calculations, and represent any type of information. The simplicity of binary enables the creation of complex logic gates, which form the foundation of all modern digital systems, from basic on/off switches to powerful computers. It is the most efficient way to store and process data using electronic components. The precise, discrete nature of binary digits (bits) also makes it easier to identify and correct errors during data processing and transmission. Additionally, changing binary digits (base-2) to another base would require all electronic components to be redesigned. Thus, binary numbers are likely to remain as the future language of computers.

Even as we move into the advanced age of artificial intelligence and quantum computing, binary remains indispensable. Qubits (Quantum Bits) may introduce new dimensions of power, but they will undoubtedly coexist with binary rather than replace it.

Binary may appear deceptively simple, but its influence is universal. From the smallest sensor to the most advanced supercomputer, our digital universe runs on two digits. Our identities, from banking records to biometric profiles, are increasingly translated into streams of 0s and 1s. This dependence makes societies more efficient and interconnected, but also more vulnerable. Cyberattacks, data theft, and digital surveillance exploit the very binary systems that empower us. In this sense, binary is not merely a technical language; it has become a social and political force shaping trust, security, and even democracy in the digital era. The next time you unlock your phone or send a message, remember: the foundation of our modern world is built not on complexity, but on the elegant simplicity of 0 and 1.

Saksham Adhikari

St Xavier’s College

Sanjay Upadhya is an author, journalist and analyst. ApEx talked to him regarding the recent GenZ movement in Nepal. In this interview, he talked about the new political course after the protest, foreign policy priorities and geopolitical factors. Excerpts:

How do you view the GenZ protests and their aftermath?

The protests held on Sept 8–9 marked a significant awakening among a new generation of Nepalis eager for change, driven by frustration with corruption, misgovernance, and stifling politics. Despite the tragic violence that overshadowed the event, the resilient spirit of the movement remains evident. Subsequently, there has been a noticeable lack of clear leadership within GenZ, leading to some division. Various groups are articulating diverse demands and ideas, thereby confounding the average Nepali. If Nepal’s youth succeed in bridging these divisions and presenting a unified platform, the movement has the potential to evolve into a stable political force rather than a transient social phenomenon. Whether through electoral participation or sustained civic pressure on traditional parties, this generation bears the responsibility of redefining Nepal’s political discourse, shifting from mere power preservation to principles of accountability, inclusion, and innovation.

Do you see any geopolitical factors behind the GenZ protests?

The primary causes of the protests were deeply entrenched in local concerns and had been increasingly intensifying over time. Geopolitical considerations also contributed, reflecting the priorities and aspirations of various external groups active within Nepal. Certain factions emphasized the importance of Nepal avoiding the adoption of authoritarian tendencies and practices influenced by foreign powers and their financial and developmental assistance. Others sought to defend their traditional spheres of influence within the nation. Additionally, some parties aimed to prevent instability in Nepal from impacting their own borders and sensitive regions. Although tell-tale signs abound, the full extent of external involvement in these protests may remain forever uncertain.

What are your thoughts on the foreign policy priorities of the new government?

Given the interim nature of the current administration, its foreign policy must remain rooted in continuity rather than experimentation. So far, it has acted prudently by reaffirming Nepal’s traditional diplomatic principles such as non-alignment, peaceful coexistence, and sovereign independence. With a government primarily focused on maintaining law and order, restoring public trust, and creating a conducive environment for elections, these priorities are sufficiently broad to occupy its efforts and resources. In this context, implementing any drastic measures would not be practical or prudent.

How might major powers such as India, China, and the United States view the recent political developments in Nepal?

Each of these major powers is likely to interpret recent political developments through the lens of its aspirations for Nepal. India anticipates observing Nepal confidently advancing along a pathway toward a stronger parliamentary democracy that can safeguard New Delhi’s primary political, diplomatic, and security interests. The United States seeks assurance that Nepal remains committed to democratic values, human rights, and transparent governance, while resisting undue external influence. 

In an era of intensifying competition between democratic and authoritarian models of governance, Nepal’s ability to maintain its independence and pluralism carries symbolic importance beyond South Asia. China’s emphasis is on maintaining Nepal’s stability and security. Beijing supports Nepal’s efforts to adhere to commitments such as the One China policy and hopes that Nepal can maintain its independence and remain free from unnecessary external pressures. Beijing’s broader strategic vision views a stable Nepal as essential for regional security and as a buffer against external interference in Tibet.

What approach should Nepal take to maintain balanced and cordial relations with all major powers in this evolving context?

The interim government must prioritize its fundamental obligation to ensure that elections are conducted on 5 March 2026. Subsequently, upon assuming office, the new administration may concentrate on overseeing Nepal’s foreign policy, guided by principles such as non-alignment, sovereign equality and mutual respect. Traditionally, these tenets have allowed Nepal to maintain cordial relations with all major powers without becoming overly dependent on any single one. Overall, Nepal should exercise caution to prevent actions or statements that could disrupt the nation’s fragile geopolitical stability amid the swiftly evolving global landscape.