People or Humans?

There are a lot of people on the planet, but, it seems, very few Humans. That seems to be an outrageous statement, but to me, it appears to be that way. Why do I think that? It boils down to the definition of what a human is. For example, Humans don't kill people. Why? Humans by my definition are those who have understood the value of being alive and appreciate that unique, but temporary condition. Appreciating that about oneself, automatically means understanding that basic truth about every other Being on the planet.

The statement "There are a lot of people on the planet, but, it seems, very few Humans" reflects a profound observation about the nature of humanity. At first glance, it may sound provocative or even paradoxical, but the essence lies in a deeper exploration of what it truly means to be human. The assertion suggests that mere existence as a member of the Homo sapiens species does not automatically qualify an individual as a true "Human." Instead, the distinction lies in certain qualities that go beyond the biological definition.

The key to understanding this perspective lies in the definition provided: "Humans don't kill people." This declaration serves as a gateway to a more comprehensive understanding of what it means to be truly human. According to this viewpoint, genuine humanity is characterized by an appreciation for the value of life and a profound recognition of the unique and temporary nature of existence.

To elaborate, the concept implies that being human transcends the biological aspect of living within the Homo sapiens species. Instead, it involves a higher level of consciousness and self-awareness that goes beyond the mere fulfilment of basic survival instincts. It suggests an evolved state of being that acknowledges and cherishes the inherent value of life, both one's own and that of others.

The phrase "understood the value of being alive" suggests a level of mindfulness and introspection that goes beyond the superficial aspects of day-to-day living. It implies a conscious awareness of the gift of life and an active effort to appreciate and make the most of this unique opportunity. True humanity, according to this perspective, involves a continuous journey of self-discovery and an ongoing commitment to personal and collective growth.

Furthermore, the assertion emphasizes the universality of this understanding. "Appreciating that about oneself automatically means understanding that basic truth about every other Being on the planet." Here, the term "Being" extends beyond the human species, encompassing all forms of life on Earth. The idea is that a genuine human recognizes the interconnectedness of all living things and acknowledges the intrinsic value present in every form of existence.

In essence, the statement challenges the conventional view of humanity solely as a biological classification. It suggests that being human involves a conscious choice to embrace certain values, such as empathy, compassion, and a deep respect for life. This elevated understanding of humanity stands in contrast to behaviours that disregard the sanctity of life, such as violence and harm towards others.

While the assertion may sound idealistic, it prompts a reflection on the potential for growth and transformation inherent in the human experience. It encourages individuals to aspire to a higher level of consciousness and to cultivate qualities that contribute positively to the collective human experience. Ultimately, the observation invites us to question what it truly means to be human and to strive for a more profound and meaningful existence that extends beyond the boundaries of biological existence.

What is the purpose of religious organisations?

I appreciate that at the ground level, religion provides many kindnesses and support for people.

My beef is with the organisations, the Churches and Temples, synagogues and Mosques and all those institutions and in particular, the hierarchies and power structures; frequently also the holders of those positions, especially at the upper end of the hierarchies. Look at their finances, and you can see very quickly that being in charge of such sums, will corrupt anybody. This list is from Wikipedia:

 This does not include say the Moslem Church in Iran, which has the whole country at its disposal, as do others.

 According to a 7-year-old Guardian article: Religion in the United States is worth $1.2tn a year, making it equivalent to the 15th largest national economy in the world, according to a study. With financial clout like that, of course religion gets involved in all aspects of everyday life.

The purpose of religious organisations has been a subject of debate and discussion throughout history. While many argue that their primary goal is to serve as a source of spiritual guidance, moral values, and community support, others assert that underlying these noble intentions is a pursuit of power. This perspective posits that religious organisations, regardless of their faith or denomination, often seek influence and control over individuals, societies, and even governments.

One of the key arguments supporting the idea that religious organisations aim for power is rooted in their historical role as influential institutions. Throughout various epochs, religious institutions have played pivotal roles in shaping political landscapes, cultural norms, and social structures. The alignment between religious and political authorities has often been a symbiotic relationship, with each reinforcing the power of the other. In many cases, religious leaders have wielded considerable influence over rulers and governments, contributing to the establishment of laws and societal norms that reflect their religious doctrines.

Furthermore, the organizational structure of religious institutions itself can be seen as a mechanism for accumulating and maintaining power. Hierarchical systems, with clergy at the top, allow for centralized control and decision-making. This concentration of power can be leveraged to influence followers, shape religious interpretations, and establish doctrines that serve the interests of the institution. The ability to dictate moral standards and guide the beliefs of a significant portion of the population provides religious organisations with a unique form of power.

Another aspect of the argument is the economic influence that religious organisations often command. Many religious institutions amass substantial wealth through donations, tithes, and various forms of financial support from their followers. This financial power allows them to engage in activities beyond the spiritual realm, such as funding educational institutions, hospitals, and charitable endeavours. However, it also opens the door to potential exploitation and manipulation, as financial contributions may come with expectations of reciprocal influence.

Moreover, the role of religious organisations in shaping public opinion and influencing social attitudes cannot be overlooked. Through preaching, religious teachings, and moral guidance, these institutions can impact how their followers perceive various issues, from social justice to political ideologies. This influence over the mindset of a community contributes to the religious organisation's ability to shape public discourse and, consequently, hold sway over political and societal dynamics.

In conclusion, while the primary purpose of religious organisations is often framed in terms of spiritual guidance and moral development, the pursuit of power cannot be entirely dismissed. The historical, organizational, economic, and social dimensions of religious institutions contribute to a nuanced understanding of their role in society, acknowledging both their positive contributions and the potential for power-seeking behaviour.

Zionism is the root cause of all troubles in the Middle East

In the post-second World War, the Zionists started their war to create a "homeland for Jews". People like the Stern Gang and others were classed as terrorists by the British Government, who managed Palestine at that time. The Zionists argument, put very simply, is that Israel was the promised land by God and still is, although it hasn't existed for the best part of a couple of thousand years. To me, a ridiculous argument and one which very many Jews did not and do not support either.

Imagine a homeland for Christians or Buddhists or Moslem, etc. Utterly absurd. Where would they be? A homeland is for individuals, not some kind of religious or ethnic group. Should all those who chose or married into the Jewish Faith be excluded, as compared to those whose ancestors have been Jews? Where do you draw the line?

But the guilt trip, once the details of the Holocaust were public, enabled the British and Americans to justify the Zionist view. Who cares about a few Arabs, let's just designate this as Israel and too bad for the locals. It is modern colonialism at its worst. The net result is that the Zionists were armed by the Brits and Yanks with modern warfare equipment and off they went, killing tens of thousands of Palestinians who had practically no weapons and couldn't defend themselves. Oh yes, since then several thousand Israelis have died, but tens of thousand of Palestinians died, then and since then.  Those who were defending their homeland were now dubbed as the terrorists.

There are still - after over 70 years - refugee camps for Palestinians. The Israelis, not content in stealing everything the Palestinians had, continued their expansionist policies by stealing ever more land and removing those Palestinians living there. Basically, they suffered the same justice as the Native Americans in the USA and Canada. But everyone forgets the history behind the current events. The only thing learnt from the second world war, was how to kill ever more people and how to use very spurious reasoning to justify the correctness of the killings. married

Antisemitism is not where I'm at. I don't approve of any religion. Why? Well, look at how many wars Religion has caused. None of them are any better than others. It's always been a power game. And this war in the Middle East is just more of the same. After all, the crusades were the Christians killing the Arabs and Jews. The story is the same, just the participants and the locations change. Human beings have forgotten who they are and have reduced themselves to the most inhumane way of life. Sad, sad, sad.

Many have called for a two-state solution, where both Israelis and Palestinians have the right to self-determination and live in peace side by side. Such a solution would require compromises, negotiations, and addressing the historical injustices and grievances of both sides. Dialogue, diplomacy, and negotiations are essential to finding a path forward.

Acknowledging the suffering and displacement experienced by the Palestinian population is an important step toward reconciliation. However, achieving such acknowledgment and addressing the issue of guilt is a complex process that will likely require engagement from all parties involved, including international actors and organizations.

Ultimately, a lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should prioritize justice, equality, and the protection of human rights for all individuals in the region. This goal can only be achieved through peaceful dialogue and negotiation, rather than military means. International support and engagement can play a crucial role in facilitating these efforts and promoting a just and lasting resolution to the conflict.

However, I don't believe that Israelis are capable of acknowledging the utter injustice which the creation of their state has meant for the Palestinians. Zionists, like all zealots, have no sense of justice. Hopeless.

 For detailed information on the atrocities caused by the colonialist mind-set, check this site out.

Attributing the entirety of Middle East instability to Theodore Herzl's Zionism is a complex assertion that requires careful examination of historical events, political decisions, and the interplay of diverse factors in the region. Theodore Herzl, a key figure in the early Zionist movement, laid the groundwork for the establishment of a Jewish homeland, and his advocacy set in motion a series of events that have significantly influenced the Middle East's geopolitical dynamics.

The Zionist movement gained momentum in the late 19th century, driven by the desire to create a national homeland for the Jewish people. Herzl's seminal work, "The Jewish State," published in 1896, articulated the vision of a Jewish homeland as a solution to anti-Semitism and a means of ensuring the Jewish people's security and self-determination. The First Zionist Congress in 1897 marked the formal establishment of the World Zionist Organization, with Herzl as its leader.

The Balfour Declaration of 1917, which expressed British support for the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine, reflected the growing influence of Zionist ideas on the international stage. However, the implementation of this vision faced opposition from the Arab inhabitants of Palestine and neighbouring Arab states, setting the stage for ongoing conflicts in the region.

The establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, following the United Nations partition plan, led to the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs and ignited the Arab-Israeli conflict. The root cause of much of the instability in the Middle East can be traced back to this pivotal moment, and Herzl's Zionist vision played a central role in shaping the events that followed.

One of the key arguments linking Herzl's Zionism to Middle East instability is the displacement of Palestinian Arabs during the establishment of Israel. The forced migration of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians resulted in deep-seated grievances, forming the core of the Palestinian refugee issue. This issue has been a constant source of tension and conflict, as generations of Palestinians continue to assert their right to return to their ancestral homes.

Moreover, Herzl's vision of a Jewish state in Palestine was inherently controversial, given the diverse religious and ethnic composition of the region. The coexistence of Jews, Muslims, and Christians had been a defining feature of the Middle East for centuries. The imposition of a Jewish state disrupted this delicate balance and sowed the seeds of religious and ethnic tensions that persist to this day.

The Arab-Israeli wars, including the conflicts in 1948, 1967, and 1973, further escalated hostilities and contributed to the overall instability in the region. The unresolved status of Jerusalem, considered sacred by Jews, Christians, and Muslims, has been a persistent flashpoint, reflecting the deep-seated religious and cultural dimensions of the conflict.

While it is an oversimplification to attribute the entire Middle East instability solely to Herzl's Zionism, it is undeniable that the establishment of Israel based on his vision has been a major catalyst for regional conflicts. The ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the broader Arab-Israeli tensions continue to shape the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East, highlighting the enduring impact of Herzl's Zionist ideology on the region's instability.

Autocratic countries of the world

I've been wondering what percentage of the world is currently run by autocratic governments, i.e. countries where the population doesn't have much to say in how the country is run.

I found a website called worldpopulationreview.com, which lists countries and populations, including a list of current dictators. Using their data for 2022, I came up with the following list:

According to this list, just over 39% of the world population is governed by a system where one person has the power.

If, on the other hand, the question is formulated more broadly as countries which are run by an autocratic system, it includes both China and India, the two most populous countries in the world. India likes to describe itself as the largest democracy in the world, but if you look at how it's governed, then the ruling party does pretty much what it likes. That list looks like this:

Of course, many will disagree with the list and the definition. Nevertheless, it is a view worth pondering. The first list of outright dictatorships alone reaches 39% of the population. Adding several countries which have a more diffuse leadership, but an autocratic style, increases the percentage to almost 60%. That is scary!

I find these statistics worrying. It seems to support my view that the world is splintering rather than pulling together to face the largest issues for humanity : climate change! There is much more cohesion in the autocratic countries, than in the western democracies, although each one fiercely defends the interests of the rulers, which are largely short-term gains at the expense of the longer term common weal.

Blame, instead of listening

The tendency to resort to blame rather than listening is a common phenomenon in human communication. When faced with conflicts, disagreements, or misunderstandings, people often find it easier to assign blame rather than engage in active listening and open dialogue. In this discussion, we will explore the reasons behind this behaviour and the importance of active listening for effective communication.

One reason why people resort to blame is the human instinct to protect oneself and maintain a positive self-image. By assigning blame to others, individuals can avoid taking responsibility for their own actions or shortcomings. Blaming others provides a sense of justification and can help preserve one's self-esteem. However, this approach only perpetuates a cycle of negativity and prevents the resolution of conflicts.

Another factor that contributes to the use of blame is the desire for control and power. Blaming shifts the focus away from the real issues at hand and directs attention towards finding fault in others. This can create a power dynamic where the blamer positions themselves as superior and in control, while the blamed party is put on the defensive. This dynamic hampers effective communication and prevents the parties involved from finding common ground or understanding each other's perspectives.

Moreover, blame often arises from a lack of active listening. Active listening is the practice of fully focusing on and understanding the speaker's message without interruption or judgment. When individuals fail to actively listen, they are more likely to misinterpret or misunderstand the speaker's intentions, leading to assumptions and miscommunication. This can fuel the urge to assign blame instead of seeking clarification or empathy.

Active listening is crucial for effective communication and conflict resolution. It involves giving undivided attention to the speaker, observing non-verbal cues, and asking clarifying questions to ensure a clear understanding of their message. By actively listening, individuals can gain insights into others' perspectives, needs, and emotions. This fosters empathy, understanding, and the ability to find constructive solutions.

To break the cycle of blame and foster better communication, it is important to cultivate a culture of active listening. This involves creating a safe and non-judgmental environment where individuals feel heard and respected. It requires individuals to set aside their own biases, assumptions, and need for control, and instead focus on understanding and empathizing with others.

Practising active listening also involves acknowledging one's own role in conflicts or misunderstandings. By taking responsibility for one's actions and actively seeking resolutions, individuals can shift the focus from blame to constructive problem-solving. This approach promotes collaboration, cooperation, and mutual respect.

In conclusion, the tendency to resort to blame rather than listening is a common communication challenge. It arises from the desire to protect oneself, assert control, and a lack of active listening. To overcome this tendency, it is important to cultivate a culture of active listening, empathy, and understanding. By actively listening, individuals can break the cycle of blame, foster effective communication, and promote constructive conflict resolution.

Are Humans the stupidest Creatures on the planet?

A short discussion with ChatGPT.

Humans don't seem to learn from history. Are they so stupid as to be capable to cause their own extinction?

Human history is indeed marked by a recurring pattern of making similar mistakes, but it's important to avoid making sweeping generalizations about the intelligence or capabilities of the entire human species. The ability to learn from history varies among individuals and societies, and there are many factors that contribute to the repetition of certain mistakes.

1. **Cognitive Biases:** Humans are prone to cognitive biases that can cloud their judgment and decision-making. These biases can lead to the repetition of past errors. However, awareness of these biases and education can help mitigate their impact.

2. **Complexity:** The world is complex, and many historical events and decisions are shaped by intricate and interconnected factors. Sometimes, it's difficult to draw direct parallels and apply lessons from the past to the present or future.

3. **Short-Term Thinking:** Human decision-making often prioritizes short-term gains over long-term consequences. This can lead to actions that are not in our best long-term interests.

4. **Diverse Perspectives:** Different individuals and societies have varying interpretations of history, and what one group considers a mistake, another may see as a reasonable course of action. These differing perspectives can complicate the process of learning from history.

5. **Technological Advancements:** As technology evolves, so do the risks and challenges humanity faces. New technologies can create novel threats that weren't present in previous historical contexts.

6. **Political and Economic Interests:** The pursuit of power, resources, and economic interests can sometimes overshadow the lessons of history. Political and economic motivations may lead to actions that are not in the best interest of humanity as a whole.

While there are certainly challenges in learning from history, humans have also demonstrated an ability to adapt, learn, and make progress. Education, critical thinking, and international cooperation can all play a role in helping us avoid catastrophic mistakes that could lead to our own extinction.

It's important to remember that the future is not predetermined, and humans have the capacity to shape it through their actions. Whether or not humans can avoid self-extinction will depend on their ability to collectively address the global challenges they face, including climate change, nuclear proliferation, and emerging technologies. These challenges require thoughtful consideration, international cooperation, and wise decision-making to ensure a better future.

So far, the required global cooperation hasn't taken place. In fact, there is more splintering in societies than ever. The future looks bleak. Comment.

It's true that global cooperation on critical issues has faced significant challenges, and there has been a rise in divisions within and between societies in recent years. These challenges and divisions have indeed created a sense of pessimism about the future. However, it's important to maintain a balanced perspective:

1. **Complexity of Global Issues:** The issues that require global cooperation, such as climate change, pandemics, and nuclear disarmament, are complex and involve a multitude of stakeholders with diverse interests. Achieving consensus and action on these issues is inherently difficult and can take time.

2. **Historical Context:** History has seen periods of division and conflict, followed by cooperation and progress. The world has faced numerous crises before and has often found ways to address them. While the current situation may seem bleak, it's not unprecedented.

3. **Local and Regional Initiatives:** Despite global challenges, there are many local and regional initiatives, as well as grassroots movements, that are working to address important issues. These can serve as building blocks for broader global cooperation.

4. **Generational Shifts:** Attitudes and priorities can change over time, and younger generations often have a different perspective on global issues. As they gain more influence and leadership roles, they may drive a greater focus on cooperation.

5. **Crisis as a Catalyst:** Sometimes, it takes a crisis to galvanize global action. Major events can bring the world together in the face of shared challenges.

6. **Human Resilience and Adaptability:** Human history is marked by resilience and adaptability. Humans have survived and overcome numerous challenges, and they have a remarkable capacity to innovate and adapt in the face of adversity.

While the future may seem uncertain and challenging, it's important not to succumb to a sense of hopelessness. Addressing global issues and fostering cooperation is an ongoing and multifaceted process that requires time, effort, and the engagement of people at all levels of society. Individuals, communities, and nations can all play a role in fostering a more positive and cooperative future. While there are obstacles to overcome, the potential for positive change and progress still exists.

Is time on our side?

The concept of whether time is on our side in addressing global challenges is complex and depends on the specific issue, the actions taken, and the timeline considered. Here are some considerations:

1. **Short-Term vs. Long-Term:** In the short term, there may be challenges and crises that seem urgent and overwhelming. However, over longer timeframes, humanity has the capacity to learn, adapt, and address these challenges.

2. **Climate Change:** Time is a critical factor in addressing climate change. The longer action is delayed, the more severe and irreversible the impacts may become. Immediate and sustained efforts are essential to mitigate the worst effects.

3. **Technological Progress:** Technology can both exacerbate and help solve global challenges. As technology advances, it can provide new solutions and approaches, but it can also create new risks. The pace of technological change can influence whether time is on our side.

4. **Generational Shifts:** As younger generations take on leadership roles and shape policies, their different priorities and values can impact the direction of global cooperation. This generational shift can work in favour of addressing long-term challenges.

5. **Crisis Response:** Some challenges, like pandemics or economic crises, may require immediate and coordinated responses. In these cases, the capacity to respond effectively in a timely manner is crucial.

6. **Global Trends:** Socioeconomic and geopolitical trends also play a role. Shifts in global power dynamics and economic development can influence the timeline and effectiveness of global cooperation.

In summary, time can be both an asset and a constraint in addressing global challenges. For some issues, acting promptly is essential to mitigate negative consequences. For others, taking a longer-term perspective and recognizing that human innovation and cooperation can lead to solutions is crucial. It's important to balance the urgency of addressing immediate crises with the need for sustained efforts to address long-term challenges effectively. The actions we take today will determine whether time is ultimately on our side.

Recognising war as absurd is apparently not possible from a political or religious point of view. The result is that we continue to fight and have only learnt from war how to kill more people at once.

The idea of war as absurd or as a means of resolving conflicts is a perspective held by many people, including those who advocate for pacifism, peace, and non-violence. However, it's important to acknowledge that the view of war is highly complex, and not all political or religious viewpoints necessarily consider war as absurd. There are several reasons for this:

1. **Historical Precedence:** Throughout history, warfare has been a common means of achieving political, territorial, or ideological goals. This historical precedent has shaped the perspectives of some political and religious leaders and communities.

2. **Just War Theory:** In some religious and philosophical traditions, there exists the concept of "just war." This theory attempts to provide criteria for when the use of force can be morally justified, under specific circumstances, to achieve a greater good or prevent greater harm.

3. **National Security:** Some governments and political leaders view military action as a means to protect the security and interests of their nation. They may argue that it is necessary for self-defence or to prevent harm to their citizens.

4. **Complex Conflicts:** In some situations, conflicts are multifaceted and deeply rooted in historical, political, and social factors. Finding peaceful solutions can be extremely challenging.

5. **Military-Industrial Complex:** The presence of powerful military-industrial complexes can create incentives for the continuation of war and the development of more lethal weaponry.

While war and violence have been pervasive in human history, it's important to recognize that there are efforts and movements working to promote peace, diplomacy, and non-violent conflict resolution. Many individuals, organizations, and international bodies are dedicated to these principles and work towards preventing and ending conflicts.

Learning from history is essential, not just in terms of developing more lethal weaponry, but also in understanding the devastating consequences of war and the importance of seeking peaceful alternatives. While it may be challenging to achieve a world entirely free of conflict, promoting dialogue, negotiation, and diplomacy is crucial to mitigating the destructive impact of war and finding more effective ways to address conflicts and disputes.

Consciousness and Respect

It is my contention that respect for oneself and for others is a quality which enables a person to grow as a human being. Lack of respect inevitably leads to situations where a disagreement on a topic can escalate into negative feelings and, worse, actions.

Human consciousness and respect are two interconnected concepts that shape our interactions, relationships, and societal dynamics. Consciousness refers to our awareness of ourselves, our surroundings, and our thoughts and feelings. It is the foundation of our subjective experience and defines our capacity to perceive, reason, and make choices. Respect, on the other hand, is the recognition and appreciation of the inherent worth, dignity, and autonomy of every individual. It involves treating others with fairness, empathy, and consideration, irrespective of their differences or beliefs.

Human consciousness is a marvel that sets us apart from other beings on this planet. It encompasses our thoughts, emotions, sensations, and perceptions, forming a complex tapestry that defines our identity and shapes our experiences. It is the essence of what makes us human. Our consciousness allows us to reflect upon ourselves, to ponder the mysteries of the universe, and to engage in deep introspection and self-awareness.

Respect is the fundamental principle that governs our interactions with others and serves as the bedrock of a harmonious and inclusive society. When we respect someone, we acknowledge their inherent worth and treat them with dignity, regardless of their background, beliefs, or social status. Respect fosters empathy, understanding, and compassion, creating an environment where everyone feels valued and included. It is through respect that we can bridge the gaps of differences and build strong connections based on shared humanity.

Human consciousness and respect are deeply intertwined. To truly respect another person, we must recognize and honor their consciousness—their thoughts, emotions, and experiences. When we respect someone, we acknowledge their individuality and their right to exist as autonomous beings with their own beliefs and values. We listen attentively to their perspectives, seeking to understand rather than judge. We value their contributions and treat them with fairness and equity.

Moreover, respect for human consciousness entails recognizing the inherent dignity of every individual. We understand that each person's consciousness is unique, shaped by their life experiences, cultural background, and personal journey. We appreciate the diversity of human consciousness and understand that it enriches our collective understanding of the world. By respecting and embracing this diversity, we create a space where individuals can express themselves authentically and contribute their unique perspectives to the broader tapestry of humanity.

Respect for human consciousness also entails respecting the boundaries and autonomy of others. Each person has the right to make decisions about their own lives, guided by their own thoughts, desires, and values. Respecting someone's consciousness means honoring their agency and allowing them the freedom to choose their own path. It means refraining from imposing our beliefs or judgments onto others and instead empowering them to make choices that align with their own sense of self.

In conclusion, human consciousness and respect are intertwined concepts that play a vital role in shaping our interactions and society. By recognizing and valuing the richness of human consciousness, we can foster a culture of respect that celebrates diversity, nurtures empathy, and cultivates meaningful connections. Respect for human consciousness entails acknowledging the inherent worth and autonomy of individuals, listening with empathy, and embracing the diversity of perspectives that arises from our unique experiences. It is through this deep respect for each other's consciousness that we can build a more inclusive and compassionate world.