Kraft vas Si'yah

Kraft vas Si'yah @mkraft Difficult to say what would happen if things were coming to a breaking point with population. We are already consuming the earth over it's capacity each year faster. This year the day was 1st of august at which point we went over the yearly limit of what the earth can produce. The earth just has so many resources that we don't see the effects in a truly urgent way in most places. Certain areas though, the effects are clear. In my opinion the worlds population should be stabilized by each country and the move to sustainable energy use should become mandated so that in the next 10 or so years energy use would be renewable all around. Maybe impossible but as countries are just making promises but not actions, it is not that comforting either. Mass conflicts, refugee crisis, possible wars, starvation, extreme weather conditions etc. All of those will happen more and more if people don't wake up in my opinion, as so many fiction stories depict those scenarios. We are good in shielding our eyes from bad stuff which is why these need to be done not by individuals first but by nations. That way people can be quided to a more earth friendly behaviour. Also refugees to other countries does not alleviate the problem, it just changes it's location and enable more people to be born in the places from where they have left (if the country is a high birth rate one).

Kraft vas Si'yah @mkraft Helping others is important but there are limits and the most prevalent actions need to happen where those problems stem from. Just like diseases, we need to treat the cause, not the symptom to stop it from causing problems.

. @pk_zero Limit of reality is man kind's kryptonite. Finite resources, finite cycle of life, finite lifespan, it is in finite circumstances do humans appreciate the life they have. Will man destroy each other for the last resources? Or will man come together to save itself?

Kraft vas Si'yah @mkraft That is the question that all of us should consider so that we would not end up in that situation, but unfortunally that is not generally the case. We can always hope for the best and do ourself what can be done but there are limits to individual actions. In the end though, will we have one to few people out there who will think for themselves only and result in the destruction or will people be able to collectively prevent such a situations to occur. We have so many fiction movies, books and other media that the possibilities have been told to us many times now though not in the most poor places. And as we can still see, we humans are very much still primitive in our behaviour, where ever you look in our planet. That behaviour just manifests itself in different ways. Personal responsibility to think yourself, to go against the crowd when it is in the wrong and to do your best for the future of all. Not difficult concepts but difficult to act upon as we are feeble creatures at the core. I may say great things but when it is time to act I can shrink to that feeble version just like anyone else. Thats is mainly due to lack of experience in the new and unexpected just like most of us. To overcome those is the sign of growth which takes time. Just hope that people will stand up in those challenges and grow through mistakes rather than hide in the hopes of a better future in their minds. Dark thoughts which is why one should try to hope the best of people as otherwise one would become a mess with thinking these things. :)

. @pk_zero True I feel most action based anime and video games are based off that very notion if you think about it? Most stories usually start with some weak person or group that have to overcome impossible odds to complete their goal, save their homeland/world, save a friend, stop some evil omega powerful being, etc. Or if the characters are already strong then they wind up in situations where their abilities are useless, their opponents are way past them in power, or they cannot use them because of the circumstances. But if you look in between the lines they all have the goal of an impossible task that's way bigger than them but they have hope or faith in their nakama, beliefs, dreams, etc. to overcome basically the dark future. These kinds of stories have existed since ancient times and still persist today so I always wondered if this is a reflection of human tendency to want to overcome their obstacles by pure will alone? Could hope of a better future overcome the boundaries of a destructive end? Maybe its these human traits that is the dichotomy of what humans fight today. The haves and have nots. The weak vs the strong. The rich vs the poor, The east vs the west. This government party vs the other. This race vs that race. Etc. A world filled with dictomies of 2 strong opposing ideas creates chaos and war. But if they and together they are strong and unbreakable. Basically what is stronger in human nature? Coming together to overcome? Or fighting for survival?

Kraft vas Si'yah @mkraft That depends on the individual. Some find strength in coming together and some might fight to the end by themselves. Each will find their way for survival. Problem is that does either side cause problems for the survival of all especially if the side is the majority. As the majority can offset the actions of the few most of the time if the few don't have too much power to cause problems. But the few can't offset the majorities actions. Thos can be seen for examble in the principle of ruling a country. If you have a single ruler with advisors only then taking action is fast and uniform if the ruler is respected, good things will be done when needed but the possibility of corruption is high. Democracy on the other hand can prevent more corruption (not immune though) but can be too slow to make decisions if opposing arguments are equal in power. Finding the balance is difficult especially if people gravitate too much on the extremes. Logic though is important to keep in mind so that utterly stupid ideas with no proof don't get too much traction in our direction as a society.

Kraft vas Si'yah @mkraft If it is constructed by humans, relative to humans or a thing by humans then most likely yes. We act according to reality, draw understanding and direction for further actions. Unless we try consciously to change a certain naturally occurring thing then it will eventually happen as that is the idea how we define it. Even with trying to avoid or change something, they might still eventually lead back to the naturally occurring thing. It would just take time. Not saying it is a absolute inevitably to happen but something difficult to change all together. And even if people or things are different in certain functions/groups/society/etc they might and probably do act the same way in their respective areas. Just like in physics a we may be affected by certain phenomena that a microscopic thing might not. But at the same time that microscopic thing is affected by other things that could cause similar results and those in turn we do not even notice. It's quite interesting all together.

. @pk_zero If the real world naturally applies by default then the same efforts of those who oppose the status quo should apply. I would think the natural pecking order of society is cyclic. Every empire, every dictator, every society with power concentrated among a few eventually returns to the people until it is taken again by a central government or military leadership. French revolution, Haitian revolution, dissolution of the Soviet union, I can go on and on. Even in modern times we have examples of this like the 2014 Thailand military coup d'état or all those current civil wars in the middle east. Do you think this is a natural cyclic transfer of power that human society always goes through? Roman empire, this empire, that empire, they all eventually fall and a new season appears for those societies. Do you think this is a natural occurrence?

Kraft vas Si'yah @mkraft It is an occurrence very natural as things tend to happen to the extremes. With powerfull action there tends to be a similar counter force at the same time or later on. This again can be seen with other natural phenomena in the world. With us humans and our possibility to think and educate, I personally have the naive hope that we could finally reach at some point a balance. To avoid going to the extremes, to be able to see them so that we learn from them. Certain countries currently are closer to the balance as the radical momements and violence is low but even that is ever changing. So you need to have a constant eye on the situation so that it does not tilt too much on one direction at a given time. It is like a moral and harmony scale that we try to get to the middle. Even one small grain of sand or a drop of water can start to tilt it. Very draining to society which is why things have happened but which should not prevents us from trying.

. @pk_zero I can't verify if this opinion on current scholars is just a western centric thought process or not but their current theory which I remember learning is that there are (Going completely from memory here so bear with me) like 3 classes of countries. I don't remember the official wording for them but I'll just use 1st 2nd and 3rd world countries for now. (This is not my opinion this is just what I was taught so take it with a grain of salt because I have my own theory of it anyway) What they say is that 1st world countries "control" the resources and trade of the world, any previous 2nd or 3rd world that has a very strong influence in this is considered to be 1st world in modern times, also high GDP, and you know the usual stuff. 3rd world countries "have" the actual resources in them so their kept down as 3rd world on purpose by the ruling 1st world class. They said this explains why African countries with all their diamonds gold, certain middle eastern countries that have all the aluminum and other rare earth metals, and other similar countries are kept down so the 1st world countries can exploit them for their resources. The theory is that the world can't allow them to become a 1st world or else they will start using their own resources for themselves, so they keep them down so they can "control" the flow of that countries resources. But the new theory is that there is a new type of 2nd world country that is like a middleman, are like really developed countries that also "have" resources but they are not in full "control" of it. South Africa is a perfect example with their diamonds but the rich diamond families/companies control the flow of it being sold to the rest of the world. But they do not have the same influence that a full 1st world country has. Or the oil rich nations of the middle east also fall in this category. Basically its like they own the resource but are forced to sell it in the way the 1st world countries want so they don't have full control. Now that's what the theory says. I agree with some parts in that it makes sense that the 1st world countries can't survive without those resources the other countries have so they probably do exploit them to an extent to make sure they have permanent access for it. Now what ultimately determines 1st, 2nd, or 3rd I highly disagree because depending on who you ask its always skewed. But my point with this rambling is that if there is truth in this theory then this could explain why power is always imbalance in this world. A world always fighting for limited resources that wars, conflicts, and disagreements always happen. Idk just something I was thinking about the other day.

Kraft vas Si'yah @mkraft That is a reasonable way of thinking and does fit for certain large countries in a sense. But there are quite a lot of countries too that are considered to be 1st world so to say but in my opinion have very little resources or even influence to other countries to make this thing happen. I would maybe add like one tier to this to make this work more. Top, 1, 2, and 3 for examble. The top control and have the major power. The 2 and 3 are like what you said. And then the 1 would be defined slightly differently. The 1 group would be highly developed etc but does not have much influence in pressure or own resources. But the way they are at 1 is because they have been let to be there by the Top as they are so neutral / similar to them + the lack of resources or not having unique ones as the top so the 1st does not draw the focus of the Top on them. This is like the some of the nordic countries for examble. We are in the system that the Top has let us be. Well that is how I view it at least. Might be completely wrong and that my coverment/companies in here are actually doing some shady stuff that I don't know of.