I would like to try my favorite method of simplifying social, human behavior to the behavior of individual persons, for example in the issue of saving the climate with renewable or occasional resources.
I don’t know how I can do it.
Humans have always fought with nature, underwater cities and deserts are good examples of this. When there were floods, they moved higher, when it was dry, they tried to bring in and keep the water.
The result of this experience should be a healthy, peasant knowledge that nature cannot be conquered, but one must adapt in order to survive. And not us! Stupid nature, you created us, we will fix you, we will improve you, we will pee even if you were to stay here alone. We are better than you!
Neighbors managing the Earth as one common but strictly divided field might have common sense.
There are a total of 242 neighbors, the main ones (about a dozen), making up more than half of humanity, are:
India 1435 million people, 17.7% of the population.
China 1425 million 17.63%
US 341 million, 4.21%
Indonesia 278 million 3.44
Pakistan 242 million 3.0%
Nigeria 226 million
Brazil 217 million
Bangladesh 173 million
Russia 144 million
Mexico 128 million, Ethiopia 128 million
And there are also Japan (122), Philippines (118), Egypt (113) above one hundred million
Congo (104) and almost Vietnam (99).
I don’t have the European Union here with 506 million inhabitants (7% of the population), because it is an artificial entity guided by the idea that things go better with more neighbors. Something like our coalition of five, but with 28 members. It turns out that the benefits of the connection are smaller than the damage caused by the messiah of the European Union, which decided to convert its 7% of the population to the true faith and save the rest of the world from warming.
Expressing individual human groups and personifying them as neighbors is actually impossible. The idea of a neighbor, for example the EU, expressing its multifaceted nature, would be an incredible monster.
These are unavoidable pitfalls of simplification, but they are in favor of understanding.
It could allow the idea of bringing together the first, perhaps the ten largest neighbors by population (see India to Ethiopia), with their own problems of how to survive, what they would like to save the other half of humanity from warming. Even in this day and age, when I bow to the enormous imagination of people, it is beyond any imagination. The instinct of self-preservation at the level of nations exists, but it does not manifest itself by trying to take the neighbors by the hand, but by taking them by the head and eating off their plates.
Replacing the production of electrical energy, which keeps us under trees, the sun, wind, surf, etc., is a nice idea, but according to common sense, it can be realized in a horizon of 100 years or more, similar to how the “century of steam” changed us.
Implementation must result from possibilities, circumstances, advantages, reduction of disadvantages, natural pressure on a solution that does not yet exist and not from setting a deadline, as a commitment to the anniversary of VŘSR.
I don’t want to believe that a group of people is doing this somewhere behind the scenes for their own financial benefit. But I have to believe that it is happening because I see a mass of EU residents who put up with it and are willing to be impoverished by the green religion. There is no doubt that it will end in disaster, that the current prophets of the green religion will end up in the dustbin of history.
The first question is “When?”
Second question: “Why not hurry it up?”
And the third: “How?”.
Let’s ask “history, the teacher of life”, which has never taught us anything, and she will answer: “You will screw it up as always!” “
