(This post was actually written before the previous one, but I didn’t release it yet. Wrote it to my friend at first.)
When I have learned something from Stargate (and I learned a lot through it), then that one alone can’t really win in the long run and that usually a friend has to help out.
So while not a single one can save the world, obviously a group of people could do something.
Keeping each others back safe.
And you said, when I can help myself, then I can help you. Or something like that.
This concept actually was used multiple times in Stargate.
And of course in general, be it stories or real concepts.
There is a first one who either is alone fighting and other help or one gets those together who could actually do something, the one can’t do alone. Team building But with a goal in mind and a reason.
Sadly in the stories explaining things seems a lot easier, than it is in reality. Or isn’t it? From a negative perspective an attacker uses either the weakest or the strongest, depending on the topic / attack and what gets attacked. When an army lead by one ruler is the target, the ruler would be the weak point. But when the ruler is not alone, the weak point are his followers. Obviously a more difficult task. (okay it wasn’t actually a negative perspective …)It was about how to target an enemy.
But when you want to help people or need them in order to help you and themselves, there goal would be to give them enough reason to understand your point. To a point where they could figure the rest out on their own and then probably support you and you can support them. Because maybe then they would actually take the lead.
For example: If there would be a scientist who can do something, but doesn’t know it is necessary. You could find a way to explain the situation and when the scientist then understands what has to be done, you could do what the scientist needs from you.
… and I obviously shouldn’t write so much.
Wow… how the useless factor again reached to a high level.
Just because my effort was again for nothing. Now I almost got this feeling I had at work… damn. So far the music keeps me on track, withstanding the negativity. But the feelings are there.
It is hard to believe in myself and what I know and learned, when it seems to be pointless. I mean, it seems as if it has to break at some point. But only if I give in to the negative overall view on the things. Or the too positive one, which seems irrational. Not because being too positive is a problem, but the need for it is, in my eyes. Because it then forces others to be positive as well, while their interest, life and experience taught them different things.
And I think, that the concept of “realistic” is overdone. Because things are never realistic, when you plan an actual change. You can plan something or use someone’s plan for things which were already made millions of times. Then you could talk about it from a “realistic” point of view. But then this would mean, that a realistic person only focuses on what is given. Isn’t it? Therefor the realist might actually be short-minded. The optimist would actually be the realist and the pessimist would just be depressed because of all these so called “realists”.
This would mean, that most people are actually not realistic or even depressed. And given to statistics and the immense need for pills and other mental health things, actually supports this.
This doesn’t mean that a realist is stupid. But maybe that the ability to think out of the box was taken away? So I shouldn’t have used short-minded, but blocked instead? But then again, I am just messing with definitions which have nothing to do with what I am actually talking about. At least when you would ask other people.
Because the optimist gets out of the hole. the pessimist dies at some point, if not changing the perspectives. But what about the realist? I think that the realist would probably just sit there and wait and maybe try some things, but if they don’t work the first or second time the realist gives up.
Is that wrong?
Because I often found that optimism is wanted, but an optimist is not good.
Well, because the realist can’t understand the optimist. The optimist might use wrong words and concepts to describe things, but has a possible solution in mind or at least a will to find it. But the realist wants proof, wants facts and wants a plan. So the realist thinks, that the optimist is out of his mind (okay could be true sometimes, but doesn’t have to be bad).
And then the realist tends to say: “Well, but we just have THIS. And so your ideas aren’t helpful.” Then the optimist could get depressed and actually turn into a pessimist over time. So maybe a pessimist and an optimist are actually the same, only one of them has the possibility to do what they want, while the other one lost the hope.
This would mean, that the pessimist combined with hope would do similar or the same like the optimist. But what about the realist then? Wouldn’t this mean, that the realist neither has hope, nor depression. Just no soul?
Well, of course we are talking about a lot of different things here with wrong definitions and descriptions again. But think about it. When most people are acting realistic, it is no wonder, that the optimists get pessimists and then the whole think breaks apart. And then, is there a chance for a realistic person to get optimistic? I don’t mean to say positive phrases or something. I mean actually believing in what they do and can do.
And because this is not the case for many people, at least not how I experienced it, the worlds needs optimism. Because what do you have to loose, when the whole thing is going down anyways? Okay, well… no. But I mean, that if you could just try some things out on your own, while not just doing what others did before, the optimist would be born. And if most people would just do things, without thinking whether others might have done them or not, we could have so many new ideas and possibilities come to life.
What is the main problem again? Global market. And I don’t mean, that sharing different kind of technologies, food and people is bad, but the concept of the global market, being based on standards.
Now the first one would say: “So do you want 300 different taxes, currencies and trading laws gain?” Or things like that.
And I would say, no, obviously
Because what the problem is, that money is valued over resources and not the other way around.
Now someone might say: “But the market is regulating itself” (not it is not, as you can see) or “more need, higher price”.
And these are the fundamental things on how the global market runs (over simplified)
So if instead of money, we would just have a system which could track actual resources, need for them and the possible costs, time, etc. it takes to get them etc. this could actually work.
For example, when you just ignore, that money or something like it was used for centuries to trade and even trading. Then what would you actually want to have?
I would want people who are not afraid to try things. I would want people who are happy with themselves and love themselves. I would want a shared market without actually having a market. So communism in a way, but also not.
What is the problem with resources.
If you say: “Everyone can have as much as they need.”
People would be like: “Get all you can until it is gone.
And then you would obviously have a lot of people with a lot of unused resources at home, because they fear it might not be available at some point. (never saw that in recent time *coughs*)
So there isn’t much difference between the flaws of the communistic “market” or the capitalistic oriented one. The global market obviously is capitalistic oriented.
I mean it can be used in different ways, for different things, but the core values are capitalistic. (The current global market).
So what would be without money?
I wouldn’t have a problem because I would just take what I need, maybe even less. But most people wouldn’t do that, I bet and sadly know. Even my father bought a lot of toilet paper when it was rare…
So how could I convince people that they just take as much as they need?
Well, I guess we are facing one of societies or humanities major problems here. -> What do people actually need?
Well, people need safety. And then we give them safety, by installing useless technologies. Okay not completely useless, but not actually dealing with the problem. Just trying to handle it the old-fashioned way. Mass control.
So in order to get people into just taking what they need, you first have to find love for themselves and the people around them. If people wouldn’t need alcohol to be happy or drugs, or unhealthy food, expensive coaching etc. (to just name a few from a million things) they would almost automatically only use the resources they actually need (speculation).
Example problem 1:
If you would want to eat and you could eat as many pizzas as you want. How much would you eat?
My answer would probably be one, or if I wouldn’t have eaten the whole day maybe two.
So the solution would be easy. You find out how much you personally actually need to be good and happy. And then this could be combined with other people and their results and then show the overall need. Then the people who would be responsible for the food part would be able to know how much they need. And after a year you would also know how much you would actually need to plant, harvest, produce etc. (maybe even just after some weeks with good algorithms). Because you can actually calculate the year consumption of food based on a couple of days. Why?
Well, because when people wouldn’t “buy” or eat more than they actually need, this would pretty easy. You would see after three days, what probably will be the next 300 days. At least when it comes to the need. So no long-term study, testing and bla bla bla… just a couple of days.
Then you could based on the results of the needs decide to grow more or less food (also with the thinking of backup food). And then over a year there could be developed a lot of better and efficient ways on how to grow and produce etc. because people wouldn’t have to worry about their most basics need – food.
I mean there is water, actually water would be the one which should be focused on first (at least when you think it from the capitalistic way). But when you just tell people how to make a basic water filter, this would also solve a lot of problems in the first days. While of course in areas with no or poisoned water the people would need access to fresh water. But that also wouldn’t be a problem because you could just fly some over until better solutions are found over the next weeks. I mean we are talking here about days and weeks. Why?
Well, because this is how long it should take. Why do things usually take so long?
Documents, documents, documents, laws, documents, people who want money, more documents, money, money, money and a lot of “realistic” or pessimistic people.
If people with similar ideas and a common language come together, why shouldn’t they be able to make something within a couple of days?
“It takes as long as it takes.”
And that should be the thing or something similar. But instead people want plans, mainly because time costs money and… well that actually is the only reason. And then the whole thing will be bad already. Okay maybe not completely or always, but it causes a lot of negative effect. Because when you first have to think about how much time you need because the time will cost money and people also need it because of their money and so on…. you see that the common problem is money.
Because would you just say, okay, I know you can do it. Just do it. And then only based on the actual needed resources the thing would be built on, there often wouldn’t be so much pressure nor need for it. Because people would just be happy to do their work. They wouldn’t have to worry for food, water etc. basically the money to get it. So they could just focus on their current tasks. And this would also change the need for professions, grades and education as we knew it. Because if you want to learn something new, you could just search in the internet or ask millions of others who maybe already did something in the area. And because you wouldn’t have to pay for it or get into special universities, courses etc. you could just ask some and find them over the system.And then teaching also wouldn’t be that important anymore because the best teacher is the one who wants to know
So the other people would just share their experiences and maybe support with their love. For example, if they just look over what the one who wants to learn is doing and only do something if there is a question or maybe depending on the subject a possible danger. Learning would be fun and easy.
So for example, if one knows from previous knowledge and or experience that combining two specific chemicals will most likely cause a bad explosion, they should maybe warn the learning person about it. Or show them the effect in a safe environment / way. The best would be to actually give access to simulations which would do this part. But that could develop all over some time. And some things might still need a long time, but then it would be something to look forward to, instead of just hoping for it. Because in a capitalistic market, new ideas which are either not well marketed / advertised or not look that convincing at first, will be paused or dumbed.
But if there wouldn’t be a need to succeed or convince, then you could focus on actual needs and therefor whatever task you would work on, would be useful. Why?
Well, because everyone could share their actual needs. And the best solution would be to find ways over time so people would be able to have their food, water etc. at home. So that they wouldn’t have to be too depended on a system again. If then everyone or at least most people could actually care for themselves after a short time (maybe a couple of years or months), the system could focus more and more on just serving as a platform to communicate needs, possible solutions and people who can create new ones etc.
And I mean, some of the things I would see as work in progress in this concept, might actually be already there, just not really noticed. So maybe we wouldn’t need so long. Actually.
The concept of time is trivial, if the only reason for it would be to fear. And therefor time related to money is fear. So without money, time would be just a number again. If even.
So for example, if someone needs to relax for some amount of time because of an accident, there could be given a time, obviously. But if there would be projects etc. there shouldn’t be a time necessary to be given. I mean, if there would again be a task like building a house, there could be a given time based on the past experiences. But new tasks shouldn’t be valued or labeled with time. You could of course talk about a possible time, but it could only take the moral down. So – given tasks – show the time. New tasks – don’t care about time – care about the tasks to get done.
And I think the best part would be, that no one would have to be worried about loosing their job, about saving up for later and so on. Because you would just learn new things out of joy anyways. That would mean, that over time people would turn into allrounder again, while having more experience in some areas.
This would mean that they could just change their “job” if they don’t feel good with it anymore or just want to learn something new again. Because there would only be a number which describes how many people are currently working in a specific area and maybe a number which shows that there could be more, if possible.
So there would just be areas or topics and no companies, titles or such. People would just be able to know about their abilities and could use them together or alone by facing a task. And validation could be done by games for example. Would you not be able to understand something the first time, no problem, just try again. And at some point you will understand it. Instead of: “YOU HAVE ONLY ONE OR MAYBE TWO TRIALS AND IF YOU FAIL YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO TRY AGAIN!” – What the education usually teaches us in our current society (at least in many countries).
I mean, if someone would by nature be less knowing about engineering, it would be obvious that this person could need a lot of time to learn it. But it would only depend on the person. The person could try it as long as they want. And if in the trial process would be results even though in the end the person might decide to go for another learning process, no problem.
I mean, better some basic solutions more than 5 wasted years, a frustrated person more and a lot of pain in the end. Or 3 or 10 years it doesn’t matter.
It usually fails on the basic needs and money. So if there wouldn’t be money, only basic needs. So would people be able to take care of their food through some technology maybe, there wouldn’t be a reason to be angry about someone who spent 10 years studying something without big results.
While studying would actually mean doing tasks. Not learning on how to do tasks or over explain them for no reason. So at least this person did something and learned something. But in capitalistic societies and the global market, you have the problem that time indeed costs money and the industry needs workers fast, so you can’t take so much time. Therefor there is already a lot of pressure in the back (or front) of the head which then causes more problems and the actual tasks seem too big or pointless. I think we are getting somewhere.
Isn’t it that everything could be turned into something else?
Things which brought you down turn into things which build you up.
Weapons turn into tools, not serving their old and brutal purpose anymore.