Something to discuss

Was the Middle Ages dark?

The time between 500 and 1.400, particularly 1.000-1.300, is often referred to as “dark”; a period in man’s life where more or less everybody lived in an indescribable misery. We will never be able to recapitulate the life during the Middle Ages. What is known is that there was a different over all philosophy setting its mark on the living. The liberation of the soul was connected to the assimilation of the own will as well as sensuality. After the downfall of the classical world of Greece and Rome, an époque when sensuality was held to be the ultimate life of man, there was a reaction to the indolent life of man in the late classical societies where the signs of decadence were obvious, thus slowly building the ethics of the Middle Ages.

Since societies are not very creative when it comes to trends, it can be presumed there was a period during the Middle Ages when an optimum was reached, a balance between the decadence and the strict control, but time passed and the philosophy collapsed and was burnt at the stake together with the witches. The renaissance slowly gave birth to a new era during which the ideals of the classical world were reincarnated in the intellectual movement of humanism.

Today there are some people believing they live under the pressure of control and talk about the necessity of a new humanism, yelling man is not free. The thought man might persist too much freedom does not seem to occur to them, because they do not feel free themselves. They seem to have the feeling their liberation is connected to some kind of ultimate liberation of mankind of the world. We have to bear in mind too much freedom might be heavier to carry than we are able to imagine. The more freedom we get, the more self discipline is needed.

Palestine vs Israel

Nobody knows when it started and nobody knows when it is going to end; the old conflict in the Middle East between the Jewish state and Palestine. The partition plan worked out by the UN resulting of the establishment of Israel 1948 was not the beginning, neither the end of the conflicts. 1914-1920 Great Britain was one the leading political forces trying to shape Arabic independent states in the Middle East without interfering too much with the interest France might have in the Middle East and prevent a strong Turkish influence. Much of the correspondence during this period use vague expressions for defining regions and whether “wilayahs of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo” include or exclude Palestine, thus making promises from Great Britain to include or exclude Palestine in the land given to the Arabs is still not quite clear. During this time the diplomats from Britain were being held in esteem from the Arabs for their honesty and straightforwardness. Words were often more trusted than papers. I would not bet many Swedish crowns this esteem has lasted during these past 100 years. We also have to bear in mind the conflict was old already 100 years ago.

What happened around the period when the state of Israel was established? Well, those who think there is one part more innocent than the other probably has to study the history deeper. Before the 14^th of May 1948 200.000 Arabs had left their homes, and the fact is it is not quite clear why all these people came to leave. This was the beginning of the Palestine refugee problem. The Arabs say Israel forced these people to leave through the use of military actions and terror, pointing upon what happened in Dir Yassin (9^th of April 1948) when Zionistic  military forces massacred 250 men, women and children. The leader of the military operation was Menachem Begin, later prime minister of Israel (1977-1983) as well as receiver Noble Prize for Peace 1978. Begin meant “The massacre was not only legitimate, but also the state of Israel would not have been able to realise without the victory at Dir Yassin.”

Without taking any notice of the condemnation from the rest of the world (The British historic wrote the massacre was “comparable to the crimes committed by the Nazis against the Jews”) Zionistic military forces drove through the cities and encouraged the Arabs to escape. The Arabs on the other hand had in periods (1920-21, 1928-29, 1936-39 etc) injudicious attacked Jewish settlements for a long time and from January to May 1948 the attacks were intensified and the most horrible scenes were photographed and the photos were being sold in the streets. Azzam Pasha, the General Secretary of the Arab federation, described the future for the Jewish people: “This is going to be a war of extermination, comparable to the Mongolian massacre and the crusades”.

Can peace ever be created where nothing but generations of hate has found nutrition to grow? For each new generation being born the rumours and stories take new turns making it more and more impossible to start all over again. Maybe this is one of the world’s oldest conflicts? Does this tell us there really exist unsolvable human conflicts? Then “solving” the conflict might be the wrong way to go?

“If no solution, then maybe no problem?" (Marcel Duchamp)

Week 25

I read the news today...

It was something about freedom, and the fact “human beings have to put a lot of efforts in being what they want to be”. The journalist found it upsetting for example homosexuals have to fight a lot for their rights. Sometimes I cannot avoid wondering what these people want to show me; I accept we are all different, but I do not know what they want from me more than my acceptance? Now there was a pride festival in Rome, and it seems as though the sexual aspect of their lives is the most important, which is a sign of narrow-mindedness. Being homo- or heterosexual (or whatever people might prefer) belongs to sexuality only which mainly should be a private sphere of life. It seems as though people identify themselves with their sexual preferences and this identification causes a feeling of being not accepted as a human being.

If we do not identify ourselves as objects the problem might no longer exist (referring to Marcel Duchamp’s “If no solution, then maybe no problem”). Maybe we should not identify ourselves at all? The need for identification is an outcome of the cult of the genius and the worshipping of the famous personalities. The need of being accepted seems to appear to a larger extent where the acceptance already is widely spread. Everything needs “a face”, a way of giving publicity to a phenomenon. The more faces, the higher the need for objectification and identification. People seem to have a strong need of belonging to a specified group, which is a bit strange because in a group you need to accept a package of opinions, apprehensions and prejudices. The probability you really agree with the complete package is very low, but the identification of yourself as a member of this group diminishes your own opinions and actually therefore minimizes your possibilities to “be what you want to be”. We also have to take into consideration what we “want to be” might not necessarily correspond to what we really are, and if there is such a thing as happiness it can more probably be reached through what we actually are than what we think we want to be.

“Want to be” often corresponds to “have seen something attractive”, which too often seems to be part of an identification with famous personalities, an imaginative way of future living as a result of impressions from media. Small girls are often extremely fascinated by everything that glitters (please observe no all girls have this fascination, but many). This does not mean they are going to be “happy” if they decide to optimize their lives out from glittering parameters, even if this is what they actually think. Instead of identifying themselves with women in glittering dresses, we should show them alternatives and try to make them understand they should not only judge the glittering façade of an object. The same goes for small boys that are attracted by power and dominance.

Do we have time?

The answer is of course spontaneously ”No”, because if we say “Yes” we might find ourselves in the situation of getting more things to do, which we do not want taking into consideration we do not have time. We all know we do have time. The available amount of hours are used for all sort of activities, so what we do is to prioritize between activities, just as we choose food from a Swedish “Smorgosbord”, thus trying to optimize our living. Often it seems as though we make this prioritizing out from a non conscious basis rather than active analysis. Habitual behaviour control probably 80% of this optimization, which does not mean the priorities are wrong. It just means they are not actively chosen.

Often we have more possible choices a certain moment than we imagine at a first glance. Did you watch TV yesterday? Maybe this is classified as “relaxation”, never the less it is statistically so that you spent maybe 2 hours in front of the TV. Grown ups often think they “have to” watch the news, but the information amount transferred is rather limited compared to what can be read in the morning paper, where you also have the possibility to choose between articles. The latest tragedy normally fills a large part of TV-news, but when it comes to the point the information received is limited. Of course it is a tragedy when a plane crashes, but on the other hand: it happens and it is normally an accident statistically proven to happen.

It is not always obvious why we chose the activities we actually chose and this is the reason we maybe should use a few minutes every day just to reflect upon our behaviour and what we did yesterday since this is in fact how we spent our time, what priorities we did, what we found out being of great importance.

So, the next time you get the question “Do you have time?” you might consider carefully if you should not answer “Yes, of course” but add “and if you would like me to use part of this time for a special purpose I will make a proper analysis of the different priority alternatives”. Some people actually demand other people’s time for pure egocentric reasons, which might be OK if they pay for the usage of the time. In such case it is part of the capitalistic system.

Russia saved Europe

The general apprehension seems to be USA saved Europe from German aggressiveness both in the First and the Second World War. Looking at the victims of the wars USA lost some 40.000 soldiers in the First World War and 300.000 in the Second. This is of course a lot of soldiers, no discussion about that. The corresponding figures for Russia were 2.3 million in the First World War (and 4 another million reported missing) respectively between 6.5 and 10 million (and another 10 million civilians). One can of course conclude that the Russian effectiveness in war is very low compared to the American, but that is probably not the reason for the differences. In fact both these wars show higher losses for the “winner” (The Entente respectively the Allies) compared to the surrender party. USA has been better at marketing its contribution in the wars, but the fact is Russia was one of the main working forces in both wars.

When the allies entered the Normand coastline the 6^th of June 1944, the German frontline in Russia was already broken down which was the beginning to the collapse of the German empire. For sure “Operation Overlord” was a very important milestone, but if Hitler’s armies had succeeded to invade Russia the operation would for sure not have been carried through.

Sweden has always faired Russia due to historic reasons. The fact Sweden’s war maniac king Karl XII tried to invade Russia some hundred years ago 1707-1709 causing a Russian hate against Sweden seems to be irrelevant. 100 years later Napoleon tried to do the same; invade Russia, with the same result in enormous losses of Russian human lives. Is this going to be repeated? Looking upon history with Russian eyes, one can imagine there is an scepticism against the surrounding world.

The next time you meet a friendly Russian; show some gratitude to the efforts made in history to save us from maniacs. Oh, and why not reflect upon the fact Russia wanted international help in Afghanistan during the 1980^th when terrorism started to grow in the country. The Taliban guerrilla got help – from USA feeding weapons against what they saw as was a “communistic threat against the free capitalism”.

The simple rule is: “What Russians do is wrong and what Americans do is right”.

An example: Philippines

In ”Nordisk Familjebok” from the beginning of the 20th century, an old Swedish Encyclopaedia, the article about Philippines tells there were 7.635.426 persons 1903 living on the different islands, or 27 per square kilometre, which is about the same population density as Sweden today (20 per square kilometre). Of these 7,6 million there were 647.740 “uncivilized natives” so presumably 7 million were “civilized”. Anyhow, 2008 the population was 90,5 million (population density 302 per square kilometre according the newer source “Nationalencyklopedin” at www.ne.se). The annual population growth is 2,1%, which might not sound a lot, but it means an extra 1,9 million people 2009 and after 33 years the population has increased with a factor 2, giving us 180 million people about 2040 which means a population density of 600 (compare the Netherlands 392). In 150 years time Philippines will increase its population from 7,6 million to 180 million, or 25 times.

Is this a problem? Some people, especially younger, find 150 years to be an eon, something eternal, but 150 years is not a long time – my grandmother was born 1899 for example. Maybe it is a positive thing to increase the population 25 times? The more people, the higher the probability somebody is happy… In Manila today there are 14 million inhabitants. The unemployment rate is high just as the criminality and use of drugs.

Most people think a population growth is not a very big problem. Somehow it will be kept under control we think, as if there was a supernatural force preventing negative outcome. “Look at China”, is an often used example, but what China did was actually to try to solve the problem. The methods used are now and then criticized, but alternative methods are seldom suggested. OK, China solved their problem – or should we maybe say that they solved our problem? There are estimations made 80% of the population in the Philippines will be poor 2020. That means 90 million persons.

Let us assume many of these 90 million live in such conditions that they need assistance to prevent tragedies. TV-teams from different corners of the world are sent to make documentary films to encourage their home countries to accept streams of refugees from the Philippines, money has to be sent etc. That is one way to solve it of course; some countries produce people that are sent to those countries with less poverty. What problem do we actually solve this way? Let’s say Sweden accept as much as 500.000 refugees living in bad circumstances around Manila. Then we have helped 0,5% of the poor people. Of course Sweden can never accept that many. A more probable outcome is 5.000 refugees, and they are probably not even the poorest among the population because they do not even know how to find lunch, even less they think of travelling to another country.

Is the world waiting for some kind of signal from the sky to start trying to find a solution to the problem of the continuous growth of the population? Are we waiting to reach a specific target? “Now we are 15 billion, let’s do something” or do we think the problem will be easier to solve 10 or 30 years from now? Maybe we just use the normal teenager strategy: “Let us wait until tomorrow and see if things have gone worth… if not, let us wait another day”.

Fri 14 May

Rudolf Eucken

“All along the ages thinkers have laboured in order to try to solve the problem, but the liberation of man from himself would not yield to any proposed solution; all ardent labours have alternately entangled and disentangled the skein, and the goal has always receded further away. On the summit of Greek life the good attracted man on account of its inherent beauty as an object of disinterested welfare, and not on account of its utility or its enjoyment; on account of its powerful influence on the imagination man seemed to win the good and the beautiful.“

Not many read Rudolf Eucken today, but he was rewarded the Nobel Prize of literature 1908, actually one of the few philosophers who has received the prize. The paragraph above is taken from his “The Truth of Religion” (1911) where he tries to reach beyond the superficial image of religion. “Christianity has, as one of its great accomplishment, freed morality from mere nature, and with incomparably greater clearness than before placed the moral problem in front of the soul of man.”

Moral has never been extremely popular among the man on the street, probably because the laws thereof forces man not just to follow his desires. Even if many people in Europe today believe religion is something old fashioned and rather non-scientific, we have to realise religion raised our culture and still the moral of religion shape our laws. The fact many people think their freedom is a path of fulfilling desires makes it necessary to read writers like Eucken.

But of course; it is easier looking at an American film…

Mon 4 May

What is philosophy?

Is philosophy really a science or is it just an illusion? Maybe it is like saying poetry is a science, which not many would agree upon. What is poetry? Well, most of us presume we do know what poetry is, how to recognize it, how to read it, but to say what it really is might turn up to be almost impossible. We normally also think we know what philosophy is and how to recognize its reason and logic. Universities are said to educate “philosophers”. These people have studied thinking in its different aspects, to a large extent through the reading of old philosophers trying to grasp how they were thinking and arguing. But is this how to study philosophy? We study literature by reading writers of all time, analysing their techniques and methods, following their rhythm and life.

If not philosophy is the science of life itself, then there is no such science. But if, on the other hand, philosophy really is the science of life itself it is doubtful if this science can be studied in chambers of the universities, as if life was something taking place somewhere else, in another time or dimension. One problem regarding “research” is the way it is hierarchically structured; there is a professor at the top, directing the employed researchers and students out from this top-view, breaking one speciality of philosophy into even smaller parts as if one day, somebody suddenly would collect all the research made all over the world and put it all together making it the true science of life.

Another point of view is to regard philosophy as something else but the science of life, and refer to psychology as the ultimate science of life and man, but the same problem arises one more time. Some people have the opinion psychology is a “new” science and mean it will keep on developing as if it was in an early phase comparable to physics 400 years ago, but this presupposes the knowledge is transferable from one generation to the next by means of experimental methods, materialized research and so on so forth. Unfortunately this is not the case with psychology and maybe also not with philosophy, since this kind of sciences builds abstract, intuitive knowledge only transferable to a minor extent from one person to the other.

In other words: there is no use writing an explanation what philosophy is since each one of us has to understand it from in and out and not the other way round. I am really sorry you have used valuable time to read this meditation without getting something out of it, but that is part of our living, to do non productive things to increase our non understanding of nonsense.

Wed 29 Apr

The ultimate machine

It might be an old fashioned opinion, but from an over all perspective the ultimate machine so far is the bike… Yes, there are marvellous cars, there are washing machines and dish washers, mp3-players and DVD-recorders, X-raying equipment and fantastic machines to produce all kinds of things. Still there is no machine like the bike because it is perfectly adapted to man and requires no additional energy but what easily can be produced by our bodily process. I once read an article about energy efficiency; there were no doubt a man on a bike used much less energy compared to other animals.

One can say man needs to eat more to be able to bike, thus causing an over consumption of food. I doubt this; the over consumption is already a fact on many places (where bikes can be used). Unfortunately the bike did not replace the horse – this role was fulfilled by the car, even though the bike came before the car. The roads were not paved until the car had won the heart of man and then it was already too late to use the bike as a replacement for the horse. Maybe we should really try to reconstruction society to fit the man on a bike? Imagine all cities in the world filled with a variety of bikes instead of all these cars! Would this not be a wonderful idea? Larger cities (not to mention the smaller ones) can be crossed with a bike faster than with a car, because the traffic situation causes the mean speed through a city to be very low.

Why is the bike not a larger success? From what I have understood there are three major reasons: Weather dependency, impossibility to travel longer distances dressed for success and image. We could start the transferring towards the bike society by using the bike for shorter distances than 5 km. The time loss for such short distances using the bike instead of the car is really nothing to take into consideration. To cope with the weather you just have to learn how to dress, that is no big deal. Maybe you have to leave that suit of yours – who cares? Maybe you care? That might be a problem, but nothing that cannot be treated.

Mon 27 Apr

Companies vs. Countries

In the past there were local principalities reining a specific area, slowly growing into countries with fixed boarders. Throughout the years wars have changed boarders and countries, but today in large parts of the world they are more or less permanent. Instead another phenomenon has started to grow, from about 100 years ago when the era of industrialism gave birth to larger powerful companies, and that is the global companies. One more time there are local “princes” with powerful organizations making it possible to control a certain market where also other players are active. There are no regular wars going on, at least not with weapons.

Is it possible that the future brings us a world divided into non-geographical areas instead of the geographical ones we have today? Already Chinese and Arabic companies are buying land in Africa and Russia to use for farming in the future, because the population grows fast and the land available for farming in their own countries are not large enough or effective enough for feeding the people. Poor countries can start selling their land opening up for a new type of colonialism; everybody looks upon it as something natural because it follows the rules of market liberalism (if you pay for something nobody can blame you for doing anything wrong. Attempts to adapt this rule also to human bodies make it obvious there are limitations in the logic around this rule).

We can already see that governments are standing in one ring corner and global companies in the other. Stately schools have to take care of the poor students while the private ones take care of the rich the same way companies make sure they employ the healthy part of the population. It might be a positive development, but we also have to be aware it might as well be negative. Sometimes there is a tendency people believe development is only positive, but unfortunately there is no such general logic because there is no almighty power reining the world.

Fri 17 Apr

Value for money

Prices are now and then an interesting phenomenon; as long as things are newly manufactured the price is more or less proportional to the work input, but the older these things get the more widespread the price logic gets. Taking cars as an example, a 10 year old machine in perfect shape can be bought more or less for nothing compared to some kind of objective value of the machine as such due to the underlying capitalistic principles of supply and demand. A rationalistic human mind should therefore strive to have needs being able to fulfil with non-popular products: “cook your food in a clay pot when others use the wok pan”-philosophy.

The popularity index for a product can be estimated by taking the price for a corresponding new product, check the e-bay (or similar) mean price level, calculate the remaining life length and use a simple depreciation calculation. In Germany cars with a 2 litre engine and only for cylinders are not very popular, green is also not a popular colour – especially not if the interior is beige. None of these parameters affect the remaining life length of the machine as such, thus giving us a low index signalling the rational mind to buy.

Looking at the other side of the scale we have old paintings and furniture with an absurd high index; A painting by Pieter Brueghel the younger was sold at auction in Sweden for €1.500.000 just because the index is very high. Compared to other paintings this one is not extreme in beauty or uniqueness, the remaining life length does not differ and comparing prices for a new product should make us think once or twice. The only reason the price level is extremely high (the only thing that actually is extreme about this painting) is the expectation for an even higher popularity index in the future.

But of course; if you buy to sell you should of course estimate future popularity indexes. If you, on the other hand, buy to use it might be a good idea always to estimate the index and buy green even if you would prefer red, because by the end of the day in the sunset, you cannot see the colour anyhow.

Thu 16 Apr

All these realities

There are many different realities; the economic, the technical, the social, the political and so on so forth. From each one of these there are plenty of spokesmen telling us what is important and how we should live to be happy – or if it is how we should live to make the spokesmen happy (it is not always easy to see the difference). Maybe also this text is a kind of outspoken reality just like all the rest? The old saying “No one is a prophet in his own country” is applicable to all the different aspects of reality because there are few spokesmen that are fully accepted in his own reality and this is one reason why it is so much easier to speak truths in another reality than the one we belong to.

Does this mean anything to each one of us? Well, it means we should be careful speaking out all the truths we bear inside, because there are so many different views how to look upon a truth making it almost impossible to be sure about anything. Does this mean we should say nothing at all? No, not necessarily, but it might be worth remembering an old truth, which we of course cannot be sure really is a truth:

Wer weiß, spricht nicht,

Wer spricht, weiß nicht.

This was written by old Lao-Tse (“Die Bahn und der rechte Weg” – I am not sure about the English nor the Chinese title).

As you can read I do speak which means I do not know according Lao-Tse, and presuming he knew, I should not write. On the other hand there is a risk I will never discover I am wrong if I never talk or write because there will be no protests, which will make me believe I am right as long as I do not write thus implementing the thought I really know out from the fact I am quiet. Turning the argumentation the other way round causes another contradiction making me believe I think I am right because I think I have something to write. Lao-Tse did not say “He who does not talk, knows” but if we feel we have nothing to add to all the wisdoms from local prophets we can at least think this does not mean we persist lower level of knowledge.

Maundy Thursday

40 days fasting...

Today is Maundy Thursday and we are about to enter Easter after 40 days of fasting and penance, at least according the old tradition. Most of us prefer to enter Easter after 40 days of good living, but we preserve the Easter feast and the holiday. This is probably rather symptomatic for our culture, to take the plums. Maybe it is a successful strategy to take the plums? If we are lucky we can walk through life as plum-eaters (and during this holiday coming up I am a plum-Easter-eater).

Altruistic individuals might never reach the plum and this is actually interesting; the typical ego take the plums without reflecting so much about it. If he sees somebody leaving the plums, he automatically believes it is made because the plums do not attract this person, preventing him from even having bad conscious about taking the plums. The more individuals tend to be plum-eaters, the less the probability these eaters will ever even think of there are people not taking the plums just because politeness prevents them from doing so.

If somebody spends 40 days of fasting and penance before Easter those always taking the plums will look upon it as some kind of hobby and would never even imagine doing such a stupid thing. It would never occur to them there might be a necessity to change set values in life just to prevent a devaluation of plums… The same way the financial crisis can be regarded as a fasting and penance period, maybe longer than 40 days because it has been accumulated during 7 years. The crisis can be said to be the logical outcome of always taking the plums – suddenly there are no plums because the behaviour spreads quickly turning altruists into plum-eaters as well.

Why not reflect upon this during Easter while you are taking the plums…

Tue 7 Apr

Judaism versus Islam

We often seem to look upon the conflict between Israel and the surrounding states as a religious one. Maybe this prevents us from using other views of understanding? Presume for example we would use another base instead of religion – economy – and try to find new ideas out from this. Karl Marx, not very modern today, wrote in “Das Kapital” (published 1867) in a reflection of religion and economic systems, that Christianity is the most suitable religion for a society consisting of producers. The Jews were being characterized as traders knowing how to buy cheap and sell expensive. He did not write anything about Islam, but if you try to read (and try to understand) the Koran you will find an economical model closer to communism than capitalism; no interest rate, gifts to the poor, equal sharing etc.

Since we are now imagining the central conflict in the Middle East as a conflict between economical systems, we can use Marx’s ideas and the Koran trying to understand the problem between an altruistic system and an egocentric system, where the latter has proved more efficient in a world of individuals making it easier to fulfil the “American dream”, which is the dream living also in the Middle East among those not being patient enough to wait for the last day to come (one way of canalizing the frustration is to blow oneself up together with as many “enemies” as possible).

The Jews were emigrating to Amsterdam (The United Provinces) from the Iberian peninsula 1500-1650 since their popularity after 1492 had decreased, and Amsterdam grew into a trade nation of first rank, which according Fernand Braudel cannot be mere chance (Braudel wrote a study of civilization and capital in Europe 1400-1800 in three Volumes; recommended reading for everybody interested in the human being). Claiming the Jews invented capitalism (Warner Sombart, 1911) might be an exaggeration but they were at least innovative in exchange of currencies and speculation on the stock exchange. Furthermore it is interesting to follow the emigration of Jews from Europe to USA and Israel, not necessarily pointing out the fact USA is now indeed the capitalistic state of first rank.

We at least have to understand the economic forces acting in the Middle East. Palestine has fed Israel with cheap labour, which of course is a necessity for capitalism.

Please note I am not telling this is some kind of truth, but it is interesting to reflect upon the idea it is very difficult to solve a conflict without understanding all its perspectives. Another reflection would be; maybe there are no religions in the world, only different economical systems? Read articles in the papers about “religious conflicts” as “economic conflicts” and you will soon notice the complexity increases.

Tue 31 Mar

Protesting against ourselves

Saturday the 28th of March WWF and the secretary-general of UN Ban Ki-Moon encouraged us to put out the lights during one hour forwarding a message to the governments of the world to take their responsibility during the negotiations of new targets for the reduction of carbon-dioxide to the atmosphere. The funny thing is we are actually protesting against ourselves, which of course is necessary, but still it is a bit funny.

Comparing the energy use of the governments with that of the people results in a rather uneven match where the usage of the latter of course is much higher than former. We always tend to believe somebody else is using all the energy and causing all the crises etc, but it is of course we and nobody else. Youths having grown up in comfort with things and food, school education and plenty of time suddenly go out in the streets and throw stones on the police to “raise their voices” against… Yes, against what?

Each one of us is only one person, and those not being me are a huge mass of almost 7 milliard so of course the latter causes all the problems. That is logical…  Teenager logic… Unfortunately many of the grown ups adapt to this logic as well thus causing confusion in their own minds. We count something like this:

“I am one, my children are two, as well as my spouse – that makes four of us – my parents, my relatives… my friends… that makes 58… Let me see… Oh, my colleagues and the other working in the organization of course, and Mary in the shop…” The more distant a human being is, the lower the probability to be counted as an individual: “82 million German car manufacturers, 62 million French baguette bakers… And 1,15 milliard beggars in India! Not to mention 1,33 milliard dog-eaters in China! Now I am realising where all the problems arise!”

So we put out the lights one hour to remind us all we should not put them on again? No, to remind all the Chinese not even to think of buying lamps!