Fixing Humankind: Transportation

Transportation has become miraculously effective nowadays. We can go wherever we want in less than a couple of days. We can also obtain products from around the world at arguably affordable prices. Transportation enabled us to plan our activities using as a target a much broader, even global, geographical scope. This was mostly due to the invention and pipeline production of the combustion engine.

But this all came at a cost. Due to its effectiveness and convenience, motorized transportation permeated our cities in a widespread manner and brought with it air, sound and urban landscape pollution. In many places, pedestrians are not treated with the respect they deserve. Moreover, vehicles potential for harm is many a time neglected, causing many accidents which are currently one of the leading causes of human and non-human fatalities.

There must be some way to benefit from effective and efficient transportation without detriment to the urban environment and lifestyle. I have tried to come up with a solution for the problem that leverages from as much new technology as possible. After a while, however, I have realized that a less utopian, simpler solution would be the best. I have decided to post both of these ideas here and give my analysis in terms of their feasibility and benefits.

The Expensive Utopian Sci-Fi Solution

In this solution, vehicles would drive themselves. This would drastically reduce the amount of accidents that occur nowadays. Best of all, people could get drunk as much as they want and still go back home :). In addition to that, there would be no more honking on the street, highly accelerated engine noises, and screeching tire that are now part of urban cacophony. The vehicle users would indicate one or more destinations and the vehicle would optimally drive the users around taking into account traffic and road topology. The technology already exists, it is only a matter of investment and building up the required infrastructure.

Roads would go underground much like subways nowadays. Because drivers would not be driving the vehicles, no day light nor even headlights would be needed to drive around, unless in case of  emergencies or faults. For longer distance dislocation, vehicles would get into train wagons and be carried along a high-speed underground rail network connecting major urban points in a state or nation. For that to be possible, vehicles would also have to be smaller, so that more of them can fit in less space. This would optimize flow in roads and optimize vehicle transportation.

Vehicles and trains would all be moved by electricity. While trains would be connected to the power grid all the time, the same would not be true for the vehicles. The latter would be connected to the grid when being carried on a train, but also when driving in metropolitan areas were the grid infrastructure would be more readily available and maintained or in higher speed roadways where the vehicle energy demands would increase due to higher speeds.

Most importantly, all transportation would be public. Vehicle stops would be homogeneously available in every city. Dispersion of vehicles would be determined by a computer-controlled system, which would optimize idle vehicles distribution based on their location.

Vehicles would be composed of 3 to 5 interconnected compartments, but with enough room for privacy and storage of belongings. They would look like a small subway wagon. A single vehicle could then carry multiple groups of people with similar destinations on only one trip.

A vehicle user would have a digital ID that would be scanned on a machine in the vehicle stop. He would input his destination and whether more than one seat would be required by adding other users IDs. Such information would then go to a central server to compute which vehicle the user should take.

If this transportation system was in use, the number of vehicles in the streets would be drastically reduced. Not only more than one group of people would be using the same vehicle at once, but a single vehicle could also be used multiple times during a single day. No more vehicles would be stopped all day long in a parking lot. Actually, parking lots would not exist, since vehicles would always be on the move or in stops ready to serve the population. The space of parking lots could then be used for other purposes. Parking lot structures could be used for schools, public gardens and markets or other  structures that would enhance the quality of life of the community in that area.

This mix of autonomous electric vehicles and trains would reduce all kinds of  urban pollution caused by our current transportation system. It would also remove the necessity for a Registry of Motor Vehicles to monitor the driving behaviour of citizens. Such an entity would then be solely responsible for maintaining the autonomous vehicle infrastructure.

Even if the power grid would still be dependent on coal, oil or other dirty sources to generate electric energy, the energy generation would be given in a small set of spots spread around along the grid. The integration of the energy demands of transportation to the electric grid would remove the costs involved in transporting gas and maintaining gas stations. It would also facilitate pollution monitoring and management. This would motivate collaboration between energy companies and governments in moving this project forward. However, the ideal would be to reduce dependence on carbon-related fuels over time.

In the automotive industry, companies would have to compete for better quality models of vehicles and compete for chunks of the public "autonomous cab" market. This would be a transition hard to accomplish. These companies would then be funded by the government, and would be responsible for maintaining their own vehicles in the public infrastructure. The competition would ensure the quality of the service provided by these companies.

The Cheaper More Practical Solution

Much as I would like to have the above solution implemented, I think not even the richest of governments would have the guts to do it. A drastic change would have to take place not only in the transportation system, but also in the vehicle, energy and other interdependent industries.

But there is another way which is, if not less impacting or revolutionary, at least more cost-effective. The solution is simple: let's replace the above-described autonomous vehicles with bicycles.

Bicycles would still be public and spread all over the place for anyone to use them. It is true, they would not autonomously lead the way. But, looking at the bright side, transportation users will stop being lazy and actually learn more about the local road network and the city they live in and work.

In addition, they would also be constantly exercising. This in itself would be a huge advantage over autonomous vehicles. An exercised population would have reduced stress levels and less chance of heart attacks and other health problems. Ultimately, it would lead to a reduction in public health costs.

Bicycles are also pretty small compared to current cars. Even if parking lots would still be required for them, they would be able to contain far more bicycles. In addition, bicycles would always be reused and hence there would be less vehicles stopped overall. Again, similar transportation systems are already being implemented in some cities.

Special cyclist wagons could be added to the current subway and train system available for bikers who want to either use their own bicycles to work instead of leaving them in the nearby station and having to take a public bicycle when they get at their destination. This would also be more enticing for transitioning users who would not be willing to rely on public bicycles that could not be as energy efficient from a calories-per-cycle standpoint (not enough gears) or may not be available when needed during rush hours.

With a small investment in both the current train, subway and road infrastructure to make them more bicycle friendly and the help of the increasing gas costs, more people would gradually transition to bicycles. Similar benefits for cyclists could be provided as for those with electric cars, such as tax discounts or special easy to park spots, or even parking lots with no parking fees.

But even assuming everything would go well and all commuters would transition to the bicycle commuting system, this would not solve all problems. The current road infra-structure would still be required for transportation of goods and for special transportation situations such as for disabled people, elderly, or just for providing ride to the airport with one's personal luggage. However, using bicycles would be an interesting midway transition before the entire road system can actually be modified to the utopian transportation solution. The investments and changes in infrastructure and urban lifestyle would be more gradual.

And, after all, bicycles are very energy efficient and inexpensive. There is no more energy optimized system than our body. Instead of paying for gas, people would have to pay for a little bit more food. But eating a little bit more everyday to compensate for the calories spent in commuting can never be a bad thing to do.

Furthermore, using bicycles for transportation is a change that is not entirely in the hands of a government. It is in the hands of the population. As long as the population starts using bicycles, it will demand from the government to create more infrastructure for them, and the industry would then follow along. Hence, it is a type of change in the transportation system that is much less hindered by the lobbying power of big corporations. It is only a matter of the population desiring that change to happen.

The Final Question

Everyday we experience stress, pollution and other annoyances due to our current transportation system. We also hear about the impact the carbon emissions have on the environment and how this is leading to a change in our biosphere. Yet, most of us persist in blaming authorities for complying with the pressure from the dirty energy industries while doing nothing about it. We tend to forget that, at the end of the day, the final consumers of a good part of that energy are no one but ourselves.

When will we, as global citizens, take matters into our hands, get our butts out of our car seats and start doing something about the problem? Riding a bicycle only brings us benefits. No more paying for the gym, no more wasting time in the gym, no more paying tons of money to fill a tank with gas or paying to maintain your "oldsmobile". One can exercise while commuting and also enjoy the sight. And if the bike breaks, you can fix  it, yourself! How cool is that?

Citizens of the world, take action to change this world into a better one. Start it by riding a bicycle.

Fixing Humankind: Getting Back to Caves

After much deliberation along the past few years, I have reached this incredible conclusion: we should all live in caves again. Yes, it would be fantastic! This would definitely be on my list of radical changes to humans' current way of living. Living in caves has, from my perspective, great advantages over living in apartments and houses. Let me try to explain some of the reasons for that.


Firs of all, and most importantly, if we lived underground we would actually free up a lot of the earth's surface to be used for other purposes. The first thing that comes to my mind is to use that space for our raising crops. Doing this would, hence, reduce our footprint on earth's crust and as consequence free up more space for forests and wildlife.


Secondly, living in a cave saves energy. Moist soil or rocks would keep our abodes at just the right temperature in whatever season we are exposed to. Allied to good ventilation and illumination, there is nothing better than the tranquil shade of a cave. Not only that, it also isolates us from external noise, and bad weather.


Thirdly, we would spend a lot less money on aesthetically pleasing facades for our homes and worry more about the comfort on their inside.

Fourthly, the outer world would look a lot lusher with vegetation on cities, even if such lushness comes simply from our own crops. I believe this would really make cities a more pleasant place to live.

Last, it would also bring the problem of use of land and natural resources to the urban reality of the city consumer, which will make human population more socially aware.

I am cognizant of the problems related to living in a cave. It might not lead you to a shiny happy life, literally, especially because providing natural sun light to a cave is not as easy as in a house. However, it is not impossible. There is already technology being developed nowadays to replace electrical light with direct sun light through the roofs of houses. Similar technology could be used to cave abodes. And even ordinary mirrors help to the work of spreading light around.


Another important issue is ventilation. But we have also developed technology related to that. Such is the case the skyscrapers can make air breathable even at amazingly high floors. It is really just a matter of finding the right design. And we can also leverage from nature's solutions to ventilation in similar situations.


There has actually been evidence of successful cave houses in Switzerland,  France and many other places worldwide. I believe the idea should be brought to a larger public other than tourist, rich adventurers or locals from such places. However, bringing cave houses to a more urban environment and in a larger scale would be quite a challenge. Media and government would play a key role role in making that feasible and accepted by ordinary citizens.

 In conclusion, if I were to rule humankind, one important change I would make would be to put people back in caves. It saves so many resources that it is ridiculous we have not done that yet. I must admit, however, that although large cave buildings are viable from an engineering point-of-view, having them implemented might generate urban problems similar to the ones ordinary residence buildings generate, such as increase in local traffic. Hence, such an idea would probably not be worth it. Perhaps suburban single-family caves are mode ideal. But I will take that hint to lead me to my next fix in human society: the issue of transportation.

P.S.: I myself have been thinking of a cave house design for me to live in (as if my wife would ever agree on that). Perhaps, it will be the subject of a later post when the house plan is better polished.

Fixing Humankind: Superpopulation

The readers who have been following this blog might have noticed by now that I have a certain criticism on our current societal values. Please, don't get me wrong. I know we are here only because of the path we took and, honestly, we have accomplished a lot of good things up until now. However, I still feel humankind has missed many important steps in its development as a civilized species.

In the last post I hinted about my personal desire for listing the changes I would make to the way we live if I had the power to do so. Well, this is going to be the first of many posts on that topic. This one is going to be an initial discussion about superpopulation. Nevertheless, because I haven't written in a while, the text is probably going to read a little sloppy. Hopefully, this will change as more posts come along.

If I could set a single goal for humankind to accomplish, it would be to drastically reduce its population size. The justification behind this idea is the following. Whatever we humans do, whether good or evil actions, their effect on what is around us is going to be much less significant if there are less of us in the world.

It is not fair that a single species should monopolize the biosphere and change it so dramatically that the biosphere itself is affected and threatened by such changes. Earth's ecosystems' future shouldn't  be dictated in its majority by a single species. Humans should occupy only a minute amount of the Earth's crust, so that other species have enough room to live and thrive.

The amount of damage we cause to the many bio-microcosms that surround us due to war, agriculture, and animal domestication is enormous. And if you consider how we manipulate and corrupt natural resources such as rivers and mountains to support the infra-structure necessary to maintain our current lifestyle, the picture of humankind as a civilized species then becomes pretty grim. Only a few ordinary natural resources we have not yet had full control over, such as sun light and air. But even those are already affected by consequences of human egotism and opulence through global warming.

I do not think having so many us imposing so much on nature and its limited resources is correct. I think we should learn from other species to let nature take its natural course. We should indeed, as some say, live in harmony with it. And, from my perspective, the first step towards achieving that goal is reducing our population. If we are in less numbers, we can cause less damage to the rest of the world. As technology progresses, however, the impact a of single man becomes ever larger, and, therefore this fact should be considered when deciding how much larger human population should be.

What I am going to say now is going to sound a little bit apocalyptic perhaps, but I guess it might be a good way to emphasize the point I want to make in this post. Let us reduce the number of humans so that the plague of humankind does not stifle all other species and as a consequence suffocates itself too. It is better for us to control our population our way than let nature impose that on us in its own catastrophic terms. If we keep growing haphazardly as we currently are, at some point there will not be enough resources for everyone, even if we manage to distribute it fairly, which is obviously not the case right now.

Look at the problems we are already having with drinkable water. What about crop space? The fish industry is also having a hard time dealing with the increasing demand of fish, which is leading them create their own way “fish domestication” processes by creating "marine cattle" farms, the so-called fish-farms. These, much like the standard crops, are very damaging to the surrounding marine biome and to the animals that are raised in it. At some point, we are going to have messed nature up so much that there will not be any real nature for us to talk about. And if we manage to survive and occupy the entire surface of the planet, by that time, nature will consist of men and their bioengineered high-yield fauna and flora, which will be some weird cyberpunk reality. What a great place this world is going to be! :)

Population growth should not be associated with economic growth. Economy can still grow if the same amount of people is better educated, well fed and more productive. What is the use in increasing population size if we cannot even manage the size of the population we have now. Let us first deal with the amount of people we currently have before we can even consider increasing our population.

In conclusion, if I could, I would likely limit human population by, let's say, at most 1 billion people. Then we could all live in a few smaller spots on the planet's crust and leave the rest of Earth's crust untouched and unaffected by the “creative” hand of men, available to the other uncountable amount of species to enjoy their freedom and natural habitat.

A Change in Diet is a Change in Perspective and Vice-versa

    I have been a vegetarian for almost two and a half years. I was certain that this was the right decision and that, despite some minor drawbacks, my life was better this way. It better matched my envisioned perfect representation of myself.

    Two weeks ago, right after my last post I was afflicted by a severe gastric-intestinal virus. It forced me to spend a large amount of my time on either bed or bathroom, leaving room for my mind to idle on various thoughts, including vegetarianism.

    This meat-eating forbidden diet started after a philosophy professor reminded me of the process that goes into putting the meat we eat on the table. It was by deliberating on the amount of environmental change and suffering imposed on the slave-species that are part of the human animal domestication process that I realized that human species, as rational beings, could act more rationally than that. Hypocrisy came down on me and I have decided to assume a responsibility for killing what I ate. From that moment on, I have decide to only eat what I would be capable of killing with my own hands.

    The transition was not easy. And it still isn't. And I am still far from being guilt free from my own perspective. I still use leather shoes, eat eggs, have ice-cream and use many other man-made objects that are a by-product of animal slavery and obliteration. It is a struggle to give up on the many pleasures modern society provides me with, despite the guilt imposed by my own consciousness.

    Perhaps, because giving up is so hard, it is why most people would rather assume an oblivious attitude towards this matter. To me, when becoming a vegetarian, the most impacting aspect of my life was not the change in diet itself, but rather how my perspective on food and other aspects of my life has changed. I have come to realize the multitude of bad social habits our society has gotten us accustomed to during our existence. Habits masked by many veils of bureaucracy and technology. Veils that keep important issues at arms-length, invisible and far enough from us, that allows us to comfortably accept the false claim that whatever happens on the other side of the veil is none of our business and we should not care. And sas if this post was not already boring enough for the readers expecting different types of discussions, let me take boredom to the next level by illustrating my point with some examples.

• The first point was already partially explained. Let us deal with the crude bestial reality of the way we treat animals. They are mere preys and resources to us. If we run out of cattle, I bet pets will be promoted as such. Why this distinction of pets and cattle? How hypocritical and selfish is that? Why a distinction between men and other animals? Why not eat the meat of prisoners in the death row or of those who pass away?

• The second point is with respect to socio-political power. Everyone, including myself, complain about how politicians are corrupt, how our lifestyle hurts the environment, how impoverished are most of the population. Yet, most of us do little to nothing to change that. I myself have been trying to participate in on-line petitions and donate to various NGOs. Nevertheless, I have never been able to dedicate a reasonable amount of my time engaged in activities that more directly affect the course of how my community develops. I recycle most of my garbage, but have never requested a company to stop sending me Styrofoam plates or avoided buying their products because of that. How many beggars have I crossed by and turned my careless face away from them.

• The third point is about self-respect. How many times do we do things to comply with society, family and other social circles, and end up leading our lives mostly to the satisfaction of others but ourselves. I have done that a lot. Only a few years ago I realized how much happier I could be by doing what I like, with some compromise of course. After all, living in family and society is about learning about the right amount of compromise that benefits both sides of a deal. 

    These three examples attempt to illustrate how untruthfully we tend to live our lives nowadays. Vegetarianism brought light to these issues in my head and provided me with a different perspective of reality (the objective reality :) ).

    I wonder why learning how to measure your actions more carefully and  better analysing their consequences is not an essential topic in high-schools worldwide. How many problems could have been better solved if more well-thought out decision-making was done based on a more in-depth analysis. How many lives could have been spared? How much suffering could have been avoided?

    After spending many days thinking about this - because, yes, I like thinking a lot about things and my CPU unfortunately is not multi-core, so it takes a while for me to reach a result - I have reached an  ingenious conclusion for why humans act the way they do: because it is only natural!

    Yes, it is human nature to act like this. We do what takes us the least amount of effort and bring us the most benefits. In fact, all animals are like that. It is about making the best use of the available resources in the easiest way possible to facilitate self-preservation and increase chances of survival. And no matter how evolved the thoughts in our brains are, at the end of the day, human nature has the final word. And inside each of us is a wild beast that tell us that "mine" comes before anyone else's. A beast capable of accepting and disregarding logical contradictions while proclaiming to follow the path of reason.

    Hence, here is another paradox of our existence: we design complex sets of rules to guide the collective group we call society, but the rules themselves are in conflict with our very nature and hence will never be strictly followed. The old saying "Laws are meant to be broken" seems to indeed hold true with regard to human nature. No matter how much law enforcement we have, in the dark silence of the night, those with power or lack of supervision will commit the most horrendous social crimes simply because the power of their nature has overcome the strength of their moral values. And is that really wrong, or is it only natural?

    And this leads me to my concluding remark:

    "Human existence and civilization is the endless conflict between nature and nurture."

P.S.: After two years being a vegetarian and getting sick a lot more often than when I was an omnivore, I have decided to step-back on this diet for a while and re-evaluate, grateful that the process brought me a new perspective of the world, a perspective I do not wish to ignore or forget.
P.S.2: A little time later I have decided to become a full blown vegan. Let the diet challenges continue...

Reality Unification Theory (RUT)

This post is an attempt to summarize my previous explanations of my theories for reality, God and man.  I can simply be summarized by the following equality:

reality = man = God

This means we are all Gods, we are part of God and that everything that is part of reality is also God. If one assumes this equality, than many other explanations may arise to the unanswered questions about the world we live in, including the previously mentioned theories, but also explanations provided by religions in general. Many bible citations could be explained by assuming this axiom, as well as other deliberations that were mentioned in past posts, such as enlightenment, reincarnation and the Holy Trinity.

In addition, explanations for supernatural beings could also be provided, such as the existence of ghosts, UFOs/aliens, etc. As a matter of fact, the RUT theory is much like any other religion that tries to come up with explanations to the world using as a basis entities or concepts that cannot be proved or disproved, but believed in instead. So, if you believe in it, you could you use it as basis to prove almost anything.

The RUT theory is just another Disneyland for the ones looking for answers. It is a simple axiom that masks the world with an appearance of being less frightening and filled with uncertainties.

The only thing certain in this life is that it has an end. Look into the depth of yourself and face your naked soul. It is only then that you will find the peace to persist in the strenuous and unpredictable path of existence.

Multiple Realities: Realities within Realities

The Many Meanings of Reality

Imagine the objective reality (OR), the reality in which each of us humans is immersed in. Imagine now that each of us, and potentially every other entity in OR is a reality in itself, be it a mouse, a tree or a grain of sand. In a gist, that is what multiple realities is all about. Thanks for reading. See you in the  next post.

No, that is just not it. I obviously want to write a lot more about this topic and its many conjectures.

As explained in a previous post, every sentient being has its own perspective of reality. This is what is called as subjective reality (SR). Conceptually speaking, it could be said that the meaning of “reality” as part of the concept of subjective reality is different from the one used to define objective reality. For example, the meaning of the word “reality” in the following two sentences are similar, but not exactly the same.

“The reality of the homeless is at best appalling.”
“World of Warcraft: why are virtual realities so addictive?”

While the former defines reality from a more situational and subjective perspective, the latter identifies and entire world that encompasses all beings and situations within it, not a specific group. Even though I agree that these uses of “reality” convey slightly different meanings, in this post, I intend to claim that both these cases deal with realities, but in different stages of development. Even by claiming so, I must agree that the perspectives presented below of different realities is still slightly different from the examples above, which are far more explicit in highlighting differences in the meaning of the word reality. Anyhow, let us move on and see how text will hopefully disentangle the ideas in my head.

Taxonomy of Reality

The main idea is that the objective reality (OR) spawns new baby realities within itself. These baby realities attached to different bodies are initially called subjective realities (SRs) because they represent the perspective of a single entity attached to a physical part of the objective reality.

Depending on their level of growth as realities, SRs can be bound to different types of bodies or even unbound to a body. As mentioned in a previous post, SRs bound to bodies were called body-bound realities (BBRs). Body-unbound realities are realities that reached the highest level of maturity and hence have become objective realities (ORs) themselves. Hence, a body-unbound reality (BUR) is the same as an objective reality (OR). As also previously mentioned, SRs can be aware of their reality natures or not. Therefore, BBRs can be classified as aware (ABBRs) or unaware (UBBRs).

The Growth Process of a Reality

The more aware of their reality nature SRs are, the more power they will have in altering themselves as realities, even while still being a BBR. This could be associated with the concepts of self-cultivation, meditation and spiritual growth. It is by this process that SRs better understand that they are more than the human vessel, that the body is just an interface to a reality, but that one's reality is in fact the one within. The more aware of its own nature as a reality and SR is, the more mature it becomes.

This could also bring about an explanation for why we dream. Perhaps dreams are not just replays of our experiences in reality, but rather they are a compilation for the SR of its experience so it can used for its own growth as a reality. Another explanation would be that they are testing their learned experiences as an SR in a kind of a mock-up room within themselves. Better yet, they reflect the evolution of the SR within itself as it experiences the OR in which it is immersed. Therefore, dreams are but a reflection of the construction of a new reality (SRs) within one's inner self. Wow, I like that sentence! :)

The process of maturation of an SR into an OR may take more than one cycle within the OR in which they are immersed. This means, that a reality might be reborn in many bodies until it is fully matured and ready to become an OR. This cyclic process is very similar, if not identical to the concept of reincarnation. And with such a concept then the following question arises: Do SRs start in vessels of less sentient beings and then progress to vessels of more sentient beings as they mature or the opposite? Or, perhaps, this vessel selection process is random, right?

Choosing Your Body: Anything Can Happen

As with everything in this blog, all is possible. It all depends on your imagination. Even though I try to show some arguments to validate my supposedly logical thinking, I am certain most people who attempt to read this text will think I am guy on a very wild trip.

As I have never used drugs, I will progress with my dissection of my theories of reality and will, now, attempt to show arguments that favor each of these three possibilities about the vessel selection process for SRs. The reader may then have their preference over which of these seems more plausible or even come up with his/her own explanation.

• From less sentient to more sentient vessels: It makes sense that SRs start with less sentient beings as body vessels because this would be a way to gradually learn about the process of sensing the OR in which they are immersed and born. It would prevent them from perceiving OR as paradoxical and, hence, protect SRs from losing their way on maturation and understanding what it means to be a reality.
  
  An analogy with the human school system could be made in this case. SRs start learning simple ideas and views of reality with basic sensory mechanisms that allow the understanding of primal needs such as dying, feeding and breeding. Then, as SRs bodily vessels evolve, they understand abstract concepts such as social groups, political structures, mathematics and philosophy. As the SR matures more, it is capable of grasping concepts that involve spirituality, compassion, tolerance, self-cultivation. Finally, when close to full maturity as an OR, it evolves to vessels that allow higher levels of understanding of reality that I myself am not evolved enough to imagine. When mature SRs are able to comprehend the nuances of reality, they are mature enough to become ORs themselves. How much of reality needs to actually be understood, I have no idea.

• From more sentient to less sentient: It makes sense that SRs start in vessels of more sentient beings because they still need to learn a lot about reality. They are new to the process of understanding reality.
  
  Again, making an analogy to the human educational process, the student that needs to learn more generally needs more help from the instructor. As the student becomes more proficient, the professor is there only to provide guidance from time to time. Hence, immature SRs would need more input from their sentient vessels about the OR they were born in than mature ones. As SRs mature and become more aware of themselves as realities, they depend less on what they perceive in the OR, with exception of their basic needs to make their body vessel survive. they encounter themselves in a higher meditative state, more detached from the OR. At the highest levels of maturity, they may even be encapsulated in insentient entities, such as stones or grains of sand, whose bodies need not depend on feeding, breeding and dying. Stones may become grains of sand, magma, but they don't care. The SRs attached to them do not care about it because they are so close to being ORs themselves.
  
  More interestingly, perhaps, would be that SRs would not need to pass through the process of being embodied in a vessel that is insentient. Perhaps, as explained in the previous bullet, SRs reach a level of independence and insensitivity inside the OR that they completely detach themselves from the OR and becomes themselves a new OR. And that would be the birth of a new reality.
  
  Personally, I like this explanation for vessel selection, because it implies that less sentient and insentient entities are actually vessels for more evolved SRs and should then be treated with a certain level of reverence. This would be a great justification for treating nature, resources and food with the respect that I think they actually deserve.

• Random vessel selection process: From the point-of-view of the OR as the caterer for the maturing SRs, it makes sense that this selection process be random. Having a random order of vessel experiences for each different SRs will lead them to experience different maturation processes. Hence, each mature SR may become an OR that is actually very different from each other and the original SR. And if you consider the different sets of individual experiences and situations each vessel presents the SR with during its existence, this adds even more diversification to the maturation process of SRs.
  
  Such a diversification may be reasonably justifiable based on humans own experience of different processes. For example, if two people go through the same set of experiences in different orders, they may have different perspectives from each of these. Even if the two people go through this set of experiences in the same order, they may experience and learn different things at the end. Humans are biased based on the order with which these experiences were presented to them and how their perspectives affect this presentation as well as their distinct perceptual mechanisms (different bodies, different sensitivity). The idea would then be the same behind the maturation process for SRs, that is, using randomness and chaos to form new, more diverse objective realities.

All for One, One for All

There is still one important unanswered question I can now think of. Once an SR matures and becomes an OR, where does it go to? Is there a reality space that encompasses both the mother OR and its OR children?

Well, an explanation that I like is borrowed from the ideas of reality and God presented by Boto de Gatas. Boto de Gatas, please correct me if I am wrong. The idea is that OR contains itself and the new mature SRs, that are now ORs. It is as if these mature SRs have become new versions of the original ORs and exist in parallel with and within the original OR. It works much like parallel universes. The inclusions of ORs within itself is the best way for an OR to grow as a reality: it makes copies of itself within itself. 

Hold on a second, that does not make any sense. Am I saying that a reality contains multiple realities, including itself? How can a reality contain itself plus other realities. This would imply in two concepts of reality, a reality container C and realities instances that are contained by the reality container C, right?

Wrong. This counter-argument is based on a perspective derived from the limitations imposed to us humans by the physical reality as we know it. Remember, the objective reality encompasses everything that is within itself. If new realities are created within an OR, they are part of OR, even if they are not part of the same physical reality any longer. And remember, these ORs that evolved from the maturation of SRs will themselves create their own SRs within, repeating the cycle of reality creation to a second level. And such cycle can go on indefinitely.

A few analogies to this process would be having bubble within bubbles, a tree or a multi-cell organism. A branch in a tree has other smaller branches within it self. As it grows, other smaller branches grow on these smaller branches, but they are all part of the same original branch. Now imagine the growth of a multi-cellular organism. The process starts with a single cell. This cell then splits in half, generating two cells. These two cells then split half again and the process continues. At the end, which one is the cell that originated the whole process? None of them? All of them?

Let us assume the reader accepted this, modesty aside, ingenious but not very novel explanation. Let us assume that one reality can contain itself and the realities that were created within itself. Then, wouldn't this mean that, at some point in time and space - and whatever other dimensions exist in reality - there was a single reality that started this whole process? If so, wouldn't it mean that there is in fact only one reality and not multiple realities and, hence, the title of this post is completely wrong?

As the perfect conclusion for this eerily long post, my answer to this question is: it depends! :)

If you think that everything started with one reality, then yes, you could potentially say that everything is actually contained in this one reality, the mother of all realities.

If you think that this reality is actually composed of multiple realities that may be identical or different from each other, than, no, there are actually multiple realities out there coexisting and growing within themselves in a an infinite tree of realities: realities within realities.

And perhaps they are not even related to each other after all. Maybe, in analogy to multi-cellular organisms, they are part of of what could be called a multi-reality (or a multi-verse?). What is outside of a multi-verse then?

There is no outside. Woo...scary.

It is up to the reader to decide what explanation suits him/her best.

Many questions may still be unanswered, such as the following:

• Assuming and orderly selection of vessels for SRs, can SRs make evolution mistakes step back in the vessel selection process? Can they skip steps if they mature faster than others?
• How has the initial reality come into existence?
• Is there an end to the growth process of a multi-reality, much like there is a stop in any multi-cellular growth process known to men? If so, what would the end result be? What pattern would a multi-reality form when it is mature?

P.S.: I just hope I have made any sense out of my self in this post. I have reviewed it, but I still have the feeling that there will be mistakes I missed. Readers, please, let me know.

One Objective Reality: The Crude Reality

This explanation to the reality we live in is the one that perhaps a skeptic scientist would give. There is only the reality we see it. Subjective realities (SRs) are a mere manifestation of intricate biochemical patterns formed over the aging of the one and only Objective Reality (OR). The crude reality does not exclude the existence of other universes, but it does not include any special “spice” within each being or entity that is part of it.

So, there is no soul, no reality connected to another reality. It is what it is. It is a world that grows from chaos to each time more complex structures and patterns. And we may not know, but we are likely part of a larger structure that is forming on Earth's crust and that goes beyond each individual: the pattern of humankind.

Even more interesting is the fact that, in this scenario, the freewill also disappears. Freewill is nothing but an impression perceived by our biological selves as the result of  complicated processes and interactions in the OR. Our decisions may seem like free will, but because they are part of the OR and therefore predictable responses in a intricate set of interactions at different levels of reality. Even if not all science is exact, such as quantum mechanics, that does not mean we have free will. It only means that the processes that make us decide what we decide may not be as predictable or deterministic.

This view is interesting for its lack of egocentrism from part of intelligent beings. Why should we be any better than water, stone, a branch or a grain of sand. We are all the mere result of complex interactions of matter, be it organic or inorganic. And if one was not human in planet Earth, I think it would make sense that this would probably be your #1 choice for explaining reality.

The hardest thing to explain with this theory is the necessity of moral or ethical behavior. There is no inner motivation for humans to behave morally or ethically other than to enable us living with others as a community. And that may be accomplished with different degrees of success, without much of either of those behaviors at all, as is visible in the newspaper every day.

However, if we think about it, moral behavior probably emerged from the fact that animals of the same species had higher chances of survival if they worked in groups and behaved with some degree of moral behavior. Moral behavior helped the group stick as a larger entity that could take care of itself and that was stronger than its individual parts separately. Hence, moral behavior was an evolutionary feature, much like opposing thumbs, bipedal posture and fabrication of tools and language.

But, “getting back to reality”, the crude reality does not offer explanations for our elaborate consciousness and emotions other than that they are biological mechanisms evolved over millions of years. It is all about natural phenomena. And though reasonable and logic this explanation may be, honestly, my gut feeling as a semi-predictable biochemical being is that there is something else, something more meaningful to our lives than being an evolved pattern of matter trying to make a living.

This reality explains everything as being natural, actually. From humans stealing, killing and exploiting each other and other species to the modification of Earth's biosphere that may go through a new cycle of ecosystemic renovation. They are all natural processes, it is part of the nature of things.

It is a sad way to explain reality, and perhaps that is why most people prefer to have their own faith and imaginative explanations for reality. By doing this, they have the opportunity to create unknown, mystical creatures and dream of wondrous worlds to make their life feel more exciting and magical. These imaginative explanations of reality help them improve their self-value and esteem and justify that bad is bad and good is good. It also helps maintain order in society, so that it does not fall into chaos. It can be said then that even though religion might be as fake as political promises, they are an important tool in maintaining order in our society and it has played an important role in making it evolve and survive up to this point in history.

One Objective Reality: The Game Reality

Review

First, let us review some concepts. I have identified two types of reality. The first one is called the objective reality (OR). It corresponds to the reality in which we live in and that is shared by all of living and dead things. It encompasses the entire universe, all its rules and unknowns.

The second type of reality is the one associated with a single sentient being (or any chunk of matter? Discussed later) that is inserted inside this objective reality (OR). This other type of reality is called subjective reality (SR). The subjective reality is attached to the objective reality through the being (or entity) that encapsulates it. The subjective reality is capable of creating and changing the objective reality. A subjective reality can be understood as the spiritual core in each of us, the driving force that makes us who we are. It might be understood as your soul. However, subjective realities may find themselves into different states.

Initial Assumption

As claimed in the title, the game reality assumes there is one, and only one objective reality. Making that assumption, however, implies that SRs are conceptually different from the OR. In other words, no matter how much SRs evolve, they will never become as intricate as an OR, otherwise, they would become an OR themselves. With that being said, they are part of OR itself but may relate to OR in two different ways: immersed and ascended. The Game reality theory attempts to give an explanation for the relationship between these two distinct types of realities. The text below was extracted  from a previous document I was writing, so the line of thought maybe slightly different from the one I have been following in previous posts. Still, the concept of game reality is well explained.

The Game Reality 

When in an ascended state in the OR, SRs are entities that are responsible for controlling how OR works, that is, they ensure that OR works properly and that no paradoxes exist. They are hence very powerful entities when in this state. However, this is a somewhat inert state for SRs, for they must follow strict behavioral rules in order to guarantee the rules of OR are followed and no paradoxes that could harm OR are generated. They do not have freedom (free will) in this state. Their purpose is to take good care of OR so that each of them has the opportunity to an immersed state in the OR and participate in the ultimate experience inside OR, which is described further down. The SR participates in this experience when it is selected to be immersed in OR through a bodily connection.

While attached to a bodily connection, such as a human, a subjective reality is defined as a body-bound reality (BBR). However, before this attachment of the SR to a human being, when the latter is born and inserted into the OR, the SR is made unaware of its existence as SR. Its memories about its potential of objective reality creation, control and modification as an SR are erased. The SR, unaware of its own self and limited by its physical body, is defined as an unaware body-bound reality (UBBR). It may be understood as an unenlightened being or entity. Every SR starts in the state of unaware body-bound reality (UBBR) when coming inside OR through a bodily vessel.

The process of living a human life and trying to figure out its own existence is what is called the path to enlightenment of a subjective reality. For SRs, going through the process of learning about their SR nature inside the OR is what they exist for. It is the ultimate experience for SRs. Moreover, when inside OR, they experiment freewill, which they do not have when in their inert state. The ultimate experience is then finding a solution to the puzzle of reality while improving reality itself using the power of freewill.

Hence, while immersed in the OR, unaware body-bound realities (UBBRs) have two main roles. The first one is to pay for the cost of being selected among inert SRs to be inserted into the objective reality. This payment consists of contributions to the growth of the objective reality. This can be done by contributing to the well-being of other UBBRs currently participating in the OR or by contributing to the reality evolution and expansion by direct or indirect creation and trasformation of ideas and matter. An example of contribution to other UBBRs well-being would be helping other beings in any way possible, by either doing charity, teaching, listening to, giving love and care, etc. An example of contribution to the OR evolution and expansion would be creating any type of art, creating, validating and divulging scientific theories and inventions, building things, etc. Notice the balancing act between knowing the value of what one creates versus the value of what one had to destroy/transform during that creation process. UBBRs should be in constant questioning of the worthiness and cost of their actions compared to inaction.

The second role of UBBRs is to reach a high awareness state. This is the ultimate prize for an UBBR. Consider being immersed in a OR as playing a game. The final objective of the game is to achieve full self and reality awareness. Reaching this state is similar to resolving the puzzle of the game of reality. If awareness is reached, the purpose of the aware human-being in reality and as a subjective reality is understood and well-defined in his mind. In other words, the human being is aware of its two roles and is aware that one of them has been fulfilled: the one of knowing what these two roles are. This is when the UBBR reaches a fully aware state and reaches a state of peace of mind, purposefulness and tolerance. This state is what is called enlightenment. It can be understood as when a human uses its faith to fill in or justify the gaps, questions and problems of their limited mundane existence inside the OR. It can be reached by following most of the current religions. This state of awareness of a sub-reality is what is called an aware body-bound reality (ABBR). If all these abbreviations are making the explanation confusing, perhaps the picture below ill help.

Despite its awareness, the SR cannot exert its power of changing or creating reality because of the limitations of it interface with the OR: the (human?) physical and sentient body. The main reason for this is to make reality stable and livable, that is, to avoid creation of paradoxical events and situations in OR and hence lead to the extinction of OR because of the chaos it would generate on the existences of the unaware bodily-bound realities. The relationship between paradoxes and the extinction of reality will be explained later on.
In summary, a BBR, whether aware or not, helps OR evolve and expand by supporting other BBRs immersed in OR and by having, implementing and disseminating creative ideas. In return, it gets a chance to (re)experience the understanding of its existential purpose as a body-bound reality in a being. These two objectives somewhat justify the preaches of many other religions, such as the 10 Commandments of Christianity.

Once a SR time inside the OR expires, that is, when a physical body expires or dies, whether it is enlightened in any sense by any religion or not, it passes to an enlightened state as it moves out of the OR, becomes fully aware of its nature as an SR and re-enters its inert state again to help control consistency of the OR.

Hence, all SRs in an ascended state in the OR can be considered enlightened.  These enlightened SRs are called aware subjective realities (ASRs). ASRs have the full capability of a subjective reality and are aware of their own nature. Additionally, they are not bound by OR rules and the human-body. They know the rules of the game, take care that everyone plays by them or even create new ones to make sure the game is consistent but constantly evolving. And they are inside the OR as well, though not necessarily visible to immersed SRs, and can change and create the reality. But, since they do not have freewill, they cannot create paradoxical situations in reality.

On contrary, by being in the ascended state, but still inside the OR, ASRs sole purpose is to maintain OR working correctly. This is done by having OR be consistent, or without paradox, according to what is understood by the BBRs immersed in the OR. Because of ASRs, the world is not as full of paradoxes (Flying cows, burning water, etc.) as it could be. Moreover, ASRs are responsible for creating new expressions and non-paradoxical explanations for events in the OR as the limits of OR are explored and discovered by BBRs immersed in OR. ASRs are responsible for logically justifying why the world, as presented in the OR, is the way it is.

In summary, there are subjective realities (SR) and one objective reality (OR). When ascended in the OR, SRs support the OR so that it is logically consistent to the immersed SRs. When immersed in the OR, the SRs are responsible for helping ORs evolution by engaging in self-supporting and creative-related activities. They also enjoy their stay by having the ultimate experience: understanding their own existence.

Notice, that as in any game (or amusement park), there is a balance between:

• Those that enforce the rules of the game of creation but cannot create, only justify creation: ascended SRs without freewill that must guarantee a reality that is paradox free;
• Those that experience the game of creation, being able to create and expand reality using the tools that are given to them (body and its mysterious not fully-explored mind): immersed SRs that are physically bounded and unaware of its own nature.

To finish up this very long post, I will raise up two more questions
as homework for me in future posts and for the interested reader, both based on my Christian background:

• Could we trace a similarity between heaven and earth using this theory?
• What about the Holy Trinity?
  

Next time, I will write a smaller post, showing a second perspective on the assumption of having only one objective reality (OR).

The Soul of the Matter

In a previous post I have mentioned subjective reality (SR), which is the reality as we perceive it, and objective reality (OR), which is reality as it is. I have also indirectly claimed the following equality:

 God = reality (OR)

In addition, I have claimed, or meant to claim, the following:

reality contains nature
reality contains SR
reality contains the universe

This post is a continuation to that topic. I am going to present a second part of this religious-existential digression of mine.

I would like to present a more philosophical perspective on the differences between OR and SR. They are both realities, so why can't they have the same amount of omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent power?

They are realities in different stages of growth. I interpret OR as a mature reality, which has already learned its own true power after a period of self-discovery and understanding. SR, on the other hand, is still going through the process of learning about itself, how to control its potential and use it for its own self-preservation and further growth as a reality.

An SR can only go through the process of self-knowledge by being immersed into a reality that can guide it along the way: an OR. I imagine SRs as fetal realities in the womb of the mother reality OR. While immersed in OR, SRs attempt to learn about OR and confront their own existence and the existence of the rest of the OR.

During this immersion process, SRs are embodied in a subpart of OR, that is,  in a human body, but perhaps also as any other animal, vegetable or inanimate body or piece of matter that is part of reality. SRs may or may not attain self-knowledge during their period of existence in reality. Their level of self-knowledge determines their maturity in assuming their role as an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient (OOO) entity, an OR.

In summary, subjective realities are objective realities that are not yet fully aware of themselves. This process of questioning and self-knowing could be understood as the process of a human being seeking to reach an enlightened or holy state.

The boundaries imposed by the body capsule that contains SR inside OR, however, limits its power as an OR even if the SR actually has reached a higher state of self-knowledge or awareness.

There are many questions that arise when such a relationship between SR and OR is defined. The ones that come to my mind are listed below:

• How is each SR assigned a specific subpart of reality to exist in?
• What if an SR never becomes self-knowing during its period of bodily existence in OR?
• What happens once an SR has reached a high state of self-awareness? In other words, when is it mature enough to be aware of its OOO and inner power or potential?

I will try to explain the possible answers I have come up with for each of these questions in the posts to follow. And, if I lack answers for these or if my answers are not good enough, hopefully a by-pass reader will come up with something better and write it in here.

P.S.: Author internal and conflictive self-argument in evaluation of this post:
 
 - Yes, this post is the final blow on the readers who actually thought they could benefit from following this blog. Well done! This was a perfect post to confirm to others you are a complete lunatic.

 - Well, a writer writes, if to no other, to please his own ego. Hence, I am OK with seeing my readers go. Nice having you around.

 - Ha! I want to see you say that when people start criticizing you for being condescending in your analogies between serious religious concepts and the banalities/delusions coming out of your chaotic mind.

 - Well, every men is free to express their own ideas as long as they do not cause harm to others. In the same manner that I show respect for others following their own beliefs (religious, political, cultural, etc.), others should also show respect for my own quest for meaning, self-discovery and creative expression.

 - Theoretically, that is what is supposed to happen, if humanity was civilized. However, you know people are not like that, right? You are not that naive, are you? Some people put more power in words than they should, my friend. You should ponder a little bit more about the reality of things before putting your and my writer's $%* in the line.

 - Yes, I guess you are right. I am running a risk by writing this kind of material. But I will take my chances. I have always wanted to express my ideas to the world. And, after all, I am on the side of reason: Live free or ... hm ...

 - OK, good luck then.

 - Thanks.

The Beauty in Things

Each day that passes by makes me more convinced we live in a beautiful world. There are so many justifications for such a cliché sentence, most of which are potentially subject to extensive subjective debate. Nevertheless, I will do my best to summarize and justify these reasons below.

1. How infinitesimal, powerless, naive and infantile humankind is compared to all that surround us. We cannot even keep track of our own race's history. This feeling of awe when I look up at the sky, day or night, or examine close-up a three trunk, bug, earth, leaf, stone or puddle. There is so much beauty in all ordinary things.
2. This world is so full of wonderful mysteries that we will never understand. There is a beauty in knowing how little you know about the world and that we all need to take a leap of faith when dealing with our daily lives, hoping that no unknown will carry us off. 
3. The fragility and impermanence of our race and planet are so beautiful and admirable. All the biochemical reactions, ecosystems, synergy. There is so much we rely on, so much that enables us to be who we are, so much we take for granted, so much we let vanish unnoticed. Every species intertwined in this web of life we call nature, which is part of a larger planetary system of heat, cold, water, air, light and so much more.
4. The sincere smile of a soulful miserable human. It seems that the less you have outside the more you have inside and vice-versa. That is so beautiful. It is a confirmation for me that "God writes right for pie lines".
5. The grace of women. Their voice, smile, walk, smell, empathy, everything. It is magical, it might be just hormones, but this man-woman perfect match is just beautiful. More than that, and regardless of the gender identities involved, the biochemistry of passion and love is simply magical.
6. The innocence, purity, spontaneity, frankness and charisma of a child  that disarms the stiffest of men. They are beautiful. I wish I could come back to those days at least for a moment.
7. The humor, knowledge and tolerance of the elderly with us less experienced. It is beautiful to see an enthusiastic old man talk about his past or pass his experience on often the most trivial of tasks.
8. Feelings in general. Love, passion, lost, regret, hope, peace, joy, trust, pain, relief, faith, compassion.
9. It is beautiful to know that, despite the misconstructions of our society, one need nothing but himself to be a moral person.
10. The beauty of the complicated human behavior. Much as I am aware of what is right and wrong, of what I really want for my life, of what step I need to take, I still procrastinate, hesitate, and even put effort towards attaining contradicting results. The constant battle between reason and instinct, angel and beast.
11. Our sensory pleasures: conversations, sounds, music, food, quenching, caress, sex, smells, and everything we see.
12. The fact that the part of us that is used to create our children actually  generates non-aged cells, cells that are not as old as our age during the child's inception. How marvelous it is that the cycle of life can make species persist and evolve indefinitely. 
13. Transformation (creation, destruction or reconstruction) is beautiful not only by the hands of humans, but by nature and the universe.

Yes, the world is beautiful, and I am looking forward to my next day in this invigorating and ever surprising existence.

Now, really, what is reality? Only God knows.

One sees reality from his own perspective. This perspective is what will be called here as subjective reality (SR).

However, regardless of how one sees or perceives reality, there is the reality that is out there happening all the time. This second reality is going to be called objective reality (OR). Let us talk about objective reality.

Is OR larger than the universe?  Well, if reality is really everything that is out there, it must definitely encompass our universe. Better yet, it should encompass every existing universe, if there are actually more than one of course. It not only contains everything, but also contains everything and the rules that defines the behavior of everything.

So, objective reality could then be described in more detail as:  all that exists, everything, every being, every feeling, every atom, all corners of space, the lack of space, and all the rules governing them.

Hum...Well, I am not a renowned philosopher or theologian, but this definition sounds pretty similar to other definitions for other concepts I have heard in the past.

I have been raised in catholic schools and have always been taught that God is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent. He is everywhere, in everyone of us, that it is love, compassion, charity, etc. Well, it appears to me that human language has found ways to describe the same concept using different words according to the context with which a conversation or argument is driven.

I am certain many people feel offended with such an analogy. Others probably feel indifferent. From my perspective, however, humanity needs to discuss these topics with an open mind. Many misfortunes happen simply because we cannot agree or agree to disagree about such controversial topics.

Perhaps, by doing this, we will be able to understand that, diverse though our religious and philosophical perspectives might be, they all hide a common face behind their veils of socio-cultural self-preservation: the naked soul that is inside every human being, an entity that incites us to be creative, curious and compassionate. A soul that struggles to persuade the body to go against its nature and that not always follow the body's advice. A body that hosts the soul itself and allows it to have the ultimate experience: being real and comprehending existence.

Read what is encoded inside to be able to decode what is outside. Where have I heard similar words?

Only when we see that we all share this common core, despite our lack of ability to control our own bodies and its survival instincts, we will be able to better cooperate to improve everyone's experience in this shared journey through reality.

But, let us leave the expansion of such discussion to the posts that will follow.

On the Practice of Charity and Well-Intended Actions

One earns a living, makes some money and feels the urge, due to his moral or religious background, to donate part of his savings to ones favorite charity institution or governmental program. But, in reality, how do these donations really help the ones that receive them?

Perhaps, such resources should not go to those that face the problem, but instead to those who can  provide the ones facing the problems with mechanisms that enables them to solve their problems by themselves.

Donations that provide shelter, food and medical assistance only help people in emergency or catastrophic situations. Providing a continuous flow of such resources to a developing country may hinder the development of their own infrastructure for providing such services.

At a federal governmental level, providing support to the political change in other countries by pressuring specific social groups using economic, military and social maneuvers may backfire. Governments involved in such interventions may be the ones to get the blame by the targeted country citizens once the results of such actions are in place and are, most often than not, judged as less than satisfactory.

Donations should be put on creating opportunities that will lead to the country social and economic development. It is only by making people participate in the construction of their own society that the benefits of living in such society will be properly perceived, understood and valued by society members.

If there is a housing problem, let us support local construction firms or work parties that will use local workforce to built houses for themselves. Motivation in participating in such efforts by the population should increase as more and more citizens move from shelters to homes. Sanitation problems could also be resolved in a similar manner.

If food is in shortage and/or population is illiterate, support agrarian/agricultural cooperative projects that provide development of local crops and employment for lower class members. In long term, this may lead to the creation of an agrarian economy, while in short term guaranteeing a little income for those who originally had nothing.

If the problem is lack of qualified workforce, collaborate with industry by supporting training courses for the population. This may ensure that neither a country's industry nor its population intellectual growth stagnates.

The lack of medical assistance is a grave societal problem and a non-trivial one to resolve, because of the high degree of knowledge required for performing medical activities. With the help and sponsorship of international pharmaceutical companies, investing in basic medical training for the literate part of the population could deliver jobs for these people while increasing the health quality of the population as a whole. Parallel to preventive care, a partnership with the government should enable the improvement of local hospitals that should also initially work as training centers for medical practitioners.
 
Last, if the problem is a corrupt government, invest on informing the population about what the current political state in their country is, how it could actually be, and what options they have as citizens to change the situation themselves. A country's future is in the hand of its population and no one else. Intervening in the political welfare of a country is stealing its population of the experience of a revolution and their patriotic responsibility for their country's future.

Other problems, such as lack of higher education and violence are other important problems, but that are far more difficult to be dealt without direct participation of the target country's government.

In summary, one must ask oneself whether money is really the best way to express charity. If it is the only way, then care must be taken on how such resource is directed, so that it does not become a mere dose of consolation for nations that are becoming addicted to passively being taken care of, but which cannot stand by themselves.

More important than money donation is the donation of time. Investing ones own time and knowledge to the benefit of others is the greatest gift. If one knows how to build, heal, grow, entertain, calculate, one should pass that knowledge on. If one (thinks that) has the solution to other's problem, one should point that out. If one has tolerance, compassion and love, one should use these fine skills in dealing with the seemingly unsurmountable amount of injustice, disrespect and indifference that faces us on a daily basis.

Stare at your naked soul. What is it telling you?

P.S.: I know, this is a boring post, I've just realized it after reviewing it. Well, it is already written, so it is going to be kept.

The Follower Initiation Test

If you can put up with the textual content below, you can probably put up with anything else that is written in this blog.  This and general coding is what I aim to be covering in this blog.

1) Assume UFOs = true. Then, what are humans for them?
 a - Cattle;
 b - Lab rats;
 c - Themselves before or later;
 d - Attractions;
 e - Labor;
 f - Art;
 g - All of the above.

2) What percentage of the time would you say humans act rationally. Before answering think about:
 - How humans defend animals rights and are against abortion, but torture, kill and eat animals and have them as pets;
 - Praise religious moral rules at the same time that they don't follow them or use them to kill one another;
 - Refrain from maintaining or repairing most things until they are completely broken;
 - Invest more of their time in science and technology as opposed to social welfare.

3) What do you think the main problem of human kind is?
 a - Miscommunication;
 b - Intolerance/disrespect;
 c - Hypocrisy;
 d - Selfishness.
 e - Laziness;
 f - Other.

4) If God is all around, how can people not believe He exists? Isn't believing in God the same as accepting that we do not know the purpose of everyone's existence? Hence, can non-believers be called ignorants or hypocrites? Explain your answer.

5) If you were to associate human behavior with either of these sayings, which one would you pick as the best?
a) Seeing is believing;
b )Believing is seeing;
c) Belief is blinding;
d) Disbelief is lethal.

6) How happy are you for others?

7) How much of what you have do you really need?

8) How much do you really need of what you don't have?

9) In a time where global awareness through computers and information on the tip of our fingers, where are our legs and arms to make us move forward?

10) Look into yourself and admire your naked soul. What is it asking from you? Answer its requests promptly.

Congratulations, you have passed the follower initiation test! :)