Viento

El viento es parte de un sistema que involucra nubes, polvo, océanos, temperatura. Creo que el sistema de un Estado debería ajustarse de forma similar —como variables ligadas unas con otras—. Esto permitiría analizar y ajustar esas variables. Pero claro, los autodenominados defensores de la libertad y el individualismo —que en realidad defienden la ley de la selva, en el sentido de que el poderoso hace lo que le da la gana y el resto debe someterse— no quieren un sistema que les marque reglas fuera de su control, y por eso buscan eliminar el Estado. Similar a cómo algunos sionistas quieren eliminar la Corte Penal Internacional porque aún no la controlan —si la controlaran, no la atacarían—.

El sistema debería vincular, para empezar, cosas como el coste de la cesta básica con el salario mínimo. Deben evitarse los valores fijos; las multas, por ejemplo, no deberían ser cantidades fijas sino depender al menos del salario mínimo o de la cesta básica.

La idea, entonces, es progresar optimizando, buscando crear un equilibrio. Por supuesto, quien quiere poder no quiere tal cosa si no la controla —y dirá que se atenta contra la libertad: su libertad, la que aplasta la de los demás—. Y es que un buen sistema tiene límites. Pueden ajustarse según otras variables, pero deben estar presentes para que el sistema no colapse. Y como en todo sistema, el problema es la avaricia, el no ajustarse a la Regla de Oro —porque vivimos en una sociedad, vivimos con otras personas, vivimos en un ecosistema formado por otros seres, elementos y sistemas: uno en el que el viento también es parte—.

Access

There are three ways humanity gains knowledge: it discovers, it invents, and it receives revelation. The first two we can measure and accelerate. The third we can only wait for. Access to resources indicates a state of life, or status. When humans gained access to fire, the wheel, the semiconductor — there are many moments in history where, as a species, we can reflect on how access to certain inventions marked a milestone in the development of human society. There are these kinds of access points that can create a next-step situation.

If we think in terms of the three areas of development: in the physical area, we have discoveries about chemical elements. These days the news is covering the discovery of a new species of feline in Bolivia — an event that has not happened in hundreds of years. It may appear that there are fewer discoveries now than in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Regarding the mental area, all of this has a logical, mathematical, and physical dimension — intangible things, pure new knowledge. There is also an AI that may have solved one of the Millennium Prize problems in mathematics. In the spiritual realm, many religions are monotheistic. Can knowledge about the spiritual realm be revealed? Perhaps. Adán and Eve may have been a kind of being from far away — beings perhaps from even before our understanding begins. In this area, it seems knowledge can only be revealed, not discovered.

Tail

A ranking is only as useful as the context around it. Without that context, it can mislead as easily as it can inform. In a ranking, there is someone at the head and someone at the tail. But we need more information — because it is not the same to be second in a group of two as in a group of a thousand. Nor is it so bad to be in tenth position if the other nine have the same score and the only differentiating criterion is alphabetical order. And being at the tail can actually be better in a ranking about something negative — such as the most dangerous places to live by killings per capita, where the head is where the most killings occur.

That last example also raises the concept of per capita — which matters enormously. It is not the same to have a few universities in the top ten as to have all your universities in the top hundred. Similarly, having the wealthiest individuals in the world whilst also being the country with the most people living in poverty is not something to celebrate. It would be far better to have all citizens living well than to have a few living extraordinarily well.

Being at the head or the tail can be good or bad — it is relative, and depends on multiple variables. This is exactly the kind of analytical thinking we must include in mandatory education.

Limit

Every well-designed system has limits. Exceed them and the system fails. We apply this logic to software, to bridges, to aircraft. We do not apply it to society — and that is why society keeps failing. We need to put limits on bad things. We can be more indulgent with someone who stole a phone, a purse, or bread — because society may be lacking jobs, or in crisis, or at war. But if there are jobs and someone simply prefers to steal, then even if the amount is small, they must be punished in order to deter them from doing it again. There must be a limit — as there can be a threshold to define petty theft, there must also be a limit on reoffending. At some point, a person must go to prison and follow an education programme designed for their type of crime.

There must also be other limits — such as how much a person should have to spend on shelter or basic food. It cannot be the case that eating requires half a basic salary, or that shelter requires a full one.

We are in an era of technology, complex and efficient systems, variables, and limits. Engineering thinking does not seem to have reached politics. To prevent a programme from failing, we set limits — and if we want to change a limit, we work on improvements that allow the system to function at the new level. We must apply the same thinking to society in order to improve people's lives. Instead, we use variables, limits, and technology — and our brightest minds — to generate more money for investors, even when that goes against the public interest.

Tú

¿Qué hay entre el yo y el tú? No la unión —eso es el nosotros—. Sino la intersección: lo que ya éramos antes de encontrarnos. Tú se refiere a una segunda persona cuando yo es la primera. Nos referimos al tú como algo externo, separado —a menos que sea un siamés unido a su hermano, aunque incluso en ese caso nos referimos a ellos como dos seres, y el uno se refiere al otro como tú—. Todos los que no son yo son tú como individuos; pero como grupo que no incluye al yo, son ellos. Los subgrupos de ellos, mientras no incluyan al yo, siguen siendo ellos, aunque no estén todos los tú. Y de forma similar, nosotros es el yo con algún tú —aunque no estén todos los tú—.

Visto desde la teoría de conjuntos: la unión de los tú es ellos, pero ¿cuál es la intersección? Hablamos solo de la parte que es común a ambos. De forma similar, tú y yo formamos la unión que es nosotros —pero ¿qué es la intersección? En ambos casos son las partes compartidas entre el tú y el yo—. Las partes en común.

Si lo pensamos desde las tres áreas de desarrollo: en lo físico tenemos en común el oxígeno, las células, la carne, la sangre; en lo mental, la lógica y los modelos mentales; y en lo espiritual, una misma luz. Sin embargo, un átomo de oxígeno puede parecer igual a otro —pero son dos distintos. No es lo mismo.

Libro

Hay tres pasos entre un libro y la sabiduría: información, conocimiento, aplicación. La mayoría se queda en el primero. Leer libros no te va a convertir en más sabio solo por leerlos. Los libros son información; esa información necesita convertirse en conocimiento, y el conocimiento debe ser aplicado con inteligencia. Eso por una parte. Por otra, el conocimiento puede ser verdad o mentira —puede estimular la creatividad, el amor, el servicio y la búsqueda de la verdad, o puede estimular la rigidez, la indiferencia, el victimismo y la mentira—.

Una forma simple y directa de decirlo es que si metes basura en tu cabeza, solo puede salir basura. Y para evitarlo, creo que es muy importante aprender sobre lógica, sesgos, ética, filosofía e historia —desde un punto de vista analítico y reflexivo—.

Un libro puede ser una ventana a un mundo de conocimiento acumulado durante toda una vida, puesto a disposición de la humanidad. Así, el conocimiento acumulado se facilita a las nuevas generaciones para que progresen sobre el camino andado por sus antecesores. Y he aquí la clave: deben aprender de los errores y los aciertos del pasado.

El libro ha sido, es y seguirá siendo un contenedor de información. Es poder pasivo —necesita ser convertido en activo—.

Cabinet

A cabinet should be like a team of heroes when the people need salvation — salvation from tyranny, corruption, insecurity, and the destruction of public services. That is the role in troubled times. But in times of peace, they can be the heroes of stability, progress, and improvement.

The members of a cabinet must share a common purpose, goals, values, and mission. This means there are certain matters on which they cannot afford fundamental disagreement — and that is the mark of a good cabinet. They can disagree, but once they have chosen what to do and how to do it, they must act in agreement on the why. That common reason must be what keeps them together. They must also be willing to try different approaches. You can help, disagree and not help, or go against — but going against is a signal: either that person should not be part of the team, or the team may be doing something wrong. That doubt is healthy, in the sense that it reflects a conscience alert to doing good. Because keeping the humility of knowing we could be wrong is essential — otherwise it becomes hubris, and in hubris we are blinded and in decay.

Purpose, goals, values, and mission must not only be the core of the cabinet but of the whole people. If the people and their leaders are not aligned, they are not yet one. And to build a society of brotherhood and wisdom, they must be aligned in the same good values, goals, and purpose. A cabinet of heroes is not one that wins battles alone — it is one whose purpose is so clear, and so shared with the people, that the whole society becomes the hero.