Guarida

Según tengo entendido, los humanos primitivos posiblemente vivían en los árboles durante la noche para poder descansar a salvo de los depredadores. Con el tiempo empezarían a usar cuevas como guaridas donde refugiarse. Esto pudo verse favorecido por el control del fuego, que les permitiría abrigarse dentro de espacios más cerrados. Del mismo modo, pudieron aprender de los animales que se refugiaban en guaridas e imitarles. La ubicación también importaba: una cueva en un lugar de difícil acceso para un depredador sería más segura, tanto para descansar como para almacenar alimentos.

Esta idea de la guarida pudo ser el precursor de la choza: una guarida construida, no simplemente una cueva habitada. Los animales —aves, roedores, insectos, peces— de todo tipo tienen distintos tipos de guaridas, y supongo que las siguen usando de la misma forma. No creo que se hayan observado cambios significativos en ese comportamiento.

Lo que me lleva a pensar que el ser humano es el único que ha modificado ese comportamiento y ha desarrollado distintos tipos de habitáculos con distintos fines. Ya no solo para dormir, sino también para transportarse, guardar alimentos, animales o posesiones. He pensado hasta aquí en el sentido estrictamente físico de la palabra guarida, pero también podría haber explorado un sentido mental o espiritual. Todo depende de la imaginación y la creatividad de la mente.

Consolidate

In society, many things consolidate as part of the culture. But some things change, and some are abandoned. What changes? We can think of the gladiatorial fights that served as entertainment for the people of Rome. Nowadays, combat sports are globally accepted — but not to the death. If those were the dominant entertainment consolidated throughout the Roman Empire, today football is perhaps the most widespread.

What has been abandoned? I am not sure — and perhaps that is precisely why nothing comes to mind right now. Slavery? Slavery was consolidated for centuries. And today there are people who believe it no longer exists. But it seems it does: I have heard about vessels in international waters — perhaps in the Indian Ocean — where ships keep people who were kidnapped and are treated as slaves. This is something that barely appears in the news and generates no sustained protest.

From another perspective, there are slaves in a different sense: slaves to drugs, to money, to greed, to a system that promotes individualism — and to a system where those at the bottom are misled into defending the very oppressors at the top of the hierarchy. Those who argue against taxing large companies or taxing inheritances, whilst they themselves have little or no capital that would ever be subject to such taxes. Because it only takes a few lieutenants to keep the rest of those at the bottom in line.

Revoke

Is it the best option to wait four years to change a government? When things go really wrong the people must have alternatives. There are some options but are too difficult for the common people to change the government that is practically out of their hands.

There must be options to revoke the power given to representatives. And in general people must have more power. When lawmakers want to change constitution they can do without people support, I am thinking that for this type of main changes there must be include that a majority of the people must support by law—not only lawmakers and judges act as safeguards.

Also we have a problem when politicians stay too long, they —as Oscar Wild said, I think — need to be changed as often as diapers. I am thinking not those in charge only, those who are leading parties too. And the way to do it is part of solving other problem. When people have to choose between really don't want this and hell no this, people can have the option to send all of them out of participation. This force to refresh the parties—because the primaries are a joke. People must have the power to say I don't like any of the options—this could be done when nulls win. If null votes exceed fifty percent, the election is void and new candidates must be put forward — the same ones cannot stand again.

Precision

In communication, it is said that simplicity, precision, and confidence are key. But does that demand for precision lead us towards lies? People complain about politicians because they lie — yet politicians and executives communicate the way they do because they are taught to project certainty, never to transmit doubt. And that leads to dishonesty.

Why do they do that? Because they have learnt that people prefer certainty. People tend to choose someone who conveys that they know what they are talking about; if someone transmits doubt, people do not believe them. The more honest you are about uncertainty, the less people trust you — and the more you lie with confidence, the more they follow you. But is it not precisely when we reach a higher level of knowledge that we discover our own ignorance? The more we learn, the more aware we become that we know less than we thought. In other words, people who are ignorant of their own ignorance are the most confident about their beliefs.

This behaviour is part of knowing ourselves — both as individuals and as a group. Knowing this, instead of letting ourselves be drawn to whoever speaks with the most certainty, we can pause and think. Perhaps the one who seems not to have all the answers is actually the one who knows most. Perhaps we need to rethink how we communicate: being clear about what we know and honest about what we do not, whilst finding better ways to identify those who lie.

Ubre

La palabra ubre me hace pensar en las ubres de las vacas. ¿Alguna vez han intentado ordeñar una? Creo haberlo intentado un par de veces: la primera, alrededor de los ocho años; la segunda, ya en mis veintes.

La primera vez fue cuando estuve de visita en casa de mi tío abuelo —Erasmo—. Me llevaron todo el día por los terrenos: montando a caballo, cruzando un río —yo lo crucé por un puente, no a caballo—, caminando en el barro —que me llegaba a la rodilla—. Recuerdo intentar tirar de una teta y no lograr que saliera la leche. Parecía que no tenía la fuerza suficiente, aunque tal vez era la técnica.

La segunda vez fue, quizás, visitando alguna granja. Es la que menos recuerdo —no estoy seguro de nada—. Incluso puede que fuera una cabra y no una vaca. Pero tengo un vago recuerdo de haberlo intentado y de haber tenido mejor resultado que de niño. Creo que la diferencia estuvo en la técnica: la primera vez solo tiraba de la teta, mientras que la segunda alguien me indicó que debía apretar con el pulgar desde arriba y así lograr que saliera la leche.

Esta es una de las cosas que creo todos deberíamos experimentar: de niños, de adolescentes y de adultos. No basta con que te lo cuenten —debes hacerlo, y además repetirlo—. El caso que siempre me viene a la mente son los primeros auxilios. ¿Saben realizarlos? Yo no. He visto varios vídeos, pero nunca he practicado, y por eso creo que no sabría hacerlo cuando importara. Es uno de los casos donde la educación puede y debe mejorar.

Indication

When someone asks for answers, they expect a clear option — practically, they want you to choose for them. But what you can often offer instead is an indication: a direction to search, a prompt to think.

Many times people ask from ego or from laziness. From laziness, because they do not want to seek the truth — they just want easy answers, a simple affirmation that matches what they already believe. And that, at bottom, is also ego: they want to know what you choose either to judge you or to confirm that you belong to the same tribe.

Indications can take the form of questions — questions that serve as examples of what we should be asking ourselves to find the truth. Questions that reveal whether we are thinking with genuine criteria: Am I only absorbing the knowledge that reaches me by default? Am I seeking different perspectives, comparing, and searching for truth? Am I aware that media is not impartial? Am I aware if I am only consuming news from one side? Do I truly understand? Who really benefits from this? Is this aligned with my values? Is this coherent?

I think that most of the time the best way to offer an indication is to show a mental model for thinking — not an answer, not a conclusion. We must let the other person find their own.

Money

Is money what leads us to destruction? It is only a tool — the real problem is moral: greed. Investors do not want to pay salaries; they want profits to grow every year without limit. And they refuse to take accountability: if there are profits, those belong to them, but if there are losses, they find ways to offload them onto others — including governments, as happened with the bank bailouts of 2007. Did they return the money? No.

Here in Spain, the government gave money to the banks with no repayment required. Yet if ordinary people make mistakes on their tax returns, they are fined. When people took out mortgages and could no longer pay, the house did not settle the debt — incredibly, many families handed back their homes and still had to continue paying the loan. Is that not unjust? And who did anything about it?

If the executive does nothing, people must wait four years to try to change it — which is itself insufficient. If legislators do not create laws that defend the people, and judges excuse themselves by saying they only apply the law and do not make it, then nobody is truly defending ordinary people. But when judges want higher salaries, they strike and protest — just not for unjust laws.

This division among people allows a few to take control of institutions and write the rules of society to their own convenience. Is this not frustrating? This is not conspiracy — it is what political scientists call regulatory capture. And it works precisely because people are divided. And yet people keep themselves on the sofa, watching sport and complaining, offering solutions to the air — but no real unity to bring about real change.