Face

People try to change their faces, but the results can be perceived very differently. Some changes come across as comic or unnatural — and some people look for exactly that, whilst others perhaps do not intend it. I prefer the natural look: improvements that leave the face appearing as though nothing artificial was done. Whether it is make-up, surgery, injectables, or other techniques I am not familiar with, the ideal for everyday style is to wear it and not appear to be wearing anything at all. Seeing a face that is obviously made up is one thing; wearing make-up that seems invisible — that is something else entirely.

I am not sure whether make-up is strictly necessary on television due to lighting or other factors. Perhaps not, and it has simply become the norm even when it is not strictly needed.

We should also bear in mind that faces differ due to age, ethnicity, diet, and environment. In recent decades we see faces that look younger compared with photographs of people of the same age from fifty or more years ago. Beyond genetics, we see someone of sixty who looks forty, or someone of fifty who looks thirty or forty.

I think we can improve our appearance through knowledge of nutrition, exercise, and certain products — but the goal should be to maintain a natural look rather than a comic one. The best improvement, in a face or anywhere else, is the one that leaves no trace of itself — only the result. And the best things a face can have are a genuine smile and shining eyes.

Quarrel

Sometimes we avoid quarrels, and sometimes — perhaps — we should experience them. I think they are more likely to happen if you grow up in an immature environment. I am not used to them myself. I have seen them treated as normal behaviour in some families. And it is possible that some would say they are fine — the way insulting rivals in stadiums is considered normal, or the way some friends greet each other with insults. But are those really quarrels? They may appear that way because of the intensity, but I understand a real quarrel as something different: a genuine lack of manners and restraint — being truly angry, heated, because you have been suppressing emotions.

Like a glass of water filled drop by drop until it overflows — the drop that spills the glass is not just a drop. It is the only one you see, but it is there because of all the ones contained before it. That is the analogy for when someone says something cruel or impolite and claims it was the heat of the moment: it is because there is more of that inside. If you see hatred or racism surface, there is more where it came from. Is that always the case? I do not know — but it may well be, and there are probably studies on it.

We should experience quarrels when we are exploring our limits — when we are growing up — because they help us know ourselves better. But not as something that happens every week or month.

Tell

Telling stories is how people shared knowledge, wisdom, and morals. Before writing, people only had stories to tell. And those stories could be different each time someone told them. Yes, people can memorise stories — but is it not better to transmit feelings and connect with your audience by adapting the story to them?

I always remember an exercise we did at school. Four classmates were chosen and taken out of the classroom. One of them read a short story aloud to those remaining inside, and then told it — not read it — to one of the classmates waiting outside, without the others hearing. That second classmate came in and told us the story: it was already slightly different. Then the second told it to the third, and so the process repeated. By the third retelling the story had changed noticeably, and by the time the fourth told it, it was completely different. This exercise helped us understand that stories can change — and distort — their original meaning with each retelling.

Psychologists call this the telephone effect — each retelling introduces small changes that compound into something unrecognisable. And that is one reason why stories like those in the Bible may contain inconsistencies or contradictions. Also because the way people communicated in ancient times was often more metaphorical or mystical. Should we take those stories literally? I would say no — and I would argue that we have been given the capacity to think and discern precisely so that we do not.

Roll

Many times we fall into a loop where we roll through the same thoughts again and again. We may change the stories, the scenarios, the context — but I think we stay in the same roll until we unroll it. And this roll is something we must process, something we must face without avoiding — we must look at it directly and understand it. It may mean taking a step forward in order to mature and gain wisdom.

It is possible, yes, to set it aside for a while — to think about other things, or to let our subconscious work on the solution whilst our conscious mind focuses on other activities, or simply rests. That can be important when we are stuck and cannot see a way out. But sooner or later we must always face it: everything unresolved will be with us for the rest of our lives. The answer is not to stop thinking about it, but to think about it differently.

And we carry many rolls through our lives. Some we unroll and resolve, and new ones can form. We must learn to manage how we respond — to avoid creating those harmful rolls that hold guilt and fear in place. We must work through our own first before trying to help others. Our experience can be valuable, but remember: not everyone is ready to deal with theirs. Some need a push; others need time. 

Peinado

Un peinado puede cambiar mucho el aspecto de una persona: el color, la forma, la textura. Un peinado puede ser una distinción cultural —como ocurre con las mujeres africanas o de origen africano en distintos países, que acostumbran a crear peinados elaborados y llenos de significado—. Incluso personas ajenas a esa cultura pueden sentirse atraídas y probar dichos peinados. A la gente le gustan otras culturas, y la comida, la vestimenta, los rituales o los peinados son formas de intercambio cultural, de apreciar lo que otros han construido.

Un peinado puede ser una marca de pertenencia a un grupo. Puede ser una protesta, un acto de rebeldía. Puede ser un acto de amor —una forma de decir sé que te gusta esto y lo hago por ti—. Puede ser para gustar a otros o simplemente para gustarse a uno mismo.

Los peinados se adaptan, los peinados cambian. Y en ese sentido pueden ser un reflejo del estado interno de la persona. Como los peinados, debemos aprender a no apegarnos —a entender que son pasajeros—, y podemos incluso disfrutar de que nuestro «peinado» sea la calvicie. Los hombres pueden jugar a crear distintos «peinados» con la barba. El peinado es una metáfora de la vida: no se trata de los recursos que tienes, sino de lo que haces con ellos. Y a veces, lo más elegante es abrazar lo que ya tienes.

Hen

I am not sure whether in English the expression is literally the hen that laid the golden eggs — but its short story teaches us to take care of the hen, to let it keep giving us golden eggs. If we slip into greed, we end up killing the hen to get the eggs she might have inside. And once she is dead, she can give us no more.

Perhaps that is the greatest problem of humankind: not following the Golden Rule — greed. Investors do not want to pay fair salaries; they want to extract more and more money in exchange for their money. They do not produce. They lend money and claim interest. They may try to justify this — and self-deceive — by arguing that they help society by funding companies. And some do try. But in general, are they trying to improve the lives of employees, or to satisfy investors? Where is the most money made? Is it not in war? Is it not in exploiting natural resources, avoiding due process, and paying no taxes? Is it not in granting mortgages where, if people cannot pay, they lose the house and still carry the debt? That is not helping people. It is exploiting them. It is not following the Golden Rule — unless you do not love your parents, your children, your brothers and sisters, yourself. You are exploiting the hen. And without people, you have no money.

Elecciones

Así como los computadores se vuelven más eficientes, el sistema estatal debería hacer lo mismo. Se aplica ingeniería para mejorar tecnologías y métodos en las distintas áreas, y hay avances constantes. ¿Qué ingeniería se aplica para mejorar los procesos estatales? ¿Cómo se mejoran las elecciones? Algunos países tienen distintos sistemas de asignación de escaños, algunos implementan el voto electrónico o mantienen el voto por correo, pero muy pocos —o ninguno— experimentan cambios de mayor calado: cambios que respondan a problemas reales como la insatisfacción con todos los candidatos, la necesidad de diferenciar el rechazo de la aprobación, o la dificultad de formar mayorías que eviten el bloqueo del gobierno.

Una de las situaciones que más llama la atención es caer en la percepción de que todos son iguales, de que las elecciones son un circo y da igual quién gane. Ante eso, debemos hacer algo para cambiar la dinámica. Al mismo tiempo, se genera una cultura de rechazo y estigmatización de la política como algo sucio —y por eso las personas de bien no se ven entrando en ella—.

Las elecciones deben mejorarse para reflejar mejor el sentir del soberano y darle una opción real de reciclar los partidos políticos. Las primarias actuales mantienen a los dirigentes en el poder, y en varios partidos se puede observar cómo llevan toda una vida enquistados: el partido se convierte en el partido del líder, en un cacicazgo, una mafia, una dictadura interna. Nadie aceptaría un computador que funciona igual que hace cincuenta años. ¿Por qué aceptamos un sistema electoral que sí lo hace?

Batalla

Tenemos una batalla que parece perdida: la batalla contra quienes buscan poder y entienden que solo mediante él consiguen su propósito en la vida, que es tener más y más poder. ¿Cómo ganas una batalla contra quien tiene poder y tú no lo quieres?

Hay distintas formas de entender el poder. Podríamos usar las tres áreas de desarrollo: físico, mental y espiritual.

El poder físico —ya sea la fuerza pública o los mercenarios— responde en última instancia al poder financiero, que tiene por lo general más influencia que el poder social o político, los cuales también responden al financiero. El poder mental —sea este el conocimiento o la información— está igualmente subordinado al poder financiero: las corporaciones financian, compran y controlan mediante patentes, o absorben a las pequeñas empresas. Usan el poder político y manipulan el social. El poder espiritual, entendido como la religión de rituales, está también contaminado y manipulado por los poderosos. Las religiones, en nombre de Dios, han generado guerras, se han enriquecido y han puesto y quitado gobernantes.

En tiempos más recientes puede parecer que quienes desean controlarlo todo han perdido parte de ese poder en lo religioso. De hecho, se dice que las iglesias evangélicas, entre otras, sirven precisamente para mantener el control: profetizan el individualismo, el éxito material y el amor al dinero. Sus seguidores no reflexionan sobre cuánto tienen de espiritual —poco o nada—.

El despertar espiritual es lo que mantiene libres a los seres humanos, lo que es capaz de unirlos e influir en la lucha en los planos mental y físico. Entonces: ¿cómo ganas esa batalla? No queriendo el poder que ellos quieren, sino despertando al poder que ellos no pueden comprar.

Autógrafo

No he pensado mucho en la idea de los autógrafos. Entiendo que una dedicatoria tiene algo más —unas palabras, algo que se dice—. Un autógrafo es solo una firma, un garabato que dice: firmado por mí, yo toqué esto. Tal vez en el pasado servía como forma de poder demostrar a otros que estuviste con esa persona, como si fuera un certificado. Con la facilidad de la fotografía, muchos piden ahora una foto juntos como recuerdo del encuentro, en lugar del autógrafo.

Algunos hacen negocio de los autógrafos. ¡Joder, a todo le quieren sacar ventaja económica! Maldito amor al dinero. Siguiendo con la idea del certificado —con la que me quedo—: es un certificado de autenticidad.

En fin, los autógrafos son de esas cosas que no les veo mucho sentido. Puede que mi perspectiva esté sesgada, pero ¿sesgada por qué? ¿Yo lo haría? Una vez me pidieron que añadiera mi firma a un libro que regalaba. Me pareció una tontería innecesaria, pero la añadí por cortesía. Tal vez lo volvería a hacer por cortesía —como forma de devolver el aprecio sin negar una petición que tampoco parece dañina—. Pero dejar de verlo como una tontería, eso no sé. Le veo mayor sentido a una dedicatoria: unas palabras, no solo una firma.

Reservoir

When I started taking care of my finances — during my university years — building a reservoir was part of it. It was the second step, a natural consequence of managing the first step well. The first step was to divide my income into six percentages assigned to six accounts — this can be kept abstract, differentiating them on paper only: 1) 50% for basics, to spend on essential things such as food and rent; 2) 10% for financial freedom, or long-term savings — this functions as a retirement fund and works best when invested; 3) 10% for short-term savings, to be used for holidays, a new phone or car, repairs, or clothing if basic needs require it; 4) 10% for education, to be spent on books, courses, and anything related to learning; 5) 10% for enjoyment — drinks, cinema, a dinner that goes beyond the basics; 6) 10% for debt repayment — which was not much — and once the debt was cleared, this account became the fund for giving gifts to others.

At the beginning, my income was so small that I often had to take money from one account to cover the purpose of another — drawing from savings or education to cover something basic. But over time, as my income grew, the 50% for basics began to build a reservoir. The initial goal was to reach three months of average monthly expenditure. A few years later, I reduced the percentage to 40% and raised the goal to nine months of average monthly expenditure.

Rogar

El que no llora no mama. ¿Habéis escuchado este dicho? Me hace pensar en que uno no sabe pedir lo que quiere —como los bebés—. Lloras, y ese llanto puede ser por hambre o por distintas razones, ya que no puedes comunicar más allá del llanto. Y una de las primeras cosas que se puede pensar es que el bebé tiene hambre, así que se le da de mamar.

A mí no me gusta la frase porque me hace pensar en que lo que se consigue con ella es una cantidad de llorones. Gente que, en vez de preguntar de forma constructiva —aportando contexto e incluso posibles soluciones—, o de pedir, o de reclamar con argumentos, simplemente se queja. Prácticamente lloros, berrinches.

De hecho, la democracia parece tener entre sus desventajas la de promover precisamente eso. Si nos fijamos en las distintas democracias del mundo, los partidos que no gobiernan parecieran tener como papel el de atacar al gobierno y hacer berrinches, más que el de rogar, proponer o construir. De hecho se les llama «oposición» y, como tal, se oponen a todo. ¿No os parece un fallo estructural del sistema?

O al menos eso es lo que muestran públicamente, porque luego los repartos y acuerdos pueden darse según convenga al bolsillo particular. El problema es la codicia, la falta de coherencia e integridad, y la falta de transparencia. Y el sistema no ayuda, más bien parece sustentarlo. Y así, el que no llora no mama, y los que más lloran, gobiernan. Hasta que aprendamos a pedir en lugar de berrinchear, el sistema seguirá siendo de los que más ruido hacen.

Drama

There is a saying that goes something like: he who does not cry does not get fed — or does not get what he wants. And the underlying sense — that fighting for what you want is acceptable — is fair enough. But I think some people take it in the direction of drama.

Have you seen people who complain about everything? They are walking drama. They seem to compete over who has the most to suffer. They seem to expect pity. They cry over everything. Whether it is that no one helps them, or that their job makes them miserable, or that they cannot find work, or that some illness prevents them from working — they always have a story about how badly things are going.

I think we must learn how to ask for what we want and how to say what we do not want. But alongside knowing how to be assertive, we must also be positive — accepting the good things, learning to see them. We must appreciate what we already have, and if we want something more, work towards it and enjoy the journey. We must not be the toxic people who make a drama of their lives and play the victim indefinitely.

Verdes

Me gustan las colinas verdes. Salir a caminar por el campo y verlas es hermoso. Llenan de energía positiva; la experiencia es relajante, elevada en una especie de deleite ante la belleza. Agrada como ver algo bonito, bueno, dulce —en el sentido de amable, delicado—. Es como ver a un ser amado. Es paz, serenidad, tranquilidad. Te arranca suspiros. Te eleva mental y espiritualmente.

A veces ese verde me resulta hermoso también en la vestimenta, sobre todo en mujeres cuando el color les sienta de una forma que realza aún más su belleza. No es, sin embargo, un color con el que yo me sienta cómodo vistiéndolo. De niño no me gustó mucho y desde entonces lo he evitado —al igual que el amarillo, el rojo y el naranja—.

Unos ojos verdes son de mis favoritos. Llaman mucho mi atención. Me producen ganas de detenerme a observarlos como observaría unas colinas verdes: perderme en los detalles, perderme en esa sensación de paz, belleza y admiración.

Verdes tus ojos me gustaría que fuesen. Pero sé que igualmente, sea cual sea el color que resplandezca en ellos, admiraré esos ojos que me enloquecen.

Protest

We assume that words mean the same thing to everyone. In courtrooms, that assumption can put innocent people in prison.

People protest when there is injustice. And I wonder what we understand by injustice — because we must always remember that language is ambiguous, and that meaning depends on the experience of the person.

Words mean different things with different nuances. When we communicate, we must keep this in mind in order to understand better — whether we are the sender or the receiver of the message.

I remember a case where an elderly man killed an intruder in his home. He shot him. People protested on social media in the old man's favour. But the prosecutor was able to make the old man say that he had not been afraid — and that was decisive. The prosecutor needed to prove two things: first, that there was a meaningful disadvantage between the two — the old man had a rifle whilst the intruder may have had only a knife; second, that since the old man said he was not afraid, he was not in danger.

But what does it mean to be afraid? I strongly believe it is not the same for an old man raised to think that a real man does not feel fear — or at least does not admit it — as it is for a man of the twenty-first century who may have been taught that feeling fear is acceptable and worth naming. Both may have the same chemical reaction in the body, the same alert state activated. Both can be brave. But one identifies bravery with the absence of fear, whilst the other understands it as fear acknowledged — fear that activates the stress response and drives them to defend themselves or flee. To be fair, then, we must understand the limitations of how people express themselves — because in this case, the way a man described his own feelings put him behind bars. And that is unjust.

Leg

It is interesting how different legs are between men and women. There is a different structural design in the two, and we can see similar differences elsewhere in nature. In the case of humans, women tend to have more mass at the bottom and men at the top. In general, women's legs tend to be proportionally larger than men's.

Why might this be? There must be an evolutionary reason. We can form hypotheses, but as with many things, these must be accepted as provisional truths until new knowledge emerges. And that last point, I think, is always worth remembering.

I am reminded of a moment at university when a classmate was giving a presentation and said that neurons die and no new ones can form. The teacher interrupted and said that his source was probably an old textbook — because that was what people once believed, but it had since been discovered that new neurons can in fact form.

We study based on old information, and teachers either cannot keep up with current knowledge or they lack real experience — repeating only what they have read, not necessarily what they have lived. We must always be cautious about what is considered truth today, because tomorrow it may be expanded and transformed into a richer truth. This is what I call provisional truth.

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.

Century

In the twenty-first century, we must resolve how to coexist with new technology. Around the world, more and more robots and agentic AI systems are being developed. Many large companies are laying off tens of thousands of people. AI is the stated reason, but I want to point out a couple of things worth thinking about.

First, cheaper labour. Companies fire thousands of people but may, within months or immediately after, hire thousands of people remotely from countries where wages are lower — typically from India. In this scenario, Europe needs to protect its workforce — otherwise people will be left without jobs and social crises will follow. Companies, driven by greed, simply want to increase profits, and labour is one of the largest costs they can reduce. This leads to a widening gap between the lowest-paid employee and those at the top. If in the 1950s the ratio might have been five to one, today it is more than twenty — though I do not recall the exact figure.

A second thing to consider is whether AI is actually cheaper in the long run — because I believe there is a bubble. AI consumes enormous resources, and AI companies are currently operating on borrowed money. They are not yet profitable. When they need to become self-sufficient, they may find that prices must rise sharply — and those prices may end up higher than the cost of a human worker.

Ajedrez

Creo que todos deberíamos aprender a jugar al ajedrez, igual que a nadar, cocinar o aplicar primeros auxilios. El ajedrez sirve para entrenar la mente a pensar con anticipación. Y es una excelente analogía sobre cómo tomar decisiones.

De hecho, me recuerda a cuando aprendía sobre algoritmos de búsqueda en inteligencia artificial —creo que se llamaban así, o algoritmos de toma de decisión—, en los que se crean distintos niveles con el objetivo de encontrar el mejor camino. En el caso del ajedrez sería así: en un primer nivel, pensamos en las principales jugadas que podríamos hacer —supongamos tres—; en un segundo nivel, pensamos en las mejores respuestas posibles del rival para cada una de esas tres jugadas. Así, en el segundo nivel tendríamos tres por tres: nueve jugadas posibles. En un tercer nivel, por cada una de esas nueve jugadas, pensamos en nuestras tres mejores respuestas; lo que nos da veintisiete jugadas posibles. Y así sucesivamente.

Esto puede ir creciendo en niveles de profundidad —profundidad porque, si lo dibujamos de arriba hacia abajo, se va formando una pirámide que crece en amplitud—. Por optimizar, se escogen tres jugadas, aunque podrían ser más; del mismo modo, en ciertos casos se puede reducir a dos. Es un parámetro ajustable.

¿Qué ocurre si el rival realiza una jugada que no previmos? Se genera un nuevo árbol a partir de ese movimiento —igual que habría que generar uno nuevo para profundizar si la jugada sí estaba prevista—. Nuestra jugada será siempre la que nos lleve a la mejor posición dentro del nivel de profundidad que hayamos alcanzado.

Cuando decides cambiar de trabajo, el nivel uno son tus opciones; el nivel dos, las posibles reacciones de tu familia o tu mercado laboral; el nivel tres, cómo responderías a cada una de esas reacciones. El ajedrez te enseña a pensar hacia adelante.

Así mismo debemos pensar cuando tomamos decisiones en la vida: previendo consecuencias y preparando respuestas para cada una de ellas.

Valiente

Confío en que Dios me guíe y me prepare para que, cuando sea necesario ser valiente, lo sea.

Admiro a las personas que luchan por lo que creen, por la verdad. No cuando luchan por intereses mezquinos, cuando mienten, engañan o buscan embaucar y ganar poder para servirse a sí mismas —eso no lo admiro—. Admiro al que lucha por la verdad, por lo justo, por mostrar la injusticia y que se haga justicia. Al que incluso pierde premios, se gana la ira y el odio de quienes apoyan el odio y la mentira, llega a perder su trabajo, y ve cómo sancionan a su familia. ¡Qué terrible injusticia!

Valientes los que arriesgan su comodidad por luchar por sus principios y valores. Valientes los que se sacrifican por sus hijos, sus padres o sus hermanos. Valientes los que sirven a su prójimo. Valientes los que aman. Valientes los que buscan la verdad y la protegen.

¿En qué momento la valentía pasa a ser una locura que termina con tu lucha de forma prematura? ¿Acaso no es un inconsciente el que se expone a martirizarse sin necesidad? Valiente también es el que no se deja llevar por impulsos, el que no se deja dominar y piensa estratégicamente —el que busca cómo maximizar el impacto de su lucha—. Esta valentía tal vez sea la más difícil: la que no todos ven. La que parece cobardía por fuera y es coraje por dentro.

Así que creo que tenemos diferentes clases de valentía: la una es impulsiva y pasional; la otra, más reflexiva y prudente. Puede que sea la valentía del extrovertido y la valentía del introvertido.

Credit

Can we change how we use credit? I am thinking about the way we use credit to make money produce more money — by charging interest on what is lent. This way of working, combined with greed and laziness, does not really produce anything good. It is just money breeding money; it adds no real value to society.

What if we simply lent money with no interest requested? Yes, in the current monetary system you would lose out because of inflation. But is this a way of brotherhood? Does it meet the Golden Rule? Is it aligned with the purpose of loving, serving, and seeking truth?

I manage my money across different accounts, and sometimes I move money from one to another — from education to long-term savings, for instance. Sometimes I do not transfer it back, and sometimes I do. But I never charge myself interest. If needed, I could lend in the other direction — from long-term savings to education — and it is not necessarily the same amount or from the same account. This personal example of how I treat myself gives me the answer. We must be willing to lend money to our brothers and sisters as we do to ourselves.

Slip

This is what political scientists call the protest vote cycle: corruption breeds disgust, disgust breeds extremism, and extremism, unchecked, breeds tyranny.

When people are disgusted by corruption, they can slip into supporting an extremist party that they do not initially believe will lead to totalitarianism — but it will. Decade after decade, people see that every party, both right and left, simply takes turns in power whilst the corruption continues. If a conservative party is in charge and a corruption scandal erupts, people vote for the progressive party. And when the progressive party is in charge and a scandal erupts, people vote for the conservatives. After enough of these cycles, extremists on both the left and the right begin to rise. They bring hope, but when they reach power they are no different — they slip into corruption just as the others did. And in the worst cases, they accumulate more and more power until they become totalitarian, and people do not see it coming. People want change, and so they slip into the arms of new political parties that tell them exactly what they want to hear.

Cicatrizar

El individuo tiene distintas heridas que cicatrizar. Una de ellas, creo, es la relación con los padres. Parece que gran parte de los individuos arrastra algún resentimiento hacia ellos: porque no les dieron el amor que esperaban, porque fueron abandonados, porque sintieron que querían más a otro hermano, porque les maltrataban, o porque no fueron como les hubiera gustado que fueran.

Tal vez algunos individuos, tras ser padres y alcanzar cierta madurez, terminan cicatrizando sus heridas. Otros quizás solo las enmascaran, las ocultan o las ignoran. En el siglo XXI parece haber surgido una corriente que busca la ayuda psicológica y la sanación. Algunos, en la búsqueda de ser mejores padres, se autoeducan; otros simplemente intentan no cometer los mismos actos que desaprueban de sus propios padres. Estos últimos pueden ser los más propensos a terminar mimando a sus hijos y sobreprotegiéndolos: creando inadaptados sociales, perjudicándolos como individuos que deben ser responsables y autosuficientes, y perjudicando también a la sociedad que les rodea, que tendrá que lidiar con ellos.

Quienes buscan formarse, pero se quedan a las puertas de mejorar, pueden terminar cometiendo los mismos errores de sobreprotección. Si la sociedad forma a sus ciudadanos en matemáticas, historia y lengua, ¿por qué no en lo más difícil y lo más importante? Dada dicha importancia, la pregunta es inevitable: ¿no debería la formación para ser padres y educar hijos formar parte de la educación básica? Yo creo que sí.

Presente

Cuando éramos niños nos decían que éramos el futuro. Ese futuro ya está aquí. Es nuestro turno de asumir la responsabilidad. El presente es ya ese futuro del que nos hablaban. Debemos centrarnos en él, resolver los problemas que tenemos y trabajar por hacer realidad el sueño de una vida mejor para todos. ¿Cómo lograrlo? Les presento un marco que puede servirnos de guía, compuesto por cinco partes: cimientos, misión, valor, objetivo y propósito.

1. Cimientos. Consiste en lo básico que una sociedad necesita para vivir: salud, seguridad, justicia y educación. Cada uno de estos elementos debe cumplir unos mínimos para que el siguiente funcione, y los cuatro juntos son las áreas sobre las que se sustenta toda sociedad.

2. Misión. El desarrollo del conocimiento en las áreas física, mental y espiritual. El conocimiento es parte esencial del desarrollo de una sociedad, y debemos seguir invirtiendo en estas tres áreas.

3. Valor. Sí, hay uno que es el principal, es la regla de oro: amar al prójimo como a uno mismo, como a nuestros padres, hijos y hermanos. Como a nuestra propia alma.

4. Objetivo. Como sociedad debemos aspirar al desarrollo de una sociedad ética, filosófica y de hermandad —una sociedad que busca la sabiduría—.

5. Propósito. Todos unidos como un todo con un propósito común: amar, servir y buscar la verdad.

Con este marco de cinco puntos podemos encontrar algo común que respete nuestras diferencias y nos permita desarrollarnos y convivir en paz —hoy y en el futuro—. ¿Cuándo empezamos? Hoy. El presente, ese futuro del que nos hablaban, ya está aquí.

Load

We were told, as children, that the future would be in our hands. Nobody told us it would feel this heavy. As humans we must be accountable for the load our generation carries. The load of making society better. The load of strengthening the foundations of society: health, security, justice, and education. The load of making it our mission to develop knowledge in the physical, mental, and spiritual areas — and to invest in them. The load of upholding the Golden Rule as our main moral value, so that it may serve as a guide for better decisions. The load of building cohesion in society so that, as a whole, we reach the objective of creating an ethical and philosophical society — a society that seeks wisdom, a society of brotherhood. The load of helping people reach their potential and fulfil their purpose of loving, serving, and seeking truth.

When we were children we were told that the future would be in our hands. Now is that future. Now is our turn. Now we must work together as one. Now we must work as good and kind brothers and sisters. Now we take accountability. Now is when we make dreams happen. Now is our present. Now we must act.

Pledge

There are two ways to read a pledge. One leads to war. The other leads home.

There is a problem with fanatics who interpret religious writings as the word of God and bend them to fit their own interests. The pledge of the land to Israel — as there is a land, and people created a state called Israel — leads some to believe that everything is valid in reaching that purpose: killing, lying, whatever it takes. To them, the land cannot be the Kingdom of God that is within us when we live in peace. To them, Israel cannot be anything other than a place exclusively for Jews — it cannot be a people who simply live as good persons, who let their light shine, the light that is inside every person who chooses to recognise it.

The true pledge is to everyone who loves, serves, and lives in truth — to return to the source, the Kingdom of God, the light and eternal life. The call is to recognise God in ourselves and in others, and to see the exterior in the interior as the interior in the exterior: we are the same light. Love the other as your own soul — because both are part of the same whole. It is as though after dying in the physical world we wake up and see that the experience we lived was like a dream, and every experience — from everyone — is part of the same being.

We cherish the experiences where the lost sheep is found, where the prodigal son returns, where a species grows and lives in the light.

Operaciones

¿Qué operaciones realizamos en lo físico, lo mental y lo espiritual?

a) Físico. Estamos acostumbrados a usar la palabra operaciones como sinónimo de cirugía. Se realizan operaciones en quirófanos donde, con el buen uso del conocimiento, se busca salvar vidas. También en química existen operaciones que buscan disolver, separar, integrar o unir elementos. Y tenemos operaciones que buscan llegar a la Luna, conocer otros planetas, explorar el mundo exterior —y del mismo modo el interior—, continuando con el estudio de los átomos y lo que hay más allá.

b) Mental. En lo mental asociamos la palabra operaciones con las matemáticas y la lógica. Las búsquedas de patrones son operaciones. Al final, son acciones que separan o unen —similares, en esencia, a las físicas—.

c) Espiritual. Así como las operaciones se ven en lo físico y se entienden en lo mental, las operaciones en lo espiritual no se ven con los ojos, no se tocan con las manos, no se escuchan con los oídos. No se perciben con los sentidos físicos. No escuchas un dos, ni lo tocas; lo físico interactúa con expresiones de los conceptos mentales. Del mismo modo, lo mental solo puede interactuar con expresiones de lo espiritual.

Si lo espiritual es la fuente que se expresa en lo físico, es como el ojo que no puede verse a sí mismo —pero puede usar elementos para reflejarse, y así veremos reflejos de la luz—. El mundo material y el mental son, entonces, como reflejos de lo espiritual. La separación ha habitado las criaturas; la unión nos lleva de regreso a la fuente.

Guide

We begin by dividing the world into inside and outside. But wisdom, in the end, erases that line.

a) External. An external guide can be any person. At the beginning they are our parents, then our grandparents, brothers and sisters, and other members of the family. When we go out into the world and meet other people, they become guides too — our teachers, friends, everyone — whether we are aware of it or not. We also choose specific guides deliberately: tutors, psychologists, mentors, people we admire. We can choose people who are alive or dead, accessing the latter through their texts and videos.

b) Internal. We nourish our mind and spirit, and as we grow, we place increasing trust in ourselves. We learn to nourish ourselves so that we become trustworthy to ourselves. But we also learn that the source — God — is part of us, and we are part of it. This leads us to see the external guides as part of the same whole. We make the external internal, and the internal external — because we see ourselves in others, and in ourselves we see others. Then we understand that we are the same. We are the whole.

Brillante

Esta palabra tiene varios significados que puedo ligar a las tres áreas de desarrollo: físico, mental y espiritual.

a) Físico. Las estrellas son brillantes, y contemplar un cielo estrellado es un espectáculo hermoso. Las auroras boreales también. El fuego, que el ser humano utilizó para cocinar, iluminar y revelar lo oculto, abrigar, fundir o separar elementos, purificar el oro y preparar la tierra para sembrar. El brillo en las cosas suele indicarnos cuidado, belleza, novedad, lujo.

b) Mental. Se dice que una persona es brillante cuando es inteligente y astuta —cuando muestra una gran comprensión de las cosas y usa el conocimiento con ingenio—. Nos deslumbra con su brillantez, que se manifiesta en creatividad, imaginación y capacidad de resolución. El ingenio es el destello de esa brillantez que una persona posee.

c) Espiritual. Dios se asocia con la luz: lo que ilumina, muestra el camino y nos libera de la oscuridad y lo desconocido. Se liga a lo bueno, lo puro, lo santo. A los santos se los suele representar con un aro brillante sobre la cabeza. A los ángeles, rodeados de un resplandor; y en la literatura se habla de luz, fuego brillante, fulgores. Las personas que han estado cerca de la muerte hablan de una luz brillante al final de un túnel oscuro. En general, relacionamos lo brillante con lo bueno.

Algo que personalmente me encanta es el brillo en los ojos de una persona. Son tan brillantes que parecen iluminar —parece que se ve la vida en ellos—, como si fuera el alma mostrando su bondad, su felicidad desbordando a través de los ojos.

Poco

¿Qué es poco? Una década es poco respecto a la vida de una persona centenaria. Cien mil años es poco respecto a la edad de nuestra Vía Láctea. Poco puede ser el conocimiento que ha acumulado la humanidad hasta hoy, comparado con el que puede alcanzar en mil años más. Tal vez no. No tiene por qué ser lineal, ni tampoco acumulativo. Puede haber un declive y luego un incremento —como la bolsa de valores—, ¿o no? ¿Somos capaces de imaginarlo? Si somos capaces de imaginarlo, entendemos que es posible. Y por poco que seamos capaces de imaginar, al final somos capaces de imaginar, de ser creativos, y por ello de evolucionar mentalmente.

Durante millones de años hemos evolucionado principalmente de forma física, y esa es la base que sostiene el desarrollo mental. Ahora estamos en una fase evolutiva mental y espiritual. Cuando tomábamos decisiones lógicas e instintivas estábamos al nivel de los animales, y así llevamos cientos de miles de años. En algún momento, la mente humana dejó de guiarse únicamente por el instinto y tomó una decisión moral. A esa capacidad la llamamos el origen del alma. Ahora estamos, también, en una era de desarrollo espiritual.

Llevamos miles de años en ella —desde que el ser humano comenzó a adorar, a buscar a Dios—. No sabemos si fue algo enseñado —seres no humanos—, pero sí sabemos que hoy el concepto está ligado a una perfección de lo bueno.

Hilos

¿Quiénes mueven los hilos? ¿Cómo podemos saberlo? Existe un poder político y un poder económico. Intentemos verlo también desde las tres áreas de desarrollo: físico, mental y espiritual.

a) Físico. Aquí entra la fuerza pública —pero también la privada—: mercenarios y la propia población. La fuerza pública responde al poder político, y este responde, en teoría, a la presión de los contribuyentes. Pero puede ignorarlos y actuar movido por la presión económica o por quien esté moviendo los hilos en la sombra. La fuerza mercenaria, por su parte, está al alcance del poder económico.

b) Mental. El poder económico puede crear división en la sociedad porque compra los medios de comunicación masivos y las productoras de cine, y puede presionar a las universidades —como ha hecho Trump—, quien a su vez responde a intereses económicos. En otras palabras: con poder económico puedes comprar políticos, científicos y periodistas.

c) Espiritual. El poder lo tienen los líderes religiosos —no tanto como siglos atrás, quizás—, pero son capaces de promover propaganda, como hacen algunos evangelistas a favor de Trump. En otras religiones, como la musulmana, existe mayor cohesión en torno a la fe. El problema de fondo es que cuando el valor del dinero es lo que te permite vivir, termina superponiéndose a valores esenciales como la regla de oro. No sé con certeza quién mueve los hilos. Pero sé que quien controla el dinero, los medios y la fe, los mueve todos.

Division

There is a division in the world right now. On one side, those who oppose a government accused of genocide. On the other, those who try to justify it. What do those who justify it say? They play the victim card. They argue that they have always suffered oppression at the hands of others — Romans, British, Germans. The Nazis are well known for their atrocities against Jewish people. Another justification is that they are under attack by terrorists and therefore have the legitimacy to defend themselves, responding however necessary to keep their people safe.

What do those who oppose say? First, that the suffering inflicted by the Nazis —or by anyone else— is not a justification for committing atrocities in turn. They are not permitted to do whatever they wish. It is a moral matter. Second, if those who attack them hide among hundreds of innocents, it is evil to kill all of them. The innocents do not necessarily have to be held to account for it. Third, an independent investigation is needed —because there is evidence suggesting they may be funding and arming those they call terrorists, effectively creating the problem themselves as a pretext to seize land. They do whatever is necessary to reach their objectives: lying, bribing, violating international law and basic morality. In doing so, they are committing the same atrocities the Nazis committed —against anyone who stands in their way.

Eat

There are four foundations that I believe we need to cover in order to search for wisdom and build a brotherly society: health, security, justice, and education. We can relate eating to the first one — health — and health comes first. Our brothers and sisters need to eat, as we do, before they can study or work. There are many people who do not eat as we do, and there are plenty of people we could help.

We also need to work towards a better design for how we produce food. I think cities need to be planned with nearby sources of food as a contingency — a way to survive under emergencies such as natural disasters or wars. People must also know basic growing and harvesting skills in order to obtain their own food. Those with enough space at home could have their own greenhouse or keep animals as a source of food to complement what they obtain from the market.

We must also learn what best nourishes our bodies, and this should be part of mandatory education. We need practical subjects that teach sowing, harvesting, and cooking — not only theoretical knowledge. If we truly want to reach our objective of building a society that seeks wisdom, ethics, and brotherhood, we need to work on our threefold mission of developing in the physical, mental, and spiritual areas. Just as junk food weakens the body, junk information weakens the mind, and moral laziness weakens the spirit. We need a balanced diet in all three.

Jacket

We must put on the team jacket and work toward our goals. That jacket is a mark that we belong to a group. It gives us cover — physically, from wind, rain, and cold — but also mentally, because we embrace the cohesion of being part of something bigger than ourselves. And it can be spiritual too, when we embrace moral principles and an ethical code that unites us as a brotherhood.

A jacket can represent the group but also be personalized — with the person's name or initials, for example. There we find a symbol of individuality within the group. This is an example of carrying both sides: the group and the individual. Both matter.

In society we must also find the coexistence of both. We must allow the development of the individual and the group as one. And we must learn where to draw the line — where one part begins to endanger the other. The liberty of the individual must not put the liberty of other individuals or the group at risk. Nor must the liberty of the group put the liberty of the individual at risk. We are speaking of liberty here, but the same applies to rights and obligations.

This is what it means to wear the jacket of brotherhood. Are we all wearing the same jacket?

Demonio

Tal vez hemos inventado esta palabra para culpar a otro de nuestras malas acciones: para descargar responsabilidad. O bien el demonio nos tentó, o es cosa del demonio. En otras palabras, quien hizo el mal fue el demonio, o fuimos nosotros pero porque el demonio nos engañó. Ambas son actos de excusa, de irresponsabilidad, de lavarse las manos y no asumir responsabilidad.

Por eso algunos pensadores debieron reflexionar y concluir que el demonio está en nosotros, o que es parte de nosotros. En realidad, es una forma de etiquetar el mal dándole una personalidad ajena, o tratándolo como algo que podemos separar de nosotros mismos. Pero puede ser simplemente el resultado del libre albedrío ejercido por seres espiritualmente inmaduros.

Si el propósito de todo ser es amar, servir y buscar la verdad, entonces en su punto más maduro y perfecto es a lo que llamamos Dios. El demonio es solo el otro extremo. Y según el nivel de madurez espiritual de un individuo, este se encuentra más cerca de un extremo o del otro.

Cuando líderes espirituales como Jesús dicen que Dios está en nosotros, debe ser porque tenemos el potencial de llegar a ser como Dios. Para ello debemos desarrollarnos espiritualmente: la regla de oro es el camino.

¿No os gustaría revivir experiencias? Si fuéramos todopoderosos, podríamos vivir una infinidad de experiencias. Y nosotros somos, en cierto modo, experiencias. Al final, debemos ser experiencias de Dios en esta simulación llamada vida.

Lump

I like a mug of milk with Cola Cao. And I like the lumps that form in it. This usually happens with cold milk, not with hot milk. I like to add some chocolate powder and play with my teaspoon — wetting the lumps, watching them absorb the milk. I take them out with the teaspoon and eat them. Then I add a little more chocolate and repeat the process.

It is a good way to be present in the moment. I watch and enjoy the lumps being wetted. I smell the chocolate. I hear the teaspoon entering the mug and stirring through the milk. I feel the teaspoon in my hand — and through it, the resistance of the lumps. I feel the lumps on my tongue and how they break apart. I taste the chocolate wrapped in milk, and then the pure chocolate that releases when the lump breaks. All five senses, fully in the moment.

That is a moment of relief — just relaxing, enjoying, and flowing. A moment of finding joy in small things.

Nowadays we eat while watching videos and scrolling through social media. We put food in our mouths and swallow it without being present, without joy. Why? We have become addicted to being entertained. It is also a trap disguised as efficiency — the feeling of being productive by doing two things at once, learning and eating simultaneously. But in reality we lose the present moment, and with it, the joy of food.

Afilar

¿Conocen la breve historia de afilar el hacha? Hay dos personas: una empieza a cortar un árbol directamente con su hacha, y la otra se detiene primero a afilarla. Al final, quien dedicó tiempo a afilar tarda menos en ejecutar el trabajo, y además se desgasta menos físicamente.

Esta historia nos enseña que es importante dedicar tiempo a prepararnos. Pero igualmente importante es evitar los extremos.

¿Cuáles son esos extremos? Uno es no prepararse en absoluto y lanzarse a la acción: tan impulsivos y torpes que quizás ni siquiera cogemos el hacha, y queremos derribar el árbol a cabezazos. El otro extremo es querer afilar tanto el hacha que nunca llegamos a cortar el árbol: nunca nos lanzamos a la acción, o lo hacemos demasiado tarde —cuando otro ya nos ganó—, o cuando ya no importaba que lo hiciéramos nosotros.

Para mí, estas enseñanzas deben estar inseparables. Solo así evitamos caer en dichos extremos. Hay muchas enseñanzas que debemos examinar con esta misma lógica: ¿es inseparable de otra en el contexto social de la época en que vivimos? Otro ejemplo puede ser el de la libertad: para que no nos lleve a la dictadura de los ofendidos ni al libertinaje sin responsabilidad. Hay más variables en el arte de afilar que debemos tener siempre presentes. Me hace pensar que ninguna virtud existe sola, siempre necesita una hermana que la equilibre o complemente.

Recruit

Do we need mandatory military service? I think it is not strictly necessary — if what we learn through it can be acquired in other ways, perhaps with the help of similar institutions. But in order to prepare and train society in certain areas, we should at least consider some aspects of it.

I do not think we need to be recruits just to learn how to march. My point is that we must be trained to know how to act in emergencies — natural disasters, dangerous environments, whether in the mountains, the desert, the sea, or the jungle. A couple of presentations from doctors or police officers on first aid or earthquake safety is not enough.

We must stop giving talks and put everyone into practice — in primary school, secondary school, university, and every few years after that, to stay ready and updated on current standards. It could take the form of a gap year between secondary school and higher education, or it could be distributed throughout mandatory schooling. Either way, we must be prepared. And critically — to avoid forgetting what we learn — we must repeat the training regularly. A week once a year, or a few weekends, where people come together, retrain, and practice rather than just listen.

This is true learning. And it is a way to build brotherhood and a mark of a wise society.

Listen

We spend years learning how to speak. But how much time do we spend learning how to listen? We learn how to speak and how to listen — and both require continuous improvement. In communication there is a sender and a receiver. As someone who wants to communicate a message, we must learn to improve our delivery and put effort into communicating as well as possible. Along the way we learn about melody, silence, body language, presentation, tone, types of audiences, and so on.

But as receivers of messages, we must also learn how to listen. We must put effort into understanding the message even when the sender is not communicating it well — because we can empathize with the fact that not everyone is a master communicator, and many are still learning. Also because good listening requires the humility and curiosity of a child: always open, always waiting to learn and understand.

Listening is a skill we need to develop as part of building the four foundation areas: health, security, justice, and education. It is an essential part of education in particular. And it will help us reach our goal of an ethical and brotherly society, as part of our purpose of loving, serving, and seeking truth.