Archives for category: altruism

I keep hearing about this issue and I can’t stop wondering about how parallel to each other are those defending this idea with those denying its merits.


-Robots are eating more and more jobs so more and more people will end up hungry.
-AI will make robots so productive that it will be far more efficient to use robots than human workers.
-A decent income is a human right.


-This is a socialist move, hence it will end up in failure – no other reason offered.

As it is obvious to all, both sides score big.

Yes, including ‘a decent income is a human right’ and ‘all socialist ideas end up in failure’.

Then what are they fighting each-other about?!?

Let me rephrase that.
WHY are they fighting, in the first place?

Because neither listen to what the other has to say… as simple as that…

Let me discuss some of the practicalities involved.

Robots eating up jobs and AI being able to continually increase financial efficiency are so evident that they do not deserve much consideration.

‘All socialist moves ended up in failure’.
We need to define socialism in order to make sense of this sentence.
Mainly because ‘socialism’ is one of the most abused words nowadays, on a par with liberalism. Sometimes they are even considered synonyms…
Well, ‘liberalism’ comes from liberty and  bona fide liberalism is concerned with individual freedom.
Socialism, on the other hand, comes from social. And is concerned with the the workings of the entire society.
The point being that there are two types of socialism. One which is ‘somewhat’ synonym with liberalism – the ‘reverse’ side of liberalism, actually, while the latter is the exact opposite.

I’m not making any sense?

Let me start from the other side.
All forms of socialism which have failed have been excessively centralized forms of government. And it was because of that excessive centralism that they had failed, not because of being ‘socialist’. The evident proof being that the same thing has happened with all right-wing dictatorships, which had used the very same excessively centralized decision making mechanism – the totalitarian government …

Which brings us back to the problem at hand.

For Universal Basic Income to work – or Guaranteed Basic Income, as some insist on calling it, it has to be financed.
Through taxes, right? Which means that those owning the robots would have to be somehow convinced to give up a huge proportion of their profits… Then why bother in the first place…? Why start any businesses, at all?
We’ll have the government run the whole show? Remember what history teaches us about centralized decision making?


Well, not all is lost while there’s still hope!

Let me rearrange the arguments.

We not only live in an inherently limited space, with inherently limited resources, but we’ve also finally started to understand our predicament. Which calls for as much efficiency as possible.
Only for a different kind of efficiency than that we’ve accustomed ourselves to.

Until recently, we’ve been trying to get as much money under our belts as possible. Without much regard for anything else.
That’s why we’ve been cutting down secular forests, feeding almost all the fish we’ve been pulling from the oceans to the domestic animals we were raising for their meat, polluting our breathing air, selling our fellow humans which happened to had a different skin color than ours into slavery… As if there was no tomorrow…

Slowly, we’ve started to realize that this won’t work for very much longer.

That no matter whether we’re responsible for the global warming – or if it’s real at all, sooner or later we’ll exhaust the planet.
OK, it is highly plausible that we’ll discover/learn to use new classes of resources.
But this eventuality doesn’t constitute, in any way, a valid reason for us to continue squandering the meager resources we have at our disposal.

Hence the need for increased efficiency.

Only this has to be a different kind of efficiency. The kind that focuses on minimizing waste instead of maximizing profits. The kind that recycles because it makes obvious sense, not because it is cheaper.

Along the same path we’ll discover that it would make a lot of sense to help the less developed nations to catch up with the most advanced ones.
For starters, because the ‘advanced economies’ no longer need cheap workers. They use robots instead.
Secondly, because better living people tend to have less children than those struggling to survive. And we’ve already agreed about the planet being rather limited…

Nothing too fancy… until now, right?

Well, the next item will be trickier..

Remember that Ford had raised dramatically the wages he paid to his workers?
With tremendous results?

OK, his reasons were not the ones, generally but erroneously, attributed to him.
He didn’t do it to ‘encourage’ his workers to buy cars from him… or because of philanthropy…

Actually, it was the turnover of his staff.

At the time, workers could count on about $2.25 per day, for which they worked nine-hour shifts. It was pretty good money in those days, but the toll was too much for many to bear. Ford’s turnover rate was very high. In 1913, Ford hired more than 52,000 men to keep a workforce of only 14,000. New workers required a costly break-in period, making matters worse for the company. Also, some men simply walked away from the line to quit and look for a job elsewhere. Then the line stopped and production of cars halted. The increased cost and delayed production kept Ford from selling his cars at the low price he wanted. Drastic measures were necessary if he was to keep up this production.”

But, whatever Ford’s reasons were, the long term results have been abundantly clear.
Nowadays people who build cars are being paid well enough to afford buying the same kind of cars they are building. At least in the advanced economies…

What happened was that Ford, in order to keep the assembly line going, paid his workers as much as he afforded to. With spectacular results.
While nowadays most employers tend to ‘compensate’ their employees with as little as possible. Which makes perfect economic sense… doesn’t it?

The same economic sense which used to drive us into “cutting down secular forests, feeding almost all the fish we’ve been able to pull from the oceans to the domestic animals we were raising for their meat, polluting our breathing air, selling our fellow humans which happened to had a different skin color than ours into slavery… As if there was no tomorrow…”

See what I mean?
Instead of attempting to mandate a ‘Guaranteed Basic Income’, calculated by the central government and financed through forcefully levied taxes, how about hiring as many people as it would make sense, let them work as little days per week as they want and pay them as much as we can afford to instead of programmatically replacing as many of them with robots and paying the remaining ones as little as we possibly can?

OK, some of us won’t get as rich, as fast, as our grand-fathers did… So what? None of us can eat even close to what our grand-fathers used to… and food is a lot cheaper, anyway…

This is would be a considerably shorter way to get more people out of poverty than any scheme concocted by any government and it would have the same snow-ball effect as Ford’s wage increase had.

Economists describe this as Rostow’s ‘take off effect’.


For attaining adequate finance for take off it is necessary that:

(a) The community’s surplus over consumption does not flow into the hands of those who will utilize it by hoarding, luxury consumption or low productivity investment out-lays;

(b) Institution for providing cheap and adequate working capital be developed;

(c) One or more sectors of the economy must grow rapidly and the entrepreneurs in these sectors must plough back a substantial portion of their profits to productive investment; and

(d) Foreign capital can profitably be utilized for building up social and economic overheads.”


Obviously, any attempt to instate a guaranteed basic income, (except for those too young, too old or otherwise un-able to pull their weight, of course) would grind any ‘take-off’ to a stand-still.

And no, getting people out of poverty is not a valid goal, per se.
Poverty is a relative thing, which relies more  on feelings than on hard reality.
The real problem with poverty is that it reduces the ability of poor individuals to lead meaningful lives. Poor people are a lot less autonomous than self sufficient ones, meaning that decision making ability is impaired by the fact that they need to focus their attention on the short term time span.

This whole thing has long term consequences on societal level.

Remember what I said about centrally planned socialist countries constantly failing.
About all dictatorships eventually crumbling under their own weight, because of too much decision power being concentrated in too few hands?

Excessive wealth polarization produces the same results. Economic decision becomes too concentrated, political decision follows through and…

What next?
The world has already experimented with communism. Didn’t work.
It also experienced two economic meltdowns, exactly when wealth polarization was at relative peaks.


When are we going to learn anything from what happens to us?
Why do we continue to waste the accumulated lessons collectively known as ‘history‘?



Pentru foarte multi dintre noi, 23 August are o valoare cel putin ambigua.

In orasele mari erau organizate manifestatii, la care oamenii muncii erau dusi cu forta si obligati sa ia parte la tot felul de ‘coregrafii’. Cu placute, cu steaguri…iar cei care se bucurau de increderea partidului primeau sarcini cu adevarat importante! Li se incredinta cate un portret al preaiubitului fiu al intregului popor…. Deh, slugarnicia se plateste…

Apropo de ‘prea-iubitul fiu…’ ‘Elementele dusmanoase’ pretindeau ca mama sa ar fi avut o moralitate cel putin indoielnica… altfel cum ar fi fost Ceasca ‘fiu al intregului popor’? Sa trecem peste… Gura lumii, sloboda… Sloboda, sloboda… sa fi spus eu bancul asta intr-o companie nepotrivita pe vremea ‘cealalta’… as fi avut mari sanse sa capat ceva ‘domiciliu obligatoriu’… si nu la Slobozia…

Pe de alta parte, eu nu prea sunt calificat sa vorbesc despre manifestatii din astea.
Am purtat barba de cum am terminat armata – aveam ‘botul imblanit’ chiar si pe livretul militar, nu ma ‘solicitau’ la ‘actiuni’… ‘tovarasul’ nu agreea ‘pilozitatile faciale’… asa ca barbosii erau sfatuiti insistent sa se barbiereasca. Iar daca nu pricepeau erau tinuti la fereala.

Sa recapitulam. Teoretic, era o sarbatoare populara. Clasa muncitoare primea o zi libera.
Practic, multi dintre ei o petreceau marsaluind sub un soare arzator… purtand in carca niste pancarte mincinoase… si fiind obligati sa strige niste  lozinci in care nu mai credea nimeni… Iar asta nu doar in ziua respectiva. Faceau si cateva repetitii pregatitoare… Ca de, totul trebuia sa fie perfect!

Si, de fapt, aproape nimeni nu mai stia cu adevarat ce se intamplase in 1944.
Nu ca le-ar mai fi pasat prea multora dintre ei …

Lipsa de inter5es nu provenea neaparat din defetism sau din descurajare. Aveau si astea contributia lor, nimic de spus, numai ca sursa nepasarii era in alta parte.

Propaganda oficiala se batea cap in cap cu memoria colectiva iar acest conflict producea confuzie.

Termenul tehnic este ‘disonanta cognitiva’.
Fenomen cu consecinte dramatice, mai ales la nivel social.
Un individ pus intr-o astfel de situatie are trei variante. Pur si simplu nascoceste o naratiune care sa rezolve conflictul in favoarea sa, se mentine intr-un echilibru precar dar pe care nu vrea sa-l paraseasca pentru asta ar insemna sa se scufunde cu totul in pacat sau, pur si simplu, innebuneste.

Nu pricepeti mare lucru?
La vreo cativa ani dupa ce comunismul fusese instaurat in urma unei operatiuni care a imbinat forta bruta cu inselatoria abjecta, liderii momentului au dorit sa anihileze orice potentiala dizidenta. Cu alte cuvinte, ‘opozantii’ – adica cei care nu pricepusera de buna voie, urmau sa fie ‘reeducati’.

“Împreună cu alţi câţiva deţinuţi dispuşi la compromisuri pentru eliberarea înainte de termen, manevraţi de înalţi oficiali din Securitate cu complicitatea administraţiei penitenciarului, Ţurcanu a condus ceea ce a rămas cunoscut sub numele de „experimentul” ori „fenomenul” Piteşti, în fapt torturarea continuă şi fără limite a altor deţinuţi politici pentru un dublu scop: smulgerea unor informaţii suplimentare despre activitatea împotriva regimului înainte de arestarea lor şi anihilarea fizică şi morală a victimelor, odată cu compromiterea lor.

Cum se proceda? După o perioadă de câteva luni de înfometare şi restricţii severe (de cele mai multe ori, inclusiv vorbitul era interzis, în timp ce insultarea şi lovirea de către gardieni erau locuri comune), un grup de deţinuţi era transferat într-o celulă în care găsea alţi condamnaţi. Noii sosiţi erau primiţi cu căldură şi prietenie, uneori transferurile fiind astfel realizate încât în cameră se reuneau membri ai aceluiaşi lot, foşti colegi de facultate ori prieteni. Plăcut surprinşi de atmosfera de relaxare din noua celulă, studenţii începeau să discute între ei despre studii, familie, prieteni sau despre activitatea anticomunistă care i-a adus în închisoare. Fraternitatea dura până când şeful camerei (Ţurcanu de cele mai multe ori) dădea un semnal scurt, fizic ori verbal: „Pe ei!”

Deodată, vechii ocupanţi ai celulei scoteau din locuri ascunse bâte, scânduri şi alte obiecte contondente şi se aruncau cu o violenţă greu de imaginat asupra celor cu care discutaseră amical până cu câteva momente înainte. Deşi şocul pentru victime era paralizant, bătaia colectivă putea dura câteva ore bune, fără să mai conteze cu ce şi unde se lovea: la cap, pe spate, în ceafă, în organe, nicio zonă nu era scutită, până când victimele zăceau într-o baltă de sânge. Violenţa acestei prime agresiuni neaşteptate era atât de mare, încât agresorii înşişi erau şocaţi, după cum a mărturisit Maximilian Sobolevschi: „s-a desfăşurat într-un mod îngrozitor, fiind bătuţi de la orele 7 dim[ineaţa] până la 15 în continuu cu pari, ciomege, curele, până la epuizare. În urma aceste bătăi au căzut 3 deţinuţi în nesimţire stând mai multe zile iar restul învineţiţi pe tot corpul. Pot spune că de o astfel de bătaie nici nu am auzit în viaţa mea, ea petrecându-se într-un mod bestial”.

În acest moment victimelor li se explica motivul pentru care au fost supuse violenţelor, şeful de cameră ţinând un mic discurs cu privire la necesitatea „reeducării” în spirit comunist, ceea ce presupunea denunţarea tuturor acţiunilor întreprinse împotriva regimului şi renunţarea la vechea lor mentalitate, responsabilă pentru situaţia lor de condamnaţi politic, în opinia agresorilor. Dacă acest discurs era încă destul de vag, următoarele solicitări din partea agresorilor aveau să lămurească pe toată lumea că nu era vorba nicidecum de o schimbare de mentalitate, de o adaptare benevolă la regulile noii societăţi, ci de lucruri mult mai abjecte: turnătorie, tortură continuă, blasfemie şi compromitere.

Primul lucru care li se cerea victimelor pentru a demonstra că nu mai sunt ostile regimului era să ofere declaraţii verbale şi scrise cu privire la întreaga lor activitate politică de până la arestare, insistând pe acţiunile anticomuniste şi pe cei cu care au activat. În fapt, li se cerea un supliment de anchetă, întrucât regimul ştia foarte bine că mulţi dintre cei deja condamnaţi tăinuiseră în cercetări multe persoane şi fapte. Cei mai mulţi refuzau să vorbească, conştienţii fiind că orice nume declarat putea conduce la arestarea respectivului, astfel că urmau alte reprize de torturi, atât individuale, cât şi colective. Erau schingiuiţi şi cei care denunţau doar parte din informaţiile deţinute, neconcordanţele fiind sesizate prin confruntarea cu declaraţiile celorlalţi sau prin cunoştinţele pe care agresorii le aveau despre cei torturaţi din perioada de relaxare de dinaintea începerii violenţelor. Victimele realizau astfel că prietenia şi căldura cu care fuseseră întâmpinaţi erau simulate, având doar rolul de a îi face să vorbească despre activitatea lor din libertate.
Dincolo de torturile fizice (bătăi la tălpi, la fese, călcatul în picioare, lovituri în stomac ori organe, statul în diferite poziţii fixe zile întregi, fără posibilitatea de se mişca etc.), şi celelalte episoade ale zilei constituiau prilej de chinuire a victimelor. Astfel, mesele erau servite fie prin turnarea mâncării fierbinţi pe gât, fie obligând victimele să se aşeze în patru labe, cu mâinile la spate, şi să se folosească doar de gură, ba uneori să şi guiţe ca porcii. Scoaterea „la program” (adică la toaletă) se făcea în grabă maximă o dată pe zi, iar cine nu apuca să îşi facă nevoile, era nevoit să şi le facă mai târziu în celulă, în gamelele din care mâncau, fără să aibă dreptul să le arunce ori să spele gamela, astfel că unii deţinuţi îşi îngurgitau fecalele de bună voie, pentru a putea primi mâncare. Dormitul era şi el un chin, victimele fiind obligate să stea în pat întinse pe spate, cu pătura până la piept şi mâinile deasupra păturii, ca să nu poată să se sinucidă. Dacă vreunul adormea şi se mişca în somn, plantoanele care stăteau de gardă peste noapte îi loveau violent cu ciomagul, ceea ce, coroborat cu tensiunea strânsă în timpul zilei în urma bătăilor, făcea somnul imposibil pentru mulţi dintre deţinuţi. Alţii nu au fost lăsaţi să doarmă în mod intenţionat timp de câteva zile, ajungându-se până la zece, cincisprezece în cazurile extreme, pentru a-i doborî fizic. La un moment dat a fost introdusă o nouă metodă de tortură – statul în poziţie fixă, care presupunea aşezarea în fund, cu mâinile pe genunchi şi privirea aţintită la vârful picioarelor timp de săptămâni întregi. La orice tresărire, deţinuţii erau loviţi cu bâta, însă după zile întregi de stat în aceeaşi poziţie fixă, mulţi dintre ei preferau (şi chiar căutau) să fie loviţi, pentru că astfel aveau posibilitatea de a se mişca măcar câţiva centimetri. 

Schingiuirile durau între câteva zile şi câteva luni, în funcţie de celulele în care erau aplicate (unele fiind mai mici, erau mai puţine victime), dar şi de momentul în care aveau loc, întrucât au existat momente de apogeu a violenţelor, după cum au existat şi perioade uşor mai liniştite. Bătăile continuau până când deţinuţii acceptau să ofere informaţiile cerute, la început verbal şefului de cameră, apoi în scris, într-o cameră special amenajată în acest scop (de notat că hârtia şi instrumentele de scris erau strict interzise în închisoare, însă agresorii nu sufereau de pe urma acestei restricţii). Ca o umilinţă în plus, din motive bine calculate, victimele erau obligate să aşterne informaţiile sub forma unor denunţuri benevole, pentru a da impresia colaborării cu regimul. Formula standard era „Subsemnatul… deţinut, în urma unui proces de gândire pe care mi l-am făcut singur, am ajuns la concluzia că am fost necinstit în declaraţiile mele date la anchetă în faţa Securităţii şi ţin din proprie iniţiativă să aduc la cunoştinţă următoarele”.”

Cred ca ati inteles mecanismul. Pentru a putea supravietui trebuia sa te ‘dai cu ei’, calcandu-ti in picioare insasi demnitatea ta de om. Sau iti asumai niste riscuri enorme. Ei bine, foarte multi dintre cei care alegeau supravietuirea – iar pentru asta trebuiau sa treaca de partea tortionarilor, isi modificau ‘setul de valori’. Ajungeau sa creada ca victimele, adica si ei insisi, erau cei vinovati pentru ce li se intampla. Foarte putini au reusit sa-si mentina o farama de luciditate in interior – in timp ce exteriorul lor se comporta dupa cum li se ordona, iar foarte multi au inebunit pur si simplu.

Trebuie sa fac o paranteza aici si sa ma intreb daca nu cumva adevaratii nebuni au fost cei care au reusit sa-si pastreze luciditatea atunci cand asistau la ororile pe care le savarseau ei insisi… dar asta e alta problema…

Ce vreau sa spun este ca trecerea printr-o astfel de experienta – atunci cand stii ca ce esti obligat sa executi/crezi nu este bine dar, in acelasi timp, sa nu poti face nimic pentru a aduce lucrurile pe fagasul normal, transforma pe cei mai multi dintre noi in niste umbre ale celor care am fost. Sau am fi putut sa fim…

E adevarat ca lucrurile mai depind si de intensitatea trairilor. Precum si de forta fiecaruia dintre cei in cauza.

Textul citat este o parte din descrierea facuta “experimentului Pitesti”, gasita pe site-ul cu acelasi nume. Ororile, pana la urma repudiate chiar de conducerea PCR, au fost comise intre 1948 si 1952.
Ei bine, fenomenul de disociere cognitiva – cel pe care se bazeaza de fapt ‘reeducarea’ de tip ‘Pitesti’ a fost descris abia in 1957 de Leon Festinger.

Si atunci, de unde au stiut tortionarii de la Pitesti – si cei care le-au dat mana libera, cum sa organizeze intregul ‘experiment’?

Bon, acum ca ne-am lamurit care e treaba cu disonanta cognitiva la nivel individual, sa vedem ce legatura este intre toata tarasenia asta si 23 August.

In scoala generala am facut istoria cu Bucataru. Asa il chema, de meserie era chiar profesor. Unul foarte bun!
Nu mai tin minte ce scria in manualul de atunci dar stiu ca profesorul Bucataru ne-a explicat, foarte exact si fara nici o urma de dizidenta sau de provocare, cum s-au desfasurat lucrurile. Pana la urma chiar asistase in direct la intreaga desfasurare. Avea vreo 20 de ani pe vremea aia… Chiar daca nu statuse ‘in primul rand’, nu avea cum sa nu tina minte lucrurile importante.

Dupa aceea, in cursul diversele sesiuni de invatamant politic la care am fost obligat sa iau parte, am fost ‘victima’ constantului  proces de intoxicare la care era supusa intreaga societate. Pe deasupra, in fiecare an – pe toate canalele media, ni se sublinia ‘rolul hotarator indeplinit de eroicul partid in momentele de apriga cumpana’…

Ei bine, memoria colectiva era depozitara unei versiuni cu totul si cu totul diferita fata ce cea care ne era prezentata ad nauseam.
Poporul tinea minte, de la radio, discursul tinut de Regele Mihai.
Stia ca acesta, la doar 23 de ani, avusese curajul sa-l destuie, privindu-l direct in ochi, pe  autointitulatul “conducator al statului” – un maresal de 62 de ani.
Acelasi popor fusese de fata atunci cand comunistii au falsificat alegerile din ’46, l-au alungat pe rege in ’47 si pe proprietari din casele lor in ’48. Si cand au fost manati, cu mitralierele, sa se inscrie in CAP-uri.

Tot aceluiasi popor i s-a povestit apoi o cu totul si cu totul alta versiune a lucrurilor. Despre cum comunistii au condus lupta anti nazista, despre cum acestia ar fi eliberat Romania, despre cat de bine era sub ‘inteleapta conducere a eroicului partid, in frunte cu…’

Sa nu te strici de cap?
In mod colectiv?
Si asta cu atat mai mult cu cat o serie intreaga de ‘personalitati’ trecusera, cu arme si bagaje, de partea noilor ciocoi? N-am sa ma apuc acum sa trec in revista… cititi si voi Capcanele Istoriei a lui Lucian Boia.

Revin cu intrebarea de mai sus. De unde au stiut comunistii sa confiste ziua de 23 August inca din ’45, ’46 daca Festinger a descris disocierea cognitiva abia in ’57?
Cum de au uitat aproape toti intelectualii evocati in cartea lui Boia de rolul atribuit ‘paturii superpuse’ de catre inaintasul lor, Mihai Eminescu? O fi zbarcit-o el cand vorbea despre ‘bulgaroii cu ceafa groasa’ si despre ‘venituri’ numai ca pe asta cu ‘patura superpusa’ a nimerit-o foarte bine!
Si exact asta era menirea intelectualilor – inclusiv a celor cu preocupari politice.
Sa rezolve disonantele cognitive, nu sa le adanceasca.

Sa ne conduca pe noi spre ‘lumina’, nu sa ne abandoneze prada celui ‘viclean’.

Da, stiu, aberatiile comise de legionari in numele aceluiasi ideal de perfectiune nu aveau cum sa ajute.
Da, numai ca si aberatiile legionarilor au purtat girul unor intelectuali…

Si atunci? Ne mai miram ca poporul nu mai stie ‘cu cine sa voteze’?

Ne revenim si noi odata?
Cica toamna se numara bobocii… din punctul asta de vedere 23 August e bine pus in calendar!

I’ve reached the conclusion that thinking and digesting have very much in common.

Citarum 2

We can’t do it by our own. Those of us who don’t cooperate/speak with those around them, don’t have what to eat or what to think about.

Both processes imply three stages. Identification, absorption, use.
We use cultural models to identify both our food and the important issues.
Absorption – through our gut/conscience, is both highly specific to each individual and governed by our common DNA/shared cultural traditions.
The ‘products’ of the digesting/thinking process are, again, used both in public as well as in private. Part of the energy we get from our food is consumed ‘cooperatively’ with our ‘coworkers’ while most of our thoughts end up either verbally expressed or put in practice.

Both processes, digesting as well as thinking, increasingly change the environment where we, and others, live.

Citarum 1

“Suntem o ciudată cultură a rușinii, în căutarea celui care ne-a făcut de rușine”

Vintila Mihailescu.

Tinerii din corporații, “care muncesc de le sar capacele”, au nevoie de țapi ispășitori pentru faptul că societatea românească avansează prea lent, iar țapii ispășitori pe care i-au găsit sunt țăranii și părinții, spune antropologul Vintilă Mihăilescu, într-un amplu interviu pentru PressOne.

In viziunea lui Mihailescu – care il citeaza pe Sorin Antohi, toate astea se intampla pentru ca ne complacem in starea de ” “bovarism cultural”. Ne visăm ceea ce nu suntem şi cădem în of şi jale pentru că nu suntem ceea ce ne-am dori, dar nu putem fi.

Ei bine, vom continua sa ‘nu fim’ atata vreme cat vom continua sa nu intelegem ca dorinta nu este, si nu a fost niciodata, suficienta.
Ca sa devenim ceea ce ne dorim trebuie, pur si simplu, sa parcurgem distanta dintre locul unde suntem si cel unde vrem sa ajungem.
Daca dormim in cizme, visand frumos, or sa ni se imputa, pana la urma, picioarele.

“– O altă temă a cărții este nevoia de miracole a societăţii românești. Se transferă ea şi în politică? Aşteaptă românii un lider providenţial?
–Ştiu la ce vă referiţi, e o întrebare pusă frecvent în sondaje, iar răspunsul este unul puternic: Da! Dar asta e o inducere a răspunsului.
Spontan, oamenii nu se gândesc la o soluţie, dar dacă li se serveşte răspunsul – Nu e aşa că vrei un tătic care să aibă grijă de tine și să te scape de belele? – Da, sigur că vreau!
Ce altceva să răspundă? În sensul ăsta, este o întrebare care induce răspunsul, iar acesta este unul general uman. În condiții de insecuritate, oricine visează la o “minune” care să-i confere siguranță și previzibilitate în viață.”

Si uite-asa am ajuns la mult mai spinoasa problema a lui ‘ce ne dorim’…

Adica ‘pornim, noi, pornim, dar incotro?’

Locul ala catre care tot vor unii sa ne porneasca… o fi bun pentru toti? Sau doar pentru cei cu ‘initiativa’?

Sa fie asta explicatia pentru numarul mare al celor care ‘au pornit’ peste granita?

Sa explice oare ‘selectia naturala inversa’ enormul numar de ‘guri deschise’ ‘ramas’ in fiecare seara in fata televizioarelor care transmit propaganda politica de ‘ambe sexe’?

Se pare ca avem mare nevoie sa-l recitim pe Eminescu. Vrem, nu vrem, ramanem ‘tributari’ – cititi articolul, ‘paturii superpuse’.
Cata vreme membrii acesteia se vor multumi sa se bata intre ei pentru cat mai multa spuza pe turta proprie in loc sa-si indeplineasca menirea inainte de a intinde mana dupa portia lor din spuza ‘nationala’…

“We are the last (semi) stable democracy on the planet without a universal health care system. Elsewhere in the world, health care is a utility taken for granted, like safe tap water or electricity. They pay for it, just like we pay for garbage service or highways, and it costs far less than our broken system. That is not an opinion. That is a reality easily revealed with a bit of travel. Like embattled cult members, we deny ourselves better policy outcomes to protect our deluded beliefs about the nature of markets and preserve our odd pathologies around race. That’s a choice we make…”

Chris Ladd,
Why Republicans Cannot Replace the ACA, Or Accomplish Anything Else,, Jul 20, 2017

ACA means “Affordable Care Act”.

‘Affordable’ for whom?

For those left out, of course…
And who was going to pay the difference?
Those already in, obviously…

See what I mean?

Health care can be seen in many ways.
As yet another opportunity for profit to be made – one of the best actually, since health is such a valuable commodity.
As a ‘social benefit’ extended by the society at large to (all?) its constituents. America already takes care of its elders, children and veterans, doesn’t it?
A combination of the first two. A free market where many independent health care providers cater for the needs of their customers – free to choose among the various providers – while the bills are picked up by a third party, financed through public contributions.

The only problem with the third option being our current obsession with money.
For as long as we’ll let ourselves be governed by the current mantra, “greed is good”, we’ll continue to perceive health care as nothing but yet another opportunity for some to get rich at the expense of everybody else.

How about an Efficient (Health) Care Act?
Opening the market – by allowing the patients to freely choose their doctors and by preventing  monopolies – would drive down the costs.
Cutting the middle-men – the insurance companies would no longer be needed since the public contributions would be collected by a public authority – would also help.

Would such a scheme work?
As I mentioned earlier, not before we give up ‘greed‘.
In order to trust yet another public authority with even more money we’d need at least some hope about that authority being populated by really honest people.
We’d also need many more ‘health care providers’ who actually love to help their patients – and make a decent living out of it – instead of so many people becoming involved with this ‘industry’ simply because it is among the very ‘rewarding’ ones.
And when I say ‘health care providers’, I mean all of them. Not only the doctors and the nurses – most of them do love their jobs and perform them almost heroically. (Some of/too many of) the Big and Small Pharma, (some of) the hospital ‘owners’, etc., etc….

Should we extend this scheme to other areas? Education, for instance? You bet!

Should we apply the same ‘weltanschauung’ to the rest of the economy?
Minus the ‘single payer principle’, of course?
Well, last time I read his work, Adam Smith was talking about “the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” and about “Moral Sentiments“, not about greedy individuals becoming filthy rich at the expense of their fellow human beings.

“In almost every other race of animals each individual, when it is grown up to maturity, is entirely independent, and in its natural state has occasion for the assistance of no other living creature. But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chuses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens. Even a beggar does not depend upon it entirely. The charity of well-disposed people, indeed, supplies him with the whole fund of his subsistence. But though this principle ultimately provides him with all the necessaries of life which he has occasion for, it neither does nor can provide him with them as he has occasion for them. The greater part of his occasional wants are supplied in the same manner as those of other people, by treaty, by barter, and by purchase. With the money which one man gives him he purchases food. The old cloaths which another bestows upon him he exchanges for other old cloaths which suit him better, or for lodging, or for food, or for money, with which he can buy either food, cloaths, or lodging, as he has occasion.”


Before proceeding any further, let me introduce you to two other, more distanced, cousins of ours. Gorilla and Orangutan.

Orangutan leads a semi-solitary life in the Bornean and Sumatran Jungle. They are fairly large animals, males tip the scales at 200 pounds or so, and need a lot of food. They eat mostly fruit and, in times of scarcity, bark, flowers, insects and eggs.
It was their ‘eating habits’ which had shaped their social lives:
Food is often scarce in the rain forest and that is why the orangutan is a semi-solitary creature. In times of great abundance of food, orangutans may use the opportunity to socialize and gather in small groups.
Because they live solitarily, the young siblings must on one hand learn ‘everything’ before starting their adult lives and they don’t have anybody to learn from but their mothers. Hence they stick around for longest. A baby orangutan will nurse until about six and continue to live with their mothers for a few more years. Two or three for the males, five or six for the females – on top of everything else the females have to learn “mothering skills” and for them the only way to do it is to watch their own mother taking care of the next sibling.
As a consequence of all this, the females give birth only once every 8 years, “the longest time between births of any mammal on earth. (This results in only 4 to 5 babies in her lifetime.)” Not a very efficient survival strategy, for the species I mean…

Gorilla has adopted a different feeding strategy.
This is actually a joke. It wasn’t ‘the gorilla’ which has ever adopted anything, least of all ‘a survival strategy’. The ‘adoption process’ had been fueled by chance, had been ‘censured’ by  the realities of their living places and was later labeled as “evolution” by Charles Darwin.
Coming back to our distant cousins, gorillas are even larger animals than orangutans.
300-400 pounds, for the males, versus 200. Hence they need even more food.
An adult Grauer’s gorilla male is estimated to eat 30 kg of plants every day, an adult female about 18 kg.” The difference being that gorillas eat a lot of leaves.
When they have the opportunity to choose, they will surely pick up fruit but they are much more adapted to eating leaves than orangutans are. As a consequence they do not need to ‘spread around’ as thinly as orangutans do, the young can also learn from the rest of the pack so females can give birth every 4 years instead of every 8.

Is there any link between all this babbling and the stated subject of your post?

Actually yes.

As gorillas and orangutans are teaching us, together is easier than each by its own.
Being able to give birth every 4 years is a huge evolutionary advantage over having to wait 8 years before becoming pregnant again.

But this is not all we can learn from our cousins.
Male gorillas, at 300 to 400 pounds, are formidable defenders. Their only enemies, except for humans, are the leopards.
Compare 350 pounds with less than 100 for a chimpanzee/bonobo male.
That would be a good starting point to figure out why silver-backs – mature male gorillas who despotically reign over their 1 to 5 females – can afford to drive out their sons after they become sexually mature while the chimpanzee alpha males, who lead troops of up to 50 members, will allow other mature males to live by – and to have intercourse with some of the females living in the same group.
The second reason being that gorillas eat, almost exclusively, plant matter, supplemented with some insects, while chimpanzees form hunting parties in order to catch, kill and eat other animals, including monkeys. And one can ‘graze’ by himself while hunting is way easier in cooperation with others.

Feeding habits can explain quite a lot, isn’t it?

Let’s make a step further and turn back, as I promised in my previous post, to the differences between chimps and bonobos.
Well, bonobos hunt, just as efficiently as the chimps do, only they are less inclined to murder their neighbors.
Just one suspected killing observed during “92 combined years of observation at four different sites“, for the bonobos. In the other camp, 152 killings, 58 directly observed and the rest “counted based on detective work“, gathered over “426 combined years of observation, across 18 different chimp communities“.
The second difference, that I find interesting in the context of ‘capitalism’, is the size of the ‘colonies’. Bonobos live in way bigger groups than the chimpanzees. 100 versus 40 to 60, I’m not sure whether this had any impact over the relative fate of chimps or bonobos but it is surely relevant for how capitalism works. Stick around.

One more ‘animal story’ and I’ll wrap everything up.

“We previously reported that chimpanzees were unable to optimally select the smaller of two candy arrays in order to receive a larger reward. When Arabic numerals were substituted for the candy arrays, animals who had had prior training with numerical symbols showed an immediate and significant improvement in performance and were able to select reliably the smaller numeric representation in order to obtain a larger reward. Poor performance with candy arrays was interpreted as reflecting a response bias toward the intrinsic incentive and/or perceptual features of the larger array. In contrast, the Arabic numerals represent numerosity symbolically and appear to promote response choice on the basis of abstract processing of numerosity, with minimal interference from the inherent properties of the choice stimuli. The present study tested the hypothesis that, for mixed symbol-candy choice pairs, the requisite processing of the abstract numeral may foster a mode of numerical judgment that diminishes the interfering incentive/perceptual effects of the candy stimuli. The results were consistent with this hypothesis. Whereas performance on candy-candy arrays was significantly below chance levels, performance on numeral-candy choice pairs was significantly above chance and comparable with performance on numeral-numeral pairs.”

OK, OK, don’t shoot the messenger… those guys were writing a scientific paper, not a blog post… let me ‘translate’ it in simpler words.

There is a relatively simple psychological test involving two bowls full of candy.
One of them containing more pieces than the other.
The test consists of a child being asked to choose between those two bowls, after being told that the candy from the chosen bowl will be given to somebody else and the candy from the second bowl, the unchosen one, will be given to the child. The test is repeated a number of times and most of the children, 4 year olds and above, learn quite quickly to point to the bowl containing the smaller number of candy.
If, instead of children, chimpanzees are asked to choose between the two bowls, they continue to point to the bigger number of candy, even after the umpteenth repetition.
Now here comes the really interesting part.
Dr. Boysen and other scientists from Ohio State University, had previously taught a chimp, Sheba, not only to count but also to read numbers. One digit numbers…
When Sheba was subjected to the test, using real candy, she had responded exactly as the other chimps had done before her. She was unable to wrap her head around the notion that she will get the candy from the OTHER bowl. But as soon as the researchers had replaced the actual candy with digits written on small cartons… bingo! Sheba had become a lot wiser and had very quickly figured out that choosing the bowl with the smaller number (of candy) was a far better option.

Let me put two and two together.

Our cousins, the great apes, have given us a valuable lesson about cooperation.
Orangutans have to raise their offspring as single mothers. A very time consuming process which limits the number of siblings to 4.
Silver-backs don’t need much help to defend their families. So they can afford to drive off any potential competition… but they cannot hunt. Or do anything else ‘in concert’ with their peers.
Chimpanzees have learned to tolerate each-other, to a degree. They can form larger communities and engage in cooperative endeavors. Hunting and warfare.
Bonobos have developed a very efficient method to quell tension which may appear among themselves and to subdue rogue members of the community, without actually killing them. With no apparent benefit… except for us…

History is telling us, shouting at us even, that authoritarian regimes are short lived. Shorter and shorter lived, as we come closer to the present day.
Ancient Rome had lasted for almost a 1000 years. 2000 if we take Byzantium into account.
The British Empire was de facto dissolved, more or less peacefully, after less than 500 years, along with the rest of the European colonial empires.
The Russian Czarist Empire had buckled under its own weight after some four centuries, reinvented itself as the Soviet Union and faltered again after less than a century.
The rest of the ‘modern’ dictatorships have crumbled even faster, with only two notable exceptions: North Korea and Cuba.

Mighty commercial ventures, which had seemed impregnable in their heydays, are now almost forgotten memories. From the British East India Company to the now infamous ENRON…

Yet humankind, as a whole, had fared better and better.
OK, we did bring a lot of ‘man made’ misfortune over our own, collective head.
Only every little piece of that misfortune had been produced and inflicted in an authoritarian setting.

From Alexander the Great (?!?) to Hitler, history is full of ‘leaders’ who had somehow convinced their subjects to foolishly follow orders. Eventually, everybody got killed in the process. The leaders as well as the hapless subjects…
From John Law – ‘the son of a Scottish banker, a gambler and playboy who had killed a man in a duel‘ before insinuating himself at the top of France’s financial establishment during the first part of the XVIII-th century, where he had orchestrated a “system” closely resembling a Ponzi scheme – to Bernard Madoff, the economic and financial history is full of ‘tycoons’ who have led their their subordinates, and a considerable portion of the financial markets, to utter disaster.

And some of us still consider that ‘greed is good’… Maybe they should read again about Sheba and the candy bowls…

I can hear some of them protesting: “In the real world, there is nobody to switch the bowls! ‘Finders keepers, losers weepers'”
Yeah, right… tell that to some of those who had won the lottery… “About 70 percent of people who suddenly receive a windfall of cash will lose it within a few years, according to the National Endowment for Financial Education.

Then why are we still so obsessed with money?
Like Sheba was with those candy?
Why do we collectively continue to behave like a bunch of three years olds?

Maybe because money have proved, over the centuries, to be very reliable tools?
Because profit has been a very good measure for a company’s ability to survive? If corroborated with other indicators, but that’s another story…

At some point I mentioned that capitalism only works if the market where its wares are traded is really free. Meaning that that market has to work under the rule of law and that nobody in that market should allowed to become so powerful as to dominate the others.

Well, that was a lie.
Actually, capitalism works anywhere.
Those running the late Soviet Union have tried to convince the rest of the world that monopolies might work.  Various ‘business men’, including some very successful ones, try to convince us of the same thing. “Competition is for losers” they say… OK, I can understand why they keep trying… That’s what the entrepreneurs are for! “To boldly go where no man has gone before.”
My point being that markets which are not presently free will become free with the passage of time. No matter what!
No political arrangement has ever been strong enough to contain a dysfunctional economy. That’s why the Soviet Union, and the rest of the communist camp, had crumbled. That’s why we have a crises every time the government, with the best intentions, abruptly intervenes in the economy. Or fails to do so and allows monopolies to exist for too long…

Capitalism actually works.
Look around us.
I could give you a myriad examples. I’ll settle for two.
Romania, which less than 30 years ago was struggling under the communist yoke, now has one of the fastest internet in the world.
Some 40 years ago, when my uncle had emigrated to America, long-distance  phone calls were so expensive that he barely afforded to call his mother more than twice a year… nowadays two people can chat for hours across the planet, for free, over the internet. With video…

How about we letting it do its magic without some of us trying to drain ‘undeserved advantages’ from the process?
And no, those trying to ‘drain undeserved advantages’ are not the real culprits for what is going on!
A really free market is not one where a big bully with a huge stick makes sure that nobody steals from its neighbor.
That would be the definition for a police state!
A free market is one where people organize themselves, hire a normal guy with a smallish stick to take care of thieves and then call him every-time when they see a robbery taking place.

Nowadays too many of us actually admire the thieves and try to bribe the guardian.
While the rest idly walk by, as if what’s going on under their own noses is not going to affect them in a very short while …

Humankind is a work in progress.

We’ve changed the planet we’re living on and we’ve changed ourselves.

We’ve invented the automobile and we’ve become more autonomous.
By driving we’re now able  to cover more space in less time, carrying a lot more with us.
To achieve that we’ve straddled the globe with seemingly endless ribbons of tarmac.
The changes which had appeared as a consequence of ‘automobile’ are enormous. Some conspicuously visible – the roads and our increased individual autonomy, a few less so – we’re not only more autonomous but also more ‘socially dependent’, building cars and maintaining roads depend on a lot of us ‘working together’, while ‘the jury is still out’ on yet others – global warming, for instance.

We’ve invented vaccines and we live longer and better. Small pox has disappeared, polio is likely to follow suit, being bitten by a rabid animal is no longer a death sentence and so on.
I don’t need to explain how this has changed us, right?

All these have come with some costs attached.
Thousands, if not millions, die each year in traffic accidents and many more are injured.
Children suffer side-effects after immunization.

What intrigues me is that we treat these two phenomena in two completely different manners.

We’ve introduced tough regulations when we’ve discovered that some car companies were cutting corners in their attempt to increase margins. We insist for wide-spread ‘call-backs’ whenever we hear about a batch of cars having systemic troubles. Some of us try to produce self driving cars – even if these would be somewhat ‘counter-productive’ – in our very orderly life, where many of us are reduced to following procedures, driving is one of the few areas where we still retain full responsibility.

Yet I don’t know of people dissuading their children from learning to drive or from buying a car. Even if some of them will, helas, die as a consequence of traffic accidents.

Then why so many parents refuse to vaccinate their children? Not only putting them into harm’s way but also extending a warm invitation for many diseases to make a dramatic come-back. Measles have killed tens of children in both Italy and my native Romania in the wake of recent anti-vaxxer militancy…

OK, there might be a back-lash against ‘big-pharma’. I can understand more indignation being felt against huge corporations profiteering from people being sick than against big corporations making a faster buck by selling ‘lemony’ cars… but why throw away the baby along with the bath water?

Why give away the shared safety of herd immunity instead of introducing better safety measures? Instead of cutting down to Earth the virtual monopolies which produce most of our vaccines, making it easier for the ‘safety inspectors’ to do their jobs?

One of the possible explanations being that vaccination is ‘prevention’ while learning to drive is a matter of improving one’s skills.

And prevention means paying the price up-front while having only an expectation for a possible pay-back while skills improvement is seen as something having a certain outcome.
Corroborate this with the ‘fundamental attribution error‘ and things become a lot clearer.

For those unfamiliar with this term, the whole thing boils down to how we tend to ‘apportion’ blame and praise. When something good happens to us we tend to attribute it to our skills while when something bad falls on our heads we blame the bad luck we had in that moment.
And this is only half the picture. When things happen to other people we tend to turn the tables. When something good happens to a guy we attribute it to his luck while when somebody is subjected to a misfortune we are inclined to believe that ‘he had somehow brought it upon himself’.

Hence we get sick only as a consequence of misfortune – but we consider ourselves lucky, don’t we? – while safety on the road depends exclusively on our driving skills.

In this situation blunt reason tells us to ‘let all the other children be vaccinated’, ‘constantly improve our driving skills’ and ‘check our cars often’.

Well, the same blunt reason tells the others the very same thing. That’s why they insist that all children must be vaccinated – individual ‘specifics’ must, of course, be taken into account, all drivers must be vetted and all cars checked periodically.


orientare sexuala

“Încă un SCANDAL SEXUAL în Biserică. ÎNALT PRELAT BOR, decăzut din rang din cauza ORIENTĂRII sexuale”

Fiecare dintre noi incearca sa se ‘adaposteasca’ la intersectia dintre trei realitati.

Una ‘exterioara’ noua, cea pe care alde Marx o numea “obiectiva” – adica existand in afara constiintelor noastre.
O a doua, existand in constiintele fiecaruia dintre noi – si diferita atat de cea ‘obiectiva’ cat si de fiecare dintre cele care vietuiesc in constiintele contemporanilor nostri. Aceasta realitate, ‘virtuala’, este, la randul ei, constituita din doua niveluri distincte. Unul ‘perceput’ – adica ce pricepem fiecare dintre noi din ceea ce se intampla in jurul fiecaruia dintre noi, si cel ‘dorit’ – adica imaginea pe care o ticluim, fiecare dintre noi, despre ‘cum ar trebui sa fie’.
Si o a treia, rezultanta, ‘cu voie sau fara voie’, a eforturilor noastre colective de a transforma realitatea ‘perceputa’ in cea ‘dorita’.

Este evident ca aceste trei niveluri pot functiona ca un cerc virtuos – si mare parte din istoria omenirii este un foarte elocvent exemplu in acest sens, sau unul vicios.
Ganditi-va la momentele de criza, aparent inexplicabile, care au punctat ‘marsul catre progresul omenirii’.
Debutul primului razboi mondial, de exemplu.

Si ce legatura are scandalul sexual din BOR cu toata chestia asta?

Cu diferenta dintre cercul virtuos si cel vicios?

Cu vreo 150 de ani in urma, Eminescu formula teoria ‘paturii superpuse’.
‘Destinul unei comunitati/natiuni este determinat de comportamentul celor chemati sa fie liantul ei social’.
A celor a caror treaba este sa faca in asa fel incat respectivul grup de oameni sa colaboreze.
Sa actioneze ca o natiune.
Sa nu cumva sa decada la stadiul de gloata amorfa.

‘Proprietarii de teren agricol’ din vremea lui Eminescu au fost intre timp inlocuiti de intreprinzatorii de astazi dar rolul lor a ramas acelasi. Atata timp cat acestia isi vad de treaba, economia reuseste sa ‘dea de mancare’ tuturor. Daca ‘latifundiarii’ ‘pleaca la Paris’ si ii lasa pe arendasi sa-si bata joc atat de teren cat si de tarani – sau atunci cand intreprinzatorii autentici sunt sufocati de ‘speculanti’, tara gafaie sub ‘botnita’ ‘ciocoilor vechi si noi’.
‘Invatatorii’ – adica cei chemati sa asigure o anumita coerenta in modul in care membrii unei comunitati se raporteaza la realitatea ‘obiectiva’, pot, si ei, sa fie preocupati de menirea lor sau, din pacate, se pot lasa orbiti de modernul ‘interesul poarta fesul’.
Politicienii, cei care ar trebui sa ajute diversele parti ale societatii sa se imbine in mod armonios, pot alege sa isi indeplineasca menirea. Sau pot fugi cu darul strans la nunta, lasandu-si mireasa cu ochii-n soare – si cu un maldar de vase murdare in brate. Sau, si mai rau, cu burta la gura.

Cam asa si cu ‘inaltii nostri prelati’…
Si mai e o chestie pe care nu reusesc sa o pricep.
Din cate stiu eu, de la o anumita ‘inaltime’ in sus, se presupune ca acestia ar trebui sa lase in urma orice preocupare de natura sexuala…
Si atunci, ce importanta mai are “orientarea” lor?!?

Sau oi fi eu cel a cui realitate ‘virtuala’ este complet disjunsa de cea ‘obiectiva’ a momentului…

Tocmai ce am gasit chestia asta in mail:

“Morala ZEN

Un cal deprimat se tolaneste pe jos si nu mai vrea pentru nimic in
lume sa se ridice.
Stapanul disperat, nereusind sa-l convinga sa se ridice, cheama
veterinarul. Acesta sosi imediat, examineaza animalul si zice:
– Aaaa, e foarte grav, singura solutie sunt aceste pastile pe care i
le vei da cateva zile; daca nu reactioneaza, trebuie eutanasiat.
Porcul a auzit totul si fuge la cal:
– Ridica-te, altfel se sfarseste rau !!!
Dar calul nu reactioneaza si da incapatanat din cap.
A doua zi, veterinarul vine din nou sa vada efectul pilulelor:
– Nu reactioneaza, mai asteptam o zi, dar cred ca nu sunt sperante!
Porcul, auzind tot, fuge din nou la cal:
– Trebuie sa te scoli, altfel vei pati mari necazuri !
Dar calul, nimic!
A treia zi, constatand lipsa progreselor, veterinarul ii cere stapanului:
– Du-te dupa carabina, a venit timpul sa-l scapam pe bietul animal de chinuri !
Porcul fuge disperat la cal:
– Trebuie sa reactionezi, e ultima ocazie, te rog, astia sunt gata sa
te omoare !!!
Calul se ridica, se scutura, face cateva miscari de dans, o ia la fuga
in galop si sare cateva obstacole.
Stapanul, care tinea mult la calul sau,foarte fericit ii spune veterinarului:
– Multumesc mult, esti un medic minunat, ai facut un miracol !!!
Trebuie neaparat sa sarbatorim evenimentul ! Haide sa taiem porcul si
sa facem o masa mare !!!


Morala Zen: Vezi-ti de treburile tale !!!”

Mi s-a parut a fi o poveste foarte interesanta.
Sugereaza, in subliminal, ca porcul ala era crescut ‘de frumusete’!
In realitate, porcii se taie la o anumita greutate. Sau cand se imbolnavesc.
Nu cred ca cineva ar taia un porc de dimensiuni nepotrivite pentru a sarbatori insanatosirea unui cal bolnav… poate a unui copil…
Iar daca tot ajunsese la dimensiunea potrivita pentru taiere… ‘intamplarea’ ca mai intai l-a salvat pe cal nu face altceva decat sa-l inobileze pe porc… si in nici un caz nu i-a scurtat viata cu mai mult de cateva zile!

Foarte multi si-au adus aminte de Olivia Steer.

olivia Steer ciudata

Steer îl citează pe controversatul politician Ninel Peia care afirmă că infestarea cu rujeolă “s-a făcut artificial şi intenționat de către agenţi cu dublă comandă”.
“Un fapt este clar: de la începutul anului, s-au descoperit circa 4.000 de cazuri de rujeolă, din care 17 s-au finalizat, tragic, cu moartea bolnavilor. Totuşi, în ce stat European se mai înregistrează o epidemie de proporţiile astea? Niciunde! Informaţiile mele spun că infestarea s-a făcut ARTIFICIAL şi INTENŢIONAT de către agenţi cu dublă comandă, agenţi dubli, cum li se mai spune. La Arad şi Nădlac se îmbonlăvesc copiii dar peste graniţă la Nagylak, Mako sau Szeged nici unul? Şi ungurii au grad de vaccinare mai mic cu 10% decât românii. Valul de rujeolă a generat ceea ce se şi intenţiona: un val de emoţie uriaş care ar împinge opinia publică la acceptarea rapidă şi fără mari dezbateri a Legii vaccinării”, a scris Olivia Steer pe Facebook, potrivit Antena 3.

Acelasi lucru se intampla in Statele Unite. Si acolo se manifesta o oarecare reticenta impotriva vaccinarii si, la fel ca in Romania, au re-inceput sa apara focare de infectie.


Toata chestia asta seamana foarte bine cu o vanatoare de vrajitoare.

In loc sa ne concentram pe cauza reala ale imbolnavirilor – neincrederea unora dintre parinti, ii acuzam pe cei care – cu naivitate, din dorinta de a-si face publicitate sau orice combinatie din amandoua, vorbesc mult despre lucruri pe care le inteleg pe jumatate.

Da, exista o legatura extrem de stransa, si extrem de evidenta, intre neincrederea in vaccinuri si campaniile de presa desfasurate de anti-vaxxeri.

Partea proasta este ca toate atacurile ad-hominem la adresa anti-vaxxerilor sunt, de fapt, atacuri indreptate direct impotriva gandirii de tip stiintific.


Sa o luam metodic.

Cunoasterea de tip stiintific se bazeaza pe ipoteze emise de cei care pun la indoiala consensul valabil la un moment dat si verificate de ‘colegii de breasla’ ai celor care au formulat acele ipoteze.
Daca respectivii colegi sunt de acord cu ipotezele analizate acestea devin teorii ‘acceptate de lumea stiintifica’.
Si ‘asteapta linistite’ ca niste alti ‘cârtitori’ sa le puna la indoiala si sa formuleze noi ipoteze, care, la randul lor, vor fi puse ‘in discutie publica’.
Iar tot acest proces se desfasoara, cel putin teoretic, intr-o atmosfera de transparenta si respect reciproc. Doate datele disponibile sunt puse pe masa si intre cercetatorii care se verifica unii pe ceilalti exista relatii de colegialitate. Repet, aici este vorba de teorie, locusul acela unde sunt evaluate doar ideile, nu si oamenii care le promoveaza.

Privind dintr-un anumit punct de vedere, cei ca Olivia Steer sunt un fel de ‘fluieratori in biserica’. Li se pare ca un lucru nu este la locul lui si atrag atentia celorlati asupra acelei ‘neregularitati’.
S-ar putea sa se insele – cum credem noi, cei care ne-am vaccinat copiii, ca este cazul anti-vaxxerilor.
Sau s-ar putea ca o cat de mica portiune din informatia vehiculata in jurul acestui subiect sa fie, totusi, valabila.

Si uite-asa ajungem la povestea cu Pastorul si Lupul… aia in care Pastorul se tot plictisea si, din cand in cand, striga ‘Lupul’. Iar satenii ii sareau in ajutor… numai ca lupul nu venise… Si asta pana cand satenii s-au plictisit la randul lor… si nu s-au mai dus… numai ca de data aia Lupul venise….

In varianta povestita copiilor, Satenii il ajuta pe Pastor sa adune, a doua zi, animalele ramase iar acesta intelege, in sfarsit, morala povestii… numai ca asta este doar o fabula…

In lumea reala trebuie sa sarim de fiecare data cand cineva striga ‘A venit Lupul’.

Nu de alta, ci doar pentru ca sunt oile noastre in joc! Iar pastorul ala este angajatul nostru. Adica este responsabilitatea noastra sa alegem un pastor responsabil, nu unul care sa-si bata joc de noi….
Iar daca un trecator ‘are vedenii’ si striga degeaba… asta e. Ghinion. Ne gandim la cate pagube ar fi putut face Lupul daca ar fi venit cu adevarat si mergem mai departe…
Singura situatie in care am putea sa-l pedepsim pe cel care tras alarma aiurea ar fi aceea in care ar fi evident ca a facut-o ca sa isi bata joc de noi. Altfel, daca pedeapsa e nejustificata, sau prea mare, acelasi om – sau oricare altii, ar putea intoarce capul si s-ar putea preface ca n-au vazut nimic. De ce sa-si riste ei fundul pentru ‘oile comunitatii’?
Daca Lupul pe care il vad in momentul asta ‘se razgandeste’ si nu-i asteapta pe Sateni?
Sau daca e ‘inteles cu primarul’, acesta ii conduce pe Sateni pe cai intortocheate si pana ajung la locul faptei Lupul are timp sa-si ascunda urmele? Nu mai bine sa se faca ca nu vede, avand in vedere experienta predecesorilor sai?

Bine, bine, asta facem cu oile… ce ne facem cu pojarul?
Nu de alta, ne mor copiii pana termini tu povestea cu oile…

Pai ce sa facem, cumparam vaccin!

In America, locul ala unde spuneam ca a inceput miscarea anti-vaxxer, parintii carora le vine mintea la cap au de unde sa cumpere o fiola de vaccin! Aici … mai greu…
Trecand peste amanuntul ca noi, toti, platim niste impozite. Din care ar trebui cumparate inclusiv vaccinurile care sa ne apere, pe noi si pe copiii nostri, de tot felul de boli…

Chiar credeti ca mama bebelusului cu care am inceput articolul stie macar cine e Olivia Steer? Ca sa nu mai vorbim despre faptul ca acum 16 ani, cand ar fi trebuit sa fi fost vaccinata ea, mama, nu vorbea nimeni despre aiureli din astea…

Si nu, nu sunt de acord nici cu vaccinarea obligatorie!
Avem medici, ei trebuie sa decida daca un copil poate sau nu sa fie vaccinat. Pe semnatura si responsabilitatea lor!
Vrei sa-ti duci copilul la scoala? Scoti de la medic o adevarinta ca acel copil a fost vaccinat. Sau ca nu a putut fi inca vaccinat din cauzele 1, 2, 3 … consemnate precis, cu data, in fisa medicala a copilului si cu angajamentul ca, pe masura ce acele cauze vor inceta, copilul va fi imunizat de indata ce se va putea.
Altfel… tine-l taica acasa… sa te intrebe pe tine ce si cum cand s-o face mai mare, nu sa-l imbolnaveasca pe al meu pentru ca ai tu gargauni in cap…

Si lasati-o pe Steer in plata Domnului… cu cat o bagati mai mult in seama, cu atat mai multe trasnai o sa spuna…

Cum or fi reusind astia sa ne indrepte pe tot felul de piste false…
Sau ne-o facem cu mana noastra?
Dupa principiul ‘tara arde si baba se piaptana’…

NB. “Pojar” asta inseamna, de fapt.
Iar ‘incendiul neincrederii generalizate’ nu poate fi stins atacandu-i, la persoana, pe cei care au curajul (inconstienta?) de a-si exprima sentimentele cu voce tare…
Ar fi similar cu a-i biciui pe canarii dusi in mina atunci cand gâfâie din cauza monoxidului de carbon acumulat in galerii…
Singurul remediu este redescoperirea respectului reciproc.
Intre medic si pacient, intre politician si alegator, intre specialist si profan, intre politicieni, intre specialisti, intre profani…

Acum au inceput sa se cearte pe ambulante, pe asta cu vaccinarea au lasat-o deoparte…

%d bloggers like this: