You won’t live long enough to understand the concept of locality? The reality is that people focus on what’s immediate and relevant to their own lives. This doesn’t mean global tragedies like Gaza are ignored—it just means they aren't prioritized the same way by people who aren’t directly affected. It’s like a dust storm on Mars. You don…
You won’t live long enough to understand the concept of locality? The reality is that people focus on what’s immediate and relevant to their own lives. This doesn’t mean global tragedies like Gaza are ignored—it just means they aren't prioritized the same way by people who aren’t directly affected. It’s like a dust storm on Mars. You don’t worry about it because it’s not your problem, but for a NASA engineer controlling a Mars rover, it’s a top priority. Context shapes priorities.
Personally, when it comes to conflicts, I care far more about Ukraine than Gaza. Why? Because Ukraine’s border is about 800 km away from me, and my grandma lives only 150 km from the border. The Russians have declared several times that they want to destroy and take over my country and would most likely try to do it if they succeed in Ukraine. For me, this conflict isn’t just theoretical—it’s a direct existential threat. So when I weigh international conflicts, Ukraine is so far above Gaza that it’s not even comparable in terms of importance.
Now, you’re probably tuned into "talking heads"—journalists, commentators, and experts. And let’s be clear—there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. Their job is to spin up a story, not in a negative sense, but in terms of creating emotional engagement. Their goal is to make the problem feel local by building an emotional connection, moving the issue higher in the public's mental ranking of priorities. This helps propel their own goals, be it advocacy, awareness, or political influence. Again, not saying that’s bad—it’s just how communication works.
But you need to be aware of that mechanism. Emotional narratives can amplify focus on a specific issue while downplaying others. It’s not necessarily manipulation; it’s about how issues are framed to capture human attention. Understanding that makes it easier to see why people don't react to every tragedy in the same way.
And for some perspective: every second, approximately 4.2 people are born and 1.8 people die, leading to a net population increase of about 2.4 people per second. The world is massive, with events constantly unfolding everywhere. It’s impossible to care deeply about all of them equally.
Assuming it took you around 69 seconds to read this response, in that time 290 people were born, 124 people died, and the global population grew by 166 people. Just something to think about.
I stand by what I said. Most of the world has been silent while Israel has slaughtered thousands of innocent Palestinians, including many children. When Russia bombed a hospital in Ukraine, the West was screaming, “War crime”. Israel has destroyed nearly every hospital in Gaza, with barely a mention from the corporate media and the politicians. The US cheered when an arrest warrant was issued for Putin. When an arrest warrant was issued for Netanyahu, OTOH, the US deemed it invalid and is working toward sanctioning the ICJ.
I understand your point of view, especially when you're expecting equality in how the world responds to tragedies. Look, I get it—I’m with you. For me, we’re all Homo sapiens, 99.9% genetically the same. But I’m Czech, and I’ve known my whole life that my life is considered worth less than that of a German, American, or Canadian. It’s not because I or anyone else in my country is less valuable—it’s about power and alliances. They have stronger "clans," and in this world, your value often depends on how much your clan is willing to fight for you.
That’s why I’m a Euro-federalist. APES TOGETHER STRONG!
But at the end of the day, we’re still just social and territorial animals. We compete for resources, land, power, influence—you name it. Nations protect their own first, and alliances form around shared interests. Expecting moral consistency in global politics is like expecting lions not to defend their territory. It’s all about survival and control, as it’s always been.
The only time humanity might overcome this tribal instinct is in the face of an external existential threat—something that puts all of us at risk and forces us to work together for survival. History shows that without such a threat, group priorities will always come first, and self-interest will dominate politics.
I know it’s frustrating, but that’s the reality we live in. Power, not fairness, shapes the world. Always has, always will.
You won’t live long enough to understand the concept of locality? The reality is that people focus on what’s immediate and relevant to their own lives. This doesn’t mean global tragedies like Gaza are ignored—it just means they aren't prioritized the same way by people who aren’t directly affected. It’s like a dust storm on Mars. You don’t worry about it because it’s not your problem, but for a NASA engineer controlling a Mars rover, it’s a top priority. Context shapes priorities.
Personally, when it comes to conflicts, I care far more about Ukraine than Gaza. Why? Because Ukraine’s border is about 800 km away from me, and my grandma lives only 150 km from the border. The Russians have declared several times that they want to destroy and take over my country and would most likely try to do it if they succeed in Ukraine. For me, this conflict isn’t just theoretical—it’s a direct existential threat. So when I weigh international conflicts, Ukraine is so far above Gaza that it’s not even comparable in terms of importance.
Now, you’re probably tuned into "talking heads"—journalists, commentators, and experts. And let’s be clear—there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. Their job is to spin up a story, not in a negative sense, but in terms of creating emotional engagement. Their goal is to make the problem feel local by building an emotional connection, moving the issue higher in the public's mental ranking of priorities. This helps propel their own goals, be it advocacy, awareness, or political influence. Again, not saying that’s bad—it’s just how communication works.
But you need to be aware of that mechanism. Emotional narratives can amplify focus on a specific issue while downplaying others. It’s not necessarily manipulation; it’s about how issues are framed to capture human attention. Understanding that makes it easier to see why people don't react to every tragedy in the same way.
And for some perspective: every second, approximately 4.2 people are born and 1.8 people die, leading to a net population increase of about 2.4 people per second. The world is massive, with events constantly unfolding everywhere. It’s impossible to care deeply about all of them equally.
Assuming it took you around 69 seconds to read this response, in that time 290 people were born, 124 people died, and the global population grew by 166 people. Just something to think about.
I stand by what I said. Most of the world has been silent while Israel has slaughtered thousands of innocent Palestinians, including many children. When Russia bombed a hospital in Ukraine, the West was screaming, “War crime”. Israel has destroyed nearly every hospital in Gaza, with barely a mention from the corporate media and the politicians. The US cheered when an arrest warrant was issued for Putin. When an arrest warrant was issued for Netanyahu, OTOH, the US deemed it invalid and is working toward sanctioning the ICJ.
I understand your point of view, especially when you're expecting equality in how the world responds to tragedies. Look, I get it—I’m with you. For me, we’re all Homo sapiens, 99.9% genetically the same. But I’m Czech, and I’ve known my whole life that my life is considered worth less than that of a German, American, or Canadian. It’s not because I or anyone else in my country is less valuable—it’s about power and alliances. They have stronger "clans," and in this world, your value often depends on how much your clan is willing to fight for you.
That’s why I’m a Euro-federalist. APES TOGETHER STRONG!
But at the end of the day, we’re still just social and territorial animals. We compete for resources, land, power, influence—you name it. Nations protect their own first, and alliances form around shared interests. Expecting moral consistency in global politics is like expecting lions not to defend their territory. It’s all about survival and control, as it’s always been.
The only time humanity might overcome this tribal instinct is in the face of an external existential threat—something that puts all of us at risk and forces us to work together for survival. History shows that without such a threat, group priorities will always come first, and self-interest will dominate politics.
I know it’s frustrating, but that’s the reality we live in. Power, not fairness, shapes the world. Always has, always will.