User:אלכסנדר סעודה

Name: Alexander Sauda, אלכסנדר סעודה

Birth: 16/11/1984, Saint Petersburg Union Soviet Socialist Republics.

Live in: Kiryat Ata, Israel.

Member in the environmental organizations Green course, Zalul Environmental Association", Greenpeace, Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel.

My Facebook page.

One of the contributing autors to Israel and Climate Change: A Policy Proposal for Israel’s Government Examination of Adaptation and Litigation.” the book of recommendation to the Israeli Government about needed measures on Mitigation and Adaptation to Climate Change. Now I participate in the group 50 by 30 in the israely climate forum with the aim of concieve recommendation how to reduce GHG by 50% by 2030.

All what I write in Wikipedia I write by my own will, not by the will of any of the mentioned organiztions.

What I want to write on Wikipedia
There is some code that try to decipher the creators of world religions, philosophes, creators of social movements: what are the rules that humanity should follow for being happy and so on. I also want to try. It is difficult to find a better time for as scientists say humanity is in the most dangerouse point of its history. I think that it survivle depends mainly in solving this code. I think that if the code will be deshipers enough fully, all will accept the rules willingly. I will write what I want to prove below.

I will try to make the text in encyclopedic style not activist style because it is more according to the rules of Wikipedia and because when you try to accomplish such a mission activist style is not appropriate. I will try to avoid writing about concrete political leaders, parties and so on.

Why Wikipedia?

In my opinion Wikipedia is the best tool for saving humanity not only because it is, maybe, the most popular site.


 * I can write things in a post, a book, a flyer but it is my opinion and someone other can write something other. Even in Eco-wiki when I writed for several years, in the "about" section is written than some ideas will be forwarded and some not. In Wikipedia you have to prove what you are saying. Only in my profil I can write an opinion. It is a site dedicated to reflect the Objective reality. In my opinion all what I write in this section is an objective reality that can be proven.


 * A research is concentrated on a specific theme, when we need to deciper the entire cod.


 * Considering that everyone can edit Wikipedia, this is the most democratic tool.

Declaration

I will not force people to follow the rules. You can say to people what should be done for being saved, but if you will try to save by force it will yield bad results. Among others, if I will try to force them, they will follow less.

In the beginning I tried to argue with people who looks to me as paid editors for some millionaires and billionaires. Later I stopped and I will try to avoid it. If he is a good faith editor I will gladly discuss with him and even admit that I am wrong if he will prove it to me. If seems that he is not, there is no sense to argue or try to make sanctions on him because it is sensless to save people by force as I have written. I believe that the first to blame was, are and will be always, the first to suffer.

General

I think that God when he create the world give to humans some rules, generally known to everybody, and only if they live according to them they can exist and be happy. Those rules except the well known rules about relationships between people, include some rules about relationships with animals, plants, Microorganisms: no killing without need, no torture, no intervention in their love relationships. I think that the existence of God is the highest achievement of human experience and logic as a natural consequence of 2 theses:


 * There are some common rules that humans should live according to it.
 * Those who live according to the rules live better than people who do not do it.

Everyone who admits these 2 thesis believe in some intention in the creation, e.g., believe in God consciously or not.

Theodicy

Question:

Why God allow evil?

Answer:

The interest is in making efforts to follow the rules how much more and those who follow them the most deserves to be happier. If all was always perfect from the beginning no one could make an effort to follow them, no one could deserving anything. If everyone could get food, litteraly in the first second when he feel hungry, litteraly without any labour, he could not get pleasure from food. Because of that people are made in a fashion that in this case all will die from bordom. Because of it he create the animals so sometimes they eat one another. The presence of predators benfites prey not only because of usual causes mentioned in science but also simply because give them the possibility to experience "sharp emotions" for those people are making extreme sports for example. This not justify violence betwen peoples - this is violation of the rules, as the rules for people are different from the rules to animals. The war is not giving happiness to any side even the contrary and lead to a dissapearing of the entire species.

Question:

Why it often seems that people who follow the rules more are less happy?

Answer:

People who follow less the rules are generally less happy( search "Depression Higher in Rich Countries, Study Suggests" for example). I do not think that depression is simply less measured in places with little money because findings show that even in places with well established medical statistics still places with more money have higher rate (look for example "איחרו את הרכבת: התשובה לזינוק המחירים בבת ים, ואיך היא קשורה לדיכאון?").

The main cause why it often looks in other fashion, is the tendence of responding to evil by evil - war. When a bad group attack good group the best is remove the reasons that make it bad and convert it and for this the first thing is totally and globally destroy military weapon. Sadly the good group mostly prefer to try make evil in response and as it is better than the bad group, it of course or loose in the competition or need to became worse than the bad group for win. This is not mean the the winning (worse) group became happier, even the contrary.

One of the most obvious examples I know is the extermination of 55-56 million indians by the europeens in the 16-17 centuries. The main fault of indians is that, even thaught they were better placed than the colonizators to understand it, they did not tried even to destroy their weapons and the factories that produce it and then travel to other parts of the world and do the same (if they could arrive to the easter island they can do this). Instead they try to kill back and as they was better they could not do it as good as the colonizators. For each killed colonizator there were 1,000 killed indians what means that the indians were 1,000 times better than colonizators.

This does not mean that the colonizators remain without punishment. The first punishment was (as it is described in the history of Indias that conquistadors practically never became rich but always suferred from misery, sit in jails, die from hunger, sometimes in brocade clothes. The second was the arrival of syfilis and other diseases to the colonist and after to europe, the third the attacks of the english, hollande, french corsaire, the fourth very strong inflation that destroyed the hidalgo as a class and make the spanish king bankrupt 3 times in the 16 century. The fifth was the little ice age linked to the changes in the number of population due to the conquista (search "56 Million Native American Deaths Caused by European Colonizers Changed Earth’s Climate, Study Says" for example), that striked those who profited from the massacres without risk (northern europe countries) even more than those who massacred. The overall amount of casualties from them was not less than 55-56 million.

(This does NOT mean that the corsaires make good attacking the colonists -the contrary is true. One violation of rules make more probable another what make the overall situation worse and if the people from northern countries made the spanish to repentir and stop attacking the indians than it would be good)

Other cause is that people often get wrong about what is allowed and what not, for example, violation of laws of love make some people think that love is forbade what is of course false.

Question:

''And why little children die? they are not guilty.''

Answer:

This shown the collectivity of human survivle or loss. Children altough still can not follow or not follow the rules, survive only because others follow the rules. They lost when others do not follow them. For the same reason one human, group, country can not survive climate change only by trying to save himself, without trying to save the others. For example destroying weapons only in one place will not help it must be done globally and simultaneusly.

Consistency of Creation

The creation is consist. Those who are thinking there is inconsistency in creation do not understand it.

History

I think that Darwin proved mostly that the rules apply to animals also. Some examples:


 * Animals who do not take too much are living beter - in that case they have enough what to eat and less chances to be catched.


 * The animals that cooperate are living better that those who do not and develop better intelligence ( mean thinking capability): Bees, Ants, Wolfs.


 * The animals who perseverate in surviving are living better.


 * The animals who listen to the elderly are living better.


 * The animals who invente creative solutions, are living better, like Beavers.


 * Parasits degenerate.


 * Monogam animals like Swans are generally less kiled by hunters if it because they are more beautifull or because less tasty.


 * In the book "The childrens of captains grant" it is written that the meat of guanaco is disgusting if the animal ran for long time before being hunted. If it is true, this mean that hunters who know it, will not hunt an animal who is very perseverate to survive and run for it a long disatance when they ran after him.


 * The more consciousness is the animal (and consequentely the hardest is the death to it) the more chances for survivle it has.


 * The higher the animal get, the more good or bad he can do and the bigger is his responsability.

All this prove better the existence of God that the theory that was before Darwin that animals are stack in the same position without chances to go up. The splits between different trajectories of evolution is explained in my opinion by the by diferent choises taken by different subjects of the same species in similar situation.

Humans arrived higher than others. They appeared according to scientists approximately 5-2.8 millions years ago. Their history can be divided into 4 parts.



The first period is from the creation of humanity 5,000,000 years ago and until 5,000 years ago, In this period, in another words through 99.9% of their existence the level of accomplishing the will of God and consequently the life level generally went up, people generally lived in relative harmony wich each other and nature. Homo Sapience with full scale conscient behaviour arrives 300,000 years ago and live in the same way until 5,000 years ago. This proves that humans are not bad or nature destructors by their nature. In all this time people do not take more than they needed, did not created surplus product therfore could justify before God even fishing and hunting among others by: "We do not have other choise for survive".

The transition from Apes to Humans began with increasing following of many rules including fewer agrresivity, monogamy, parental care, societal organization, what was felt already 4.4 millions years ago.

The transitions proves, in my opinion, what define what, from being and consciousness.

Firstly, if from 100 monkeys, 10 were get into different conditions than others and changed while the other 90 rest the same, than being was the defining. But, the change occur in vast territory through very long time and in the same conditions some monkeys changed to humam and some not what proves that to do or not to do the brain effort to improve relationships, to make tools etc., defined being.

Secondly the change in relationship between each other, socialization, came first (4.4 millions years ago, while first stown tools appear later (3.4 millions years ago), what means that consciousness is the definer.

People have the right to gather plants they begun to gather milions years ago, grains at least 105,000 years ago, with generally good results.

I think that people have a right to kill animals only as self defence or hunting, only in tools that are really needed for doing this like Bow and Arrows for example. This make it a competition (like hunting one animal by another) and this known as benefitting prey and predators. For millions of years people do this without making damage to the biosphere. The attempts of animals to eat humans at some degree benefited humans even more than animals. Hunt in this period was for subsistence therfore for example, if an animal was klled for food, its skine and wool was used for clothes - so no killing specifically for clothes.

People learned to controle fire, invented more than 100 inventions only in Paleolithic without making damage.

2-3 million years ago people begun to use wood for building. More then 1 million years ago they begun to use it for warming and cooking. In this period they use mostly dead wood - trees dead from natural causes of fallen branches because that was much easier than cut a live tree. This is one of the causes, they do not need to extract a huge amounts of metals with all it consequences. Probably the extra snag that forest produce what leads to wildfires if people are not collecting it, is an adaptation of the forest to the practice of using this wood to make fire.

Homo sapiens appeare 300,000 years ago.

Slowly people begun to understand deeper the reality. They begun to see that a person which respect others, respect parents, do not attack the disabled, live better, see similar pattern in others and understood that there are some rules and some force that enforce them. So faith begun to appear sevral dozens of thousands years ago.

People have the right to use metals. The did it from [| 40,000 years ago] with generally good results. In this period they did not use it in too big quantities therfore without significant environmental consequences. Gold and Silver in this epoch were blessing - beautiful metals that helped to make life better.

People have the right to use different materials to processe them like ceramic for example. They do it for 26,000 years with good results.

People also have the right for live in symbiosis with animals meaning willingly taming, willingly use as guards, helpers in hunting, transport en exchange for food, water, protection. People did this from 23,000 years ago genearlly with good results. It is forbidden for people to kill a tamed animal except as a self defence and in this epoch this rule was followed generally, among other because there was a few of them in each human group.

People can wait until tamed animals will naturally have offsprings and take the milk that will rest after them. They do this from 12,000 years ago with good results in general. When people begun to domesticate other animals like caws it was mainly for this because in this time each family had so few animals, than if you kill a caw there was no garantee that you will have new in your life. On of the proofs is that hoe agriculture despite hurder than plow agriculture, was mainly women preocupation because mens was busy in hunt - this was the main source of meet in these times. The first civilization in Syberia who surely used tamed animals use cattle, sheeps and goats who can serve as milk source and horses but not pigs who generally serve only as meat source.

People have the right to choose from number of plants the plant with the best taste, to plant his grains give him natural fertilizers, protect him from drought, strong winds etc. From 11,500 years ago people did it with generaly good results, like it can be seen at the early history of the Amazon rainforest (search "Is the Amazon forest man made?" for example).

11,000 years ago people begun to build cities generally with good results. Search "Ten of the Oldest Cities in the World" for example. The cities were with beautifull streets, tumples, societal buildings. They was without surplus product, therfore without trade, therfore without full labour division.

People have the right to use the wool of animals for closing without killing them. It is even better than kiling animal for use his skin as a clothes, therfore the invention of the loom 50,000 - 8,000 years ago was a great thing.

In this period great civilizations was built like Halaf civilization, The Ubaid civilization, Cucuteni–Trypillia civilization, Comb Ceramic civilization, Yangshao civilization, Peiligang civilization, Bell Beaker civilization, Taino civilization, Ciboney civilization, Afanasievo civilization. In my opinion, everyone can see that, for example, the jars made in part of these cultures are much more beautiful that those maid today and, in my opinion, better state of art can exist only in better society.

In this period people generally do not have war among others because:

1) they do not take more than needed and therfore have enough

2) do not have to much free time and force

3) do not have military weapons

4) can not survive with conflict inside tne collective.



Sadly, in the second period from around 5,000 years ago to the year 1750 approximately, things changed. In that period the level of accomplishing the will of God and consequently the life level generally go down. In that period people continue to make good inventions - writing, wheel etc. But in this time already not all the inventions were good.

People do not have the right to kill animals or plants without need, to hurt them without need, to intervene in their love relationships.

In that period they begun to violate those principles for taking more than the amount needed for best life level - I call it surpluse product, with less labore needed for best life level (good for health). Mainly by:


 * Using tamed animals for meet. For this keep animals in cage for all their live, because people was too lazy for hunting.


 * As it demands more animals disturb their love for increasing number also for change artifically their weight amount of milk etc (domestication". For example in the Maykope culture "the share of wild meet drastically fallen" probably because people begun to use tamed animals for meet around 5000 years ago while animals was tamed already in the precedent culture and was used mostly for milk from around 7,000 years ago. Search "Молочное животноводство в предгорьях Северного Кавказа появилось уже 7 тысяч лет назад" for example.


 * Intervene in the love relationship of plants make hybrydisation.


 * Cutting forests, destroy whetlands because they was too lazy for go 300 metres and make the field in the open space.


 * When they begun to produce metals in huge quantities, begun cutting live trees for cooking or warming the houses, only because were to lazy for going several hundreds meters to find snag, fallen branches.


 * As for all this they needed much more metals metal extraction turn to mining and metal working to metallurgy wwith all it environmental and social consequences.


 * Destroy soil with deep plowing because they want to work by their own to keep all for one family without cooperation. Without it, cooperation is needed for good harvest.


 * Destroy trees by thinning, only because people was to lazy to climb on high branches for fruits.

All this can not be justified by survivle, because always was linked with the appearence of surplus product (more than needed) - appeared exactly in this time.

All this begun to:

1. Destroy ecosystems what leaded to lack of resources, therfore to clashes.

2. Provided people with the surplus product and surplus free time needed for wars.

3. Made people more cruel: hunt, a fair fight, is not the same as slaughtery.

4. Deprived people especialy young from the possibility to get adventures for showing how they are brave and strong by hunt, so they begun to do this by war.

5. created the impression that now people can survive without mutual help even thought in reality it only reduced their chances to decent life.

When military weapon was created the viciouse cycle described below begun to function.

Even when animals kill each other in the same puck it reduce their chances to survive. When humans kill each other it reduce the chances for survivle of the whole specie and the whole biosphere. A war is a competition who will violate the rules of God more. The worse group, who violate it more, wins. Groups that tryied to stop agression, try to oppose with weapon and not with destruction of all the weapon globally (what they should do), so they fail, because regime based on animal and plants abuse will always have get bigger professional army and more weapons, among other because it will have more Surplus product.

The wars make humans violated many rules, among others, they robbed for getting more then they need while working less then they need - slave holders etc. It created poverty in one side and overconsumption in the other while both sides were not happy. The people who violated the rules more were the less happier what is shown for example in Dialogue of Pessimism and Dispute between a man and his Ba while the most known example is Ecclesiastes. Peasants, at least, have some brotherhood, a king (before kings became only a symbole) could not trust his brother. Despite this, the principle continue to expand because those who opposed, try to oppose with weapon and not with destruction of all the weapon globally, so they fail because regime based on robbery will always have get bigger and more effective professional army and weapon, among other because it will have more Surplus product.

A leader of the agressive group who want to became less agrresive knowed that if he will do it, he will have less military potential and as the violation of rules against animals create permanent war, all time as those rules are violated and weapon exist, he will get the destiny of Urukagina. They sincerly (even though falsely) believed that what are doing is good. The assumption that the agressor is feelling better than the killed victime made the false impression as it is the victime who violated the rules and the agressor followed them (even though when someone commited a murder inside the group they punished it even though in this case also the agressor is feeling himself better than the victim). And when as result of their agression bad things begun to happen to them they do not understand from when it came and could not therfore solve the problem.

Therfore the evil spell cast on humanity 5,000 years ago include 4 parts:


 * Killing animals and plants without need for reaching more than needed with less labour that needed+


 * Torturing animals, plants for reaching more than needed with less labout than needed+


 * Disturbing love in animals, plants for reaching more than needed with less labout that needed+


 * Doing all this between people as a result of the 3 others and responding to this by the same by military weapons=


 * Permanent increase of violation of the will of God.

The formule described above is the cause. Wars, exploitation, imperialism, poverty, etc., are the effects.

As all this created money in this point gold and silver from a blessing became a curse for people and environment.

Of course, the transition did not occured in one day. It taked generally around 1,000 years. It not occured in all places simultaneusly of course. In Italy for example it occured 2,000-3,000 years ago, in Britain 2600 - 2000 years ago. Search "Britain BC Episode 1" for example. In the Canary Islands 600 years ago. Probably because of it before 600 years ago, they was known as the happy isles. In this context it is interesting what Plutarch tell about Numa Pompilius: he became the elected ruler of Rome 2,700 years ago when the transition was not completed in Italy - and arrived to make life in Rome normal to 43 years. 400 years later when the transition was already more complete in Italy his books (calling to peace justice etc., probably) was found - they were burned.

There are people who think you do not need to eat meat products with milk products and has some aversion to pigs. I think this is because of this: people has learned that if you tame an animal for milk you should not use him for meat and pigs was tamed mainly for meat, while you do not have the right to kill a tamed animal.

As surplus product need crimes enver plants, animals and human for being produced, the more surplus produxt was produced the more crimes were commited. Ancient slaveholders produced more GDP than China, Shumer, Egypt in this period. This is because they related on slaves when in the east it was more like Serfdom. This is not against democracy: In anscient Greece and Rome the layer of those who violated the rules was ticker therfore they made a system for have a council between them. When they expanded their conquest very much the layer became thinner in relation to the masses of subjects so democracy dissapear.

In ancient Greece and Rome more surplus product was produced in relation to Middle age when it became lower, after in the Renessance it rised again. Consequently in ancient Rome and Greece people relied on slaves in the Middle age on Serfdom and on Rennesaince slavery return (Blacks, Indians). This is not mreaning that all was worse in Rennesainse in comparison to Middle age. For example the often washing in Renessance destroyed Leprosy. But in average, in my opinion life on moyen age were less bad than in anscient rome or rennesaince. What they do thene was generally a banditism but not genoside. In many big battles the number of casualties was much smaller in this period. Probably cristianity have some relation to that (I am not a cristian, only think it was better then the ideology of anscient rome and renessance when "humanism" include often justification of human vices).

In the period between 5,000 years ago and the year 1750 around 75% of inventions were good for example wheel, ideografic writing, mirror, scissors, Scythe, book. Sadly, the other 25% (military weapons, money, plow and more) were so bad that the overall life level declined through this perios even though the life expectancy increased.The decline in life level is described in the writings of Most contemporain historians (Golden age in comparison gto what was when they lived). Now many people are trying to delete the bad inventions of that period like weapons or plow (no till). People have the right to use relatively complicate mechanisms if they are for good purpose - for accomplish the rules. Some of the good inventions made from 5,000 years ago to the year 1750, were complicate. For example: Mechanical clock in towers, Looms approximately untill the year 1500, Windmill, Watermill, Sailing ship (including all technology related to it except military weapons and probably spyglass), Gregorian calendar.



In this period the level of accomplishing of the will of God and consequently the life level generally go down faster than in the previouse period, even though the life expectancy increased. The continuing expansion of the principle; "take how much more - work how much less" lead to to the materialist ideology of the 18th century when the biggest admirateurs of this principle decided that this principle should be the leading and only it can improve the life of people. They sincerly believed that it will improve the situation but they thought that because they are "educated" they can also decide it for the less educated that do not deserve to be listened, what generally leads to errors."Educated" people means mainly people who know how to get more then they need with less labour then they need with machines. The main methode was produce how much more with absolute absence of any labour (machins make all) the second by importance forcing other people thinking like them and only after giving them the right to vote etc., the third methode by importance transimte the most hurd works to those wgo are the less living according to these principle - in the colonies, until they will also begun to thik like them. So, from the begining of the industrial revolution people begun to take more then they need with less labour then they need and also create Virtual reality with machines what caused much unhappiness from one side and nature destruction from another.

It also creating poverty through drought, land degradation, depeletion of sources of fishing etc. But the principle continue to expand among other because regime who destroys nature more will always have get more effective and bigger professional army and more weapons, among other because it will have more Surplus product. The existence of weapon make it neccesary to each country to continue with it (how much more technology, money, for not lose wars).



The latest period of human history is going from the year 1975 untill today. It is characterized by complete illimination of labour - fisical and intellectual, over consumption up to production thousands times more than needed of some products (single use plastics), people not living anymore in the real world but in virtual illusions, deconstruction of the termes "men" "women" "love" "birth", more then 50% of human population constantly violating the rules, fall in life level (sharp increase of unhappiness (depression) as a result), and a real threat of complete destruction of God's creation by those more then 50%.

The purpose of many people today is eliminating any fisical and cognitive activity and making people how much more depending on machines - a state generally described as Coma. After eliminating by 1975 almost any fisical work they are now eliminating the activities for reaching the workplace, for tapping on battons (touch screens) for answering "Thank you!" (some new updates on google mail, docs), for navigating in a car or when walking. For this they are destroying the biosphere. This is showing how much the devil can deceive people. It is understsandable that in this conditions God begun to say "enough".

Prediction

Probably if people will not begun to live according to rules God will not have any other choice than to to stopping the violation by himself. I do not think he will wait more than until the year of 2025. If people want to live according to the rules the first 2 stepps are a Steady-state economy and Global peace with destruction of any military weapon (including even archaelogical and in the Museums).

Technology

Technology can follow the rules or violate them. For example:


 * Techology that allow people to produce enough without exhaustion is good. Techology that produce more than needed and creating sedentary lifestyle is bad.


 * Technology that allow people to get light in night is good. Technology that create light pollution is bad.

Technology that violates different rules linked to love, creates virtual reality, spread information that is bad for people, is also bad.

There is some technological level (level of complexity of technology) which is best for people and planet. If people go below or above this level the life level decline and the state of biosphere also.

I think that technology is an instrument not the target. The same about technological level (level of complexity of technology). What means: if to make people more happy, more complicated technology is needed, make it. And if, for that purpose, less complicated technology is needed, make it. It is very hopefull that even the World Economic Forum recognize it.

Between the inventions that can be described like good technology there are some relatively complicated like mechanical clock on towers. Sailing ships generally have good technology, except military weapon and spyglass, until 1870. Even some technology for flying enter to this cathegory: Hang Glider, Glider (aircraft)

In my opinion too much technology, too complicated technology is bad also because humans are part of the Biosphere and can not exist as part of the technosphere. They can exist with technology only in some extent. They can not exist when the air is artificiel, love is artificiel, trees are artificiel and so on. They can not exist when they are artificiel. The same about biosphere: the passing of the pollution planetary boundary in my opinion show that nature can not tolerate too big midification as the more the technology is complicate and widespread the bigger is the amount of artificial materials. In my opinion today a very little part of humanity has a problem of lack of technology while the overhelming majority has a problem with excess. This excess spread among others, because those with excess has higher military potential, so people begun to think that people always need more technoogy even if it worsen life.

A technology that increase life level is good to environment and vice versa.

A technology that reduce life level is bad to environment and vice versa.

Bad technology advanced not because it was liked by the majority, but because those who had it had higher military potential.

Concrete examples:

Clothes

Looms approximately untill the year 1500 facilitated making good beautiful clothes without killing animals. After 1500 they begun to be constructed to produce more than needed on expence of quality what created an increase in the number of sheeps what pushed much of the population of England for its place.

Music

Generally people agree that contemporary music is less beutifull that the musuc of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Ludwig van Beethoven, Johann Sebastian Bach. Certainly the reason is lower life level due to higher rate of violation of the rules. This include worse musical instruments. This is because the instruments invented in 19-21 centuries, except Squeezebox, were intended to play music without labour, without the need to learn how to play, prefered high volium to quality. The musical instruments invented untill the beginning of the 19 century, except Barrel organ, were generally good.

Amount of goods

The amount of goods is something that have a best level in wich people are the most happy. The more it is differ from this level to both sides, the less people are happy.

Capitalism, life level, GDP

I do not see how to solve the problem with capitalism, growth, trade, money etc., but I do not think that for achieving all this we will need to force the big CEO's or some thing like that. It has been proven by scientists that without put limit to growth you can not solve the problem and the article was even published in the site of the World Economic Forum. Search "This is now the world’s greatest threat – and it’s not coronavirus" for example. Many studies were published saying that even renewable energy have considerable impacts. Even artificial meat needs a lot of energy for being produced. In my opinion you can not limit growth in capitalism. From other side non solving the problem will destroy capitalism also, only in worse way even according to a report issued by the Donald Trump administration. Search "US report warns climate change could create economic chaos" for example.

Money in my opinion is not the cause of exploitation inequality wars etc. It is one of the the effects of them. First you need to eliminate causes and then you will not need money.

One of the problems with money is that if there is certain best level of consumption you do not need it: you can simply get as a reward of your work some card that allow you to get the needed amount of goods.

Another problem is that it is a result of trade and trade was not a result of different things produced in different places, because people produced different things long before trade: people who live near the see produced one type of things, people in the mountains another. Trade was a result of surplus product (when I write surplus product I mean more than needed), because otherwice you will not have with what to trade. Surpluce product is always linked to hurting people and ecosystems and basically stupid because it hurts the health of those who consume.

In my opinion, basically, money is per definition a measurment of the violation of rules that humanity commited and therfore of its suffering. The only way to get money honestly now is by ways that reduce the overall amount of money in the world by reducing consumption - organic farming, bicyles, public transit, green building etc. More exactly, as there are 2 ways for humanity in the next year: steady state economy by design or the same thing by disaster the only way to get money honestly is by something that make humans how much closer to the first way. The World Economic Forum says Costa Rica is one of the happiest countries in the world, people live longer than in the USA and "it delivers all this while using a quarter of the resources typically used in the Western world". Search "Costa Rica is one of the world's happiest countries. Here's what it does differently", for example. The GDP per capita in Costa rica in those years was 5 times lower than in USA (search in Statista). In the suryey of Gallop "The Happiest and Unhappiest Countries in the World" it is clearly shown that increase in GDP is connected to decline in happiness and that Costa rica was happier that USA even though has 5 time less GDPper capita. The golbal increase in depression rate and antidepressants use corresponding with a sharp increase in GDP and over-technology also show it. Such medical data is sometimes better than questions, because people often see (mistakenly in my opinion) a declaration, that they are not happy in a specific country as "against the country" or "against the ruling party", while a declaration that they are living good as "supporting the ruling party" or "supporting the country" therfore the responses can be flawed.

Probably, the most important is explain the solution because the danger of extinction is for the poor and the rich. Even more, I think that If the ecological catastrophe will happen, Indigenous peoples are most likely to survive, for example, because they are more isolated, so less vulnerable to infectiouse diseases, do not use intensive agriculture therfore when all arable land will be lost it will less impact them. Also, the solution can be achieved without lowering the life level. Even more, it will surely increase it.

I know that in the poorest areas of the cities are often drugs crimes, people that do not do anything, live on social help etc. I do not think that this type of life is good. But in a system that based on money you will not find examples in the lower layers (they also get considerable money - for example I heard drugs cost not little money) - you will find them outside it. Ecological communities etc., even kibbutz.

War and weapons

In my opinion a war is a competition betwen groupes who will violate the rules more. The expression "winning a war" means: violating the rules more than the other group. Lacking in understanding this fact is one of the key factors driving humanity to extinction as the rules are more and more violated. Because in the war the evils always win ( in the rare cases when it is not hapen like World War 2, the number of casualties is always higher in the good side) people begun to think that justisse can be found only in the heaven, after the end of the world, in the next life, etc., therfore they should be concentrated in making money, while the right way was simply do not give to military weapons exist. I do not mean destroy it in a specific country or territory but worldwide and completely. But this idea never came to mind toall people that tried to fight evil.

The number of casualties give the possibility to understand approximately by how one group is better from other. For example if group A fight group B, and Group A lost 1,000 people while group B 500, it means that group A is 2 times better. Meaning better, but not very much. If the casualties of group A are 10 times bigger it means that it is realy much better, probably close to ideal society.

Winning a war reduce the life level of the winning group. See for example what romans says about the life in ancient Rome in the beginning and after it became empire.

It is true that almost every object can serve as instrument for hurting people but the systems that drives people to do it, creating wars, terror, crime, could not be created without military weapons.

This mochica legend of The Twin Brothers (an animation was made about it in Soviet union in 1978 by Vladimir Pekar, Eduard Artemyev tell about the role of weapons.

What weapons and tools are allowed?

Weapons for hunt from the beginning (not military weapons that was after converted for hunt like hunting firearms). For example hunting bow and arrows which are very different from military so that a war bow would destroy an arrow used for hunting. The arrows aren’t even loosed or nocked the same way. Search "Are the bows intended for war different from those intended for hunting?" for example.

Liberty, democrathy, dictatorship

I do not think that people are completely libre, as can be seen from writed here they should follow certain rules. Part of rules of God named Scientific laws, others named socials rules - like good human will be happier. A human has the liberty to follow rules or not but he can not change them. All agree that people should not kill, steal etc., so they are not compeletly libre. The happines of human depend on how much he accomplish them, the happiness of a society depends on how much it accomplish them, among other, by adapting its jurudicial laws to them. I think only democracy is pleased to God as he wants those who violate the rule will be convinced and stop violating it. The difference between Humans and animals are that humans can beter understand the rules. People should be better convinced than forced to follow the rules.

Slaverhood is falsly named stealing, killing etc., therfore a violation of rules.

Rulers are neeed because not everybody understand and accomplish what God want at the same level: those who make it the most should teach the others for improving the life level of everybody. As the rulers should be the people that follows the rules the most, and convince other to do so, it is clear that they should be elected, e.g., convince other people that they follow the rules the most and if other will hear them their life level will be higher. If they came to power by killing or deception, hold it, transmite it by the same methodes they are less following the rules conmpared to their concurents, what means not the best rulers.

In my opinion, Democracy have the most chances to make the right decisions, therfore to follow the rules. False democracy give the people the right to decide if it will not hurt capitalism, marxism, etc. Real democracy is without if.

Some may question why the state of the biosphere get worse after 1750, when democrathy begin to take over. The answer in my opinion is that before this year there was 90% who take how much they need by working how they can and 10% who taked more than they need by working less then they can. Then the 10% say: lets first make the other 90% think like we and after we will give them to decide. But if they first give them to decide maybe the 90% would make the 10% think like the 90% and this was better to all the 100%.

Marxism fail in part because he say: first we will make the 90% think like we and then we will give them to decide. But if he would give them to decide from the beginning it would be closer to communism.

Progress, developpment

Those ternines are bad as they deny "Good" and "Bad".

If there is some process that not recognize those definition any crime can be justified. A transition from earth inhabitated by humans to earth inhabitated by robots also.

If define progress as a process of improvment it is a fatalism because it admit that people are naturally improve all, will be always better, you do not need to act.

Also it generally recognize more complicate technology as always better what is not true in my opinion.

Technology should not be judged by year e.g., "return to what was _ years ago", but by good and bad. For example 5,000 years ago appeared the wheel, metals, writing, what can be described as good inventions. In the same time appear the intensive agriculture and the militaire (not hunting) weapon what can be described as bad inventions.

Arts

Arts in my opinion are generally pleasing to God. Arts are expresions of human soul and are better, more beautiful, if the soul is better. Arts is a good method to discover the truth as false arts, telling some false idea or assumption, will not be beatiful. Arts are good method to understand when, where and how people lived better, as the better they lived the more beautifull are the arts. As far as I know the most popular examles of art refers to the epoch befor the ending of the industrial revolution if it the pictures of Leonardo da Vinci, the music ofWolfgang Amadeus Mozart, the poems of Alexander Pushkin or the pieces of William Shakespeare. Also the best examples of Prehistoric art like Stonehenge or Lascaux paintry, generally get more visitors than the best examples of contemporary computerized art, what in my opinion proves that people lived better in this epoch.

Equality and Justice

All people are created equal and became more or less happy depending on how much they follow the rules. This is right also for groups of peoples. One of the rules is to participate in the labor process if they can and only with this condition get part of the product.

A human that will produce better than others will get a better goods in his community and more respect. If he will follow the rules better than others he can be elected as the head of the group. Contrarily if he will not follow rules robbing others or destroying nature for making more that needed (surplus product) without working and decreasing by this the quality of products he will became less happy.

Money generally reflect those types of vilations of rules as it is kind of eqivalent of the amount of surplus product which is linked to rules violation. The problem is that labour is something that improve the situation while producing money produce damage. Today people mostly have money for making or serving machines for not doing anything in extreme fashion - even not press a button (Touch Screen), go 300 metres to the bus stop, cut bread for breakfest.

Love

The more people follow God will, the more they are happy. As love between man and women is the thing that brings the most happines, consequently it is the thing that God like the most from what people can do. The sence is that a persone can became happy only by give happines to other persone and life to a third. It is logical because God do not like when people make other people unhappy and killing other peoples.

From the beginning the division to 2 sexes in higher species occured because in higher species when 1 was busy with birth and children raising, 2 care about him so the 1 do not need to birth, hunt and hide from hunters in the same time.

The damage for in - family marriage and the very often maarige between different nations is because groupes of people have not right to exist as separate entities.

Monogamy is because the amount of love is in inverse proportion to the number of lovers.

Different things linked with avoiding shame like wearing clothes even in a hot climate, or not love in public, is because of the importance of love, because of monogamy and because of the rule no relations within the family.

Many violations of the rules are an over reaction to violation of those rules to the opposite side. Abstinence from love is sometimes an over reaction to forced exposure and too much exposure is often an overreaction to forced abstinence. LGBT is in my opinion not only a result of exposure to Hormone-disrupting chemicals, other hormonal disturbance like sedentary lifestyle, depression, efforts to "love" without give life to new human, but also, sometimes result of separation between mans and women (this is why I do not think any kind of repression should be applied to those people - you should remove the reasons). Relations in family are sometimes result of forbade to meet anyone outside it.

I think that artificial measures for love withut give birth are a violation of rules but I think that they should be stopped not by repressions but by needed conditions. Even Paid Family Leave is a step in this direction.

Exposure to content about love is something that is good after the age of 16 in the right level. While too much or to early exposure is bad, too little or to late is bad also, for example, may hurt love reltionships, lead to marriage by the volonte of parents. Creating exposure to content about love, must not be a profession, must teach not replace love, must not be linked to virtual reality.

Stopping artificial substitution of love require stopping too early and too much exposure, artificial abstinence after the age of 16 and virtual reality as a whole.

Exploring love scientifically is a violation of rules and reduce happiness.

Beauty depend on accomplishing the rules, especially linked to love. For example, a woman forced to "love" will be always less beautiful than a woman that love really. For pornografic films often choosed the more beautifull wemen what mean before they accomplish more the rules. But as in that industry they do noy do this they lost their beauty very fast and than thrown out. The rise of pedofily is from the same reason - as people in younger and younger age do not respect rules they became ugly and then other people search more younger people for "love" and all this only reduce happiness.

One of the proves is that now when the rules are violated more than before, there are more people that do not get pleasure from love.

Science Knowledge and Faith

In my opinion, knowledge, science, information, can be used to improve the situation or for making it worse (for example how to make bacteriological weapons, how to torture, how to commit crimes without being captuted etc.) The first type should stay, the second go. Education should follow this path. There is information that should not be given to people before the age of 16, but all others categories are equal: mens and women, rulers and ruled. The same information is good and the same information is bad for all categories.

I do not think that information leading to evil should be studied for avoiding evil: the police did not learn pupils in the schoool how to commit crimes for avoid them. And even though the police learn how crimes are commited for avoiding them complete deletion of this information from the world will have better results. Only societies that followed that rule achieved zero crimes.

For understand if the information is good or bad people should understand if it helps to follow the rules or disturb it. The rules themself can not be defined scientifically: you can not define scientifically good or bad. Even if you measure the amount of hormones that go to the blood when someone is happy they can be released artifically so it can not serve as measurment.

I agree with Plutarch that said in Pericles biography:

"Now there was nothing, in my opinion, to prevent both of them, the naturalist and the seer, from being in the right of the matter; the one correctly divined the cause, the other the object or purpose. It was the proper province of the one to observe why anything happens, and how it comes to be what it is; of the other to declare for what purpose anything happens, and what it means. And those who declare that the discovery of the cause, in any phenomenon, does away with the meaning, do not perceive that they are doing away not only with divine portents, but also with artificial tokens, such as the ringing of gongs, the language of fire-signals, and the shadows of the pointers on sundials. Each of these has been made, through some casual adaptation, to have some meaning."

What means that when scientists talk about ecological crisis they in my opinion said exactly the same that was said by prophets who said that the searching after producing more than neded bu less labour than you can apply will lead to bad results - they only describe the mechanism, how exactly its works.

Sometimes science is doing better in convincing that God exists than many religious books.

For example Plutarch write in the same biography about greek poets:

"they represent the gods themselves as full of malice and hatred and wrath and other passions which ill become even men of any sense"

What is generally thrue for meny myths.

Logos of Heraclitus and Nus of Anaxagoras are closer to truth.

The flat earth standing on 3 elefants standing on a turtle did not inspired me. The Gaia hypothesis is beter in proving that God exists.

The telling about people recomponsed for extermination did not impressed me. When I understand that wars and the response to evil by evil are driving humanity to extinction and served as the main source ofunhappiness it convinced me better.

Feeling and Thinking (rational and irrational)

Both are exactly equally important and can not be without each other. When people are trying to make one more important and the other less, the results are bad. The current situation is relatively bad partly because some people are trying to solve it with poorly rational methodes ignoring feeling that tell them "people will can not live like this". The division itself is not correct and when a human begin to say: "my hurt tell me one thing and the brain another" it is a sign that he is wrong.

End and Means

The end define the means. Good end can be achieved only with good means and bad end only with bad means.

Population growth

I think people have no right to artificially increase or reduce birth. This does not means that part of people will have to die from limited resources or that we will need to increase consumption always as God know how to regulate birth rate.

One of the basic things needed for reaching stable population is reducment in child mortality as this reduce the birth rate and also stopping conflicts as some try to have how much more children for surpassing the concurrent group. According to a study referring to a territory and epoch without much artificiall measures to limit birth, if not a single child died in a family then the average total fertility rate (TFR) was 2.6 children; when 1 child died the number was 4.7 children; 2 child deaths meant 6.2 children; and more than 3 child deaths boosted the TFR to 8.3 children.

There are another natural mechanisms: people less think about love physiologically when they are hungry (lack of resources from too big population), there are also less chances that women will give birth in such situation. Also when women are not regarded as a machine to give birth but participates in the community life and take decision when to merry by herself there will be less birth.

Communism, marxism

I think that only Communism is liked by God in human society, as the rules: "produce how much you need and work how much you can" are part of his rules. One of the proofs is that when 100% of people lived in communism before 5,000 years ago the situation in the world was normal, in the period between 5,000 years ago and the year 1750 when 90% of people (peasants) lived in communism it was still not full catastroph, only after 1750 when the majority of people stopped to live in communism it became catastrophic.

I do not think that Marxism can create something even close to it, as Communism can exist only in Democracy, as part of a Steady-state economy and can not coexist wuth military Weapons. One of the proof is that all people who lived in communism (100% of humanity before 5,000 years ago, 90% ofhumanity between 5,000 years ago and the year 1750) lived according to those rules. Another proof is that all Marxist countries today became capitalistic.

Believing in God is also indispensable as it is necessary to say " there are some rules like produce how much you need and work how much you can and who follow will be more happy". Contrarily, if you call to take the richness by force from capitalists because maximum of products is the sence of life, the result will be that the people that will take will simply became capitalists.

Matriarhat, Patriarhat, Equality of sexes

In my opinion according to the rules Men and Women are equal. General education should be the same for both.

Untill 5,000 years ago people generally followed this rule. Men and Woman was equal, even though made different types of labour. Mans hunted, fished, defended from wild animals, carried heavy things. Women care about children, gathered, make food and clothes. Their activities were equally important, they wereequally depended one on another and they were equal.

Women was oppresed by mans for 5,000 years because when people begun to ivade, make wars, enslave etc., they was victims as weaker persons. In this epoch, mans was economically depending on womens. Slaveholders was totally economically depending on slaves. In the same fashion when women was half-slave of man she generally make all the hard work like it can be seen for example in the description of mongols by Giovanni da Pian del Carpine. The robbers was always econoically depending on the robbed. It was the aim of the oppression.

I heard that the unequality of men and womans begun when they pass to plowing agriculture that was done by mans. But this was easier than hoe agriculture, so why mans did not work with hoe? I think this is because before the meat was getted by hunting what was too dangerous for women, so they staid at the field. Consequently, the domesticate animals was held for milk etc., but not for killing, probably because there was not garantee that you can get new if you kill the existing. There was relatively little domesticate animals then and it was difficult to get more.

Probably when the people pass to plowing they begun to massively use domesticated animals for meat what mean massively increase their numbers. So, you do not need more to hunt for meat but this intensive agriculture leaded to wars, exploitation, and women was worse in those professions so they became the second class.

If you not use too much machines it is natural that there is types of labour more situable for mens and for womans. Both are equaly important. When over mechanisation arrived mainly from the second half of the 18th century women begun to be exploited in hard works for money what often decrease their well being and the state of planet. After 1975 when machines destroyed human labour comletely they working for money like mens but this work is associated with destroying the planet and their own health among others, because it take childrens for mothers from the age of 1 - 2 years for women can bring money, what is bad for all family. Money is not going with labour as it is linked with damage as for mens so from womens.

Labour

A process in with humans make something that benefit them and the environment. Before 1750 many people tried to escape labour more by robbibg and enslaving after 1750 more with technology. This lead to disastrouse consequences.

Full labour division is a violation of rules as for living only from exchanging tables clothes etc., you need to produce them much more than needed. Also when 5% of people produce for example meat, bread or fish for the other 95% it lead to too high pressure on the ecosystems. When the WEF support community gardening or sustainable agriculture it oppose full labour division. The same is true about this city.

Full labour division lead to decline in the quality of goods as the producer needs to produce very high amount in the short time and he do not produce for his relatives or friends but for making money. Generally things produced in the methodes existing between 40,000 years ago (paintings on walls) and the arrival of the first over-mechanised manufactures in the 14th century are considered as the best shedvres - Handmade things who have higher value. The things produced in medieval cities was better than those produced 100,000 yearsago but this was due to technical improvment. Approximately in the 14th century cities arrive to really full labour division (according to my scholl books on history before it they were still heavily linked to agriculture) and in this point technology begun to lower the quality of things for producing very much in a short period of time.

The improvment in the quality of goods several thousands years ago was in my opinion linked to technological improvment but not to labour division, as when someone need to make something for money he need to make big amount in short time and he do not produce for his relatives or friends but for making money, so it will not be so beautifull. Approximately in the 14th century cities arrive to really full labour division (according to my scholl books on history before it they were still heavily linked to agriculture) and in this point technology begun to lower the quality of things for producing very much in a short period of time. However it was a slow process and in the begininng it reperred to only a small portion of products. It expanded slowly but only after 1750 the majority of inventions became bad. Because of it Handmade production is more beautifull.

Labour create property. Therfore the world as a whole is the property of God. If nation work strongly on some territory it is the property of this nation. If someone make something it is his property. Collective property derived from the fact that humans need to cooperate for exist and if they trying to do the opposite like with the transition to plowing it create destruction for soil and allwhat following. If an agricultural commune make breade for example and someone that did not participated in the labour take it it is a theft.

Ad people in the latest centuries deleted labour more that the most lazy slaveholder in the past, they lost theirrightto property. They became parasites as they destroy God's property for do not do anytning - machines should do absolutely all. Therefore it is taken from them by Covid-19, wildfires, flooding and much more. The fact that some billionaires get more money as result of Covid-19 did not change the fact that they have less houses to live in it, less turists destination to go, less ships to travel etc. Money worh something only when people csn buy something by itand the amount of such tnings becazme smaller in the world.

Age and ruling

In my opinion if the good overweight the bad in the world the average 70 year old is smarter than the average 16 year old as he get more positive experience. If the bad overweight the good in the world the average 16 year old is smarter than the average 70 years old as his brain was less destroyed. This effect cause also the "peter pania" as the bad begin to overweight the good in the latest centuries.

Heaven, Hell, Other Incarnation, The end of the world

The circle of evil that created surplus product due to animal and plants abuse and war weapons, 5,000 years ago, the stark opposition between the righteousness and misery of many people due to this circle, created absence of hope that leaded to the thinking that happiness can be find only in other world, other incarnation or after the end of the world.

In my opinion those teories are false, as the fate of humanity is not decided in advance but depends on its behavioure and happiness can not exist if all is absolutely perfect: it can be reached by going over some obstacles (if everybody will immediately get food in the first second when he feel that he is hungry without absolutely any fisical or cognitive activity - he will not get any pleasure from food. This is what happen on Coma for example).

There is one world where happiness come from following the rules but two of the most important are no surplus product and no weapons allowed in the world. Untill those will not be followed no end to suffering. This is not means that old people should loose hope for happiness as God can make old or young. Generally those who follow rules looks younger what is known.

Humanity as a whole can live better or worse depended of the following of the rules and if she breakes them enough strong, if God will not have any other choice for improve the situation, it quantity can shorten strongly - that is right. My activity is for avoiding this scenario.

Drugs

Drugs in the meaning of materials that make illusions are a violating of the rules even alcohol and nikotin because en place of working for improving the situation people trying to create illusion that it became better. Sometimes people that are using drugs especially like nikotin or alcohol are better than others because they use them because it is more difficult to them to accept the bad reality. This is not justifying drugs but indicate that the most important method for ending with drugs is to improve reality. Koffee, Tea, Chokolade, etc., are not drugs because they do have some fysical impact like all types of food, but they do not designed to create illusions instead improving real life.

Virtual reality is a type of drug in my opinion. The history of virtual treality begun in the year 1822 with Photography and continue with Cinematography and so on. Arts like Painting, Litterature, Theatre are not drugs, because they express feeling and ideas not create ilusion instead of improving real life.

Swearing

Swearing is a violation of the rules and the overall amount of swearing in the world is a good indicator of the level of the violating God volontee. However, sometimes those who sweare are not the first to blame for this as they swear because they are less used to hide their thinking. This is not justifying swearing but indicate that the main methode for remove it is to improve reality.

Egoism and altruism

Happiness depend on doing what God wants including helping other people etc. Therfore egoism is good if understdood well: a smart egoist will accomplish it how much better, therfore, among other, will be an altruist.

Nationality

Nation is a big group of people long living together with common ideological-psychological background. Belonging to nationality is created by the feeling of a human. If it was created by his ancestors russians Tzars could not be considered as Russians as their ancestors were mosly scandinavs, german. Every nationality have the right to its habits tradition languages etc., what must not be denied or hurted by others. People must put the interest of humanity as a whole before the interest of their group - nation.

Unification and diversity

Acording to the rules some things rest always the same - the rules themself for example - while some change.

It is indisponsable to understand well this rule for understanf what is a steady state economy and what it is not.

For example, the amount of calories neded for human rest the same while he can prepare a huge amounts of different types of food and always can invent new.

The amount of bags needed for a human rest the same, but he can always create new type of paintings, form of bags, according to style, nationality etc. Evwen more when he create only the neded amount of bags he can create beautiful bags with different paintings, change style much easier than when he create trillions of bags not so beautiful and individual.

Miracles and Ordinary life

What is called miracles is more concetrated expression of the same rules that are expressed in less concentrated form in ordinary life.

For example, when heavy ill person turn to good and became healthy people call it a miracle. When a person that live in peace with his neghbours fill better than a person that fight with them all time people see this as compleytly ordinary thing. But this is the same rule only expressed in different concentration.

The only things in the world that are impossible are those who are undesirable (one more proof of the existing of God).

For example it is undesirable that a rat will turn to an elefant: those areheaving different bodies and mindes and anmals became higher or lower depending on their accomplishment of God volonty. The problem is that in my opinion some peoople dealing with Genetically modified organisms do not understand it.

It is undesirable thatpeople will create a product without any work: it will make less pleasure because will not be just. The problem is that in my opinion some people dealing with mechanization do not understand it.

It is undesirable that a statue or a stown will turn to a living creature: for each living creature to be created and mature many accomplishment of gods will many pruess need to be done, what determinate his destiny, otherwise it is not just and not interesting. For existing heapilyit is needed a strong difference between living creatures and materials. Seems that some people dealing with Artificial intelligence do not understand it.

Life expectancy

It is good to increase the life expectancy of humanity all time as it increase life level and bad if it decrease it. For example if someone save a boy from drowning it increase its life expectancy and increase its life level. If someone close permanently a man in a sterilic building without possibility of microbes entrance it increase its life expectancy but decrease its life level. When people go to mountain climbing its often decrease their life expectancy but increase their life level. If before a human lived 60 years and during his life get x happiness and after 80 years but during his life get 0.5x happiness you made things worse. The definer is the overall amount of happiness.

People often say that 10,000 years ago for example life expectancy was shorter in average. This average hide extremities meaning in some families more following the rules all children survived, in others less following, the situation was worse. It is good to teach families to follow rules more so the children will survive, what will increase the life expectancy and the overall amount of happiness, but it is bad to increase life expectancy when the overall amount of hapiness decline.

Look

There is some often repeaten claim in the latest time that the average height of humans is growing due to better nurishment. As I heard today 3 times more people die from overweight than from hunger and the number of hungry is climbing due to environmental destruction and social unfairness, so we can not talk about improvment in this area. About height I remarke than all the most wise animals - normal dog, dolfins, monkey close to humans have some similar size close to humans, while bigger or smaller animals are less smart.

Therfore even though all humans not need to be equally high I think there is some best height interval for an adult human: 1.6-2 metres.

In his book about liliputs Jonathan Swift write that their height a little above 6 inches and they are 12 times smaller then average englishman. What means the average height of an average englishman was around 1.8 metres, like today. What means that despite the overall amount of food was lower in England the average englishman than eated not less than today. In another words the increase in the overall amount of food do not improved nourishment. Even in its time England produced 3 times more then it can consume and the hunger was due to inequality. What means we can nourish people with the methodes from the time of Swift if we remove inequality.

Also in one of his books Ilya Ehrenburg mention that Norwegian people was higher then is other parts of Europe even though thecountry was poorer but the wealth there was distributed more equally therfore was less hungry.

Therfore even though height is probably really influenced by the amount of food we certainly can not talk aboutimprovment in this area. We can ensure good nourishment and normal height if we will remove social inequality reducing the overall amount of food in the same time and too high people with to much food are not better then too low with not enough food.

A human can take care about his beauty but not by replacing correct lifestyle and his consequences like healthy face colore by artificial substitutes that why face powder for example has big environmental and health negative effects.

People should not artificially modify theire bodey for example by making piercing.

Many ancient people has similar hair longer: until shoulders in mens, 40-50 centimetres longer in women. In my opinion this is not a coincidens: in a world without overmechanization this longer protected from rain, sun, snow and was adjusted to the type labour exercised by people. It was probably better for blood pressure.

Possibility of error

There is some isues that I do not know much about them. if I consider them as bad and damaging I do not want to know about them. I agree that time space energy and mass are linked but I do not think that calculation for bad machines are needed therfore I do not intersted much in Quantum field theory. I do not understand much in little politics - combinations etc. I do not want to know much about them because I do not believe that we can solve something with them. I say my opinion in politic only when it is linked in a blattant fashion to the rules.

But about the rules described here the situation is different in my opinion: of course there was many times when I found that I was wrong and changed my opinion - only in this way you can became close to truth. In fact I thought many times to make this, to join that organization, but did not did it because I was not enough confident that I understan correctly the rules. Then in some point I find that my current opinion about the rules is supported by every source that I find. I checked thousands of times - yes, it is like this. Therfore I get some confidence in my opinion about the issue and decided to write it. Only when I reached the age of around 28 I felt enough confidence that I understand it correctly for doing something.

Being an example

I can not say that I am following the rules the most at the planet even thought I trying how much I can. The main barrier to move into ecological commune or get married, making something else except activism as a whole, is that I think I have now to give how much power I can in expaining the rules and this can hurt it. I use things like virtual reality (computers, films) but I use them for explain why humanity should stop use them. I make all that is in my fisical possibility so I think I work enough hurd. I will not be able to continue like this long time, but I think I do not have to: As I say all will be decided much, much faster then showing the reports of the IPCC. However I think that if the ecological footprint of all was like my, it would not exeed the carrying capasity. For example I am trying to consume less so I think I spent no more than 500 dollars in month, do not use care, working in a Community gardening, etc. Therfore I hope that if I am not the person who follow the most certain specific rules, considering the cause, in following his will as a whole I made some achievments.

Average temperature in different places in normal climate in my opinion
As I write climate change is a very interesting topic for me in Wikipedia. Therfore the next comparison will be interesting. I will try to find information about it and if there will be enough proofs, to enter it in Wikipedia.

I readed a considerable amount of books, newspapers, see films describing what happened in certain places before climate change. The books were sometimes written in this time and sometimes rely on such sources. In the case of newspapers and films it is generally the second. Sometimes there are direct metion of temperature and weather in certain season (especially in atlases with climatic cartes etc.), and always information that help understand the climate in non direct way. In what month wheat was harvested, what type of clothes people wear, how was built the houses, what activities were popular and more. Even when was celebrated the new year - in September or March - helps to understand.

Climate change begun in the 1830s while most of the warming happened after 1950. The urbah heat island appeared with the appearance of big cities, but became several times stronger with the industrial revolution. Those are the guidelines for understand when the climate was normal. If you read book that was writed before 1830 or describe something that happen then from good sources, you can apply directly. But even if you read a book The Childrens of captain Grant, that was written in 1868 and read that "The winter in Lombardy was colder that in Iceland" you understand something as the temperature rised gradually and in 1868 it was closer to normal than today.

Of course before there was also shifts in temperature but the biggest of them the little cold age changed it only by 0.15 degres, while now the planet warmed by 1.4, and by several additional degrees because of urban heat island so it is not so significant.

Even if you read 1 book in your imagination is created some picture about the climate in the described place, even unwillingly. The more information you have the clearest is the picture. I tried to imagine what average January temperature was common in those places as it is seen from these sources. The difference was much larger than 2 - 3 degrees what is the largest rise on mean annual temperature that occured only in some places like the Arctic. But then I take into account that a little rise in average annual temperature can lead to much larger rise in some monthes and added the urban heat island that can rise temperature by 8 - 12 degrees. Now it corresponded well. So I decided to write it.

The places that I choose depend only on the amount of information that I have - I write about the cities that I have got the largest amount of information about. The largest amount of information I have about Saint Petersburg, therfore about it I will write not only about January but about all the 12 months. The temperature is in Celsius degrees measured in the shadow.

Saint Petersburg
About this I have many sources like books, films, newspapers, tellings and some even confirm scientifically. For example in one atlas of Saint Petersburg from 1977 you can see that the average temperature in the winter declined by around 8 degrees between 1750 and 1965, and in 1970 the average January temperature was around 7.7 degrees below zero and they say that the average February temperature is even lower (the fact that February and not January was the coldest month also seems to me somewhat related to climate change). Of course the difference in the coldest month is bigger than in the winter as a whole. So it correspond to the picture conceived in my imagination.

Amount of warm days (day temperature in the shadow above 18, clear or almost clear sky) per year: 70

Line of zero degrees in the coldest month in normal climate
One of the easier things is to understand where the average temperature of the cold month was below 0 degrees and where above. For example if people reffers to a weather when snow lies on the ground several days as "wounderfull winter day" you can surely said that it is below. From the books, films etc., that I have read or watched I got some impression about where the line passed in some regions, before climate change. In other regions, where I did not have enough sources, I do not know.

In continetntal Europe the line begin somewhere northern than Bordeaux but southern than La Rochelle. It goes east, after begun to decline to south - east. It pass northern than Marseille but southern than Lyon. It pass Italy approximately in the latitude of Rome. It pass between Makedony and Kosovo. Than it incline to north - east a little and pass between Bulgaria and Romania. Than it goes to east pass southern than Crimea and after pass by the main part of the Caucasus mountains.

In eastern Asia that line pass between the Himalayas and the Pacific Ocean so that around third of the territory of China is northern that the line and two thirds are southern.

In the eastern coast of North America it goes to the west from the ocean southern than Washington, northern than Richmond.

In other regions I do not have enough information.

Interesting Pages
From the said above it is easy to understand that I am interested in issues like:


 * Steady-state economy


 * Degrowth


 * Obesity


 * Sedentary lifestyle


 * Anti-consumerism


 * Sustainability

Interesting pages (Filmes and Serials)

 * The NeverEnding Story (film)

"Give me a name" accosiated in my imagination to the definition of God that I writed here: The consequences of 2 theses: There is some rules common to all in the world. If you are following them you are more happy. Everyone who believe in it believe insome intention in creation. I did not hear this name before.


 * Vertical (1967 film)


 * The Sannikov Land (film)


 * Two Comrades Were Serving.


 * Les Mysterieuses Cites d'Or

Some think that human who live, how God wants, should robe enslave etc. Others that he should be how much more poor do not want to reach happiness in his life. Both false in my opinion. This serial shows more exactly how it should be - at many points.

The main secret cod in the ancient civilizations buildings is that arts are better in a better society. If society can make more beautifull buuldings than modern it means that it was better and partly because its technological level was closer to the right level.

Ancient civilization really know how to use solar energy - because they do not use it to much, therfore live in harmony with the sun, the land and other parts of Gods creation.

All this is shown well in this serial.


 * Peter Pan: The Animated Series

Chapter 31 shows well the effect of increasing evil on Arts.


 * The Wonderful Adventures of Nils (TV series)


 * The Last Inch


 * Don Quixote (1957 film)


 * Mighty Max (TV series)

Chapter 5 about the dragon and the viking sorcerer is very interesting. War is an effective methode to free the evil, there are people who fell themself really people only in a war and that think that if they will wake it up, they will became a significant figures all over the world. The results are not what they think.

Interesting pages (Books)
Part of the books that helped me to deshiper the code.


 * Bible


 * War and Peace.


 * Farenheit 451.


 * The Children of Captain Grant


 * Osceola (book)


 * Parallel Lives


 * Monday Begins on Saturday.


 * Hamlet.


 * History of the Peloponnesian War.


 * Yellow Fog Describing global dimming that was more popular in this time (therfore was published firstly in Nauka i Zhizn) but relevant to climate change in general.


 * The Three Musketeers


 * Twenty Years After


 * The Vicomte of Bragelonne: Ten Years Later


 * The Forty-Five Guardsmen


 * Tellings of old years Describing well the transition from the first period of history to the second. In the European part of Russia it happened 1300 - 1000 years ago. The book is high level, but the page is very far from what the book is really telling.


 * Chengis Chan This book and the next 2 show what happens when someone want to make the happiness of people by force, with weapons or deception despite their willing, as can be seen from the |the letter to Chang Chung for examle. Timur, Attila and many others has the same error. Those people generally made more damage than people that simply wants to take money with this methodes.


 * Batu-Chan


 * To the latest sea


 * Dunno on the Moon

What is the most interesting in this book is not the criticizm of capitalism even though this is also interesting (especially the improvment of the life of many capitalists after the transition). What is the most interesting is the excellent description of the role of weapons.

Interesting pages (People)

 * Moses
 * Jesus
 * Muhammad
 * The Buddha
 * Greta Thunberg
 * Herman Daly
 * Karl Marx
 * Lenin
 * Che Guevara
 * Joe Biden
 * Urukagina
 * Numa Pompilius
 * Ilya Varshawsky. His book "the molecular caffe" from 1964 is good.
 * Ilya Ehrenburg. Some of his books are good like "Chronic of our days", "People, Years, Live".
 * Raffaello Giovagnoli. His book "Spartaco" is good.

Wiki Projects that I am a member of them
I participate in the Wiki4climate project. I get an official certificate for making 10 good climate edits in the the "Wiki4Climate" online edit-a-thon in 2020.