Wartime

In the light of today as the topic of “negotiations” is continuously being wiped off the table with arguments like “Putin started this war” and “Why should Ukraine aspire surrender while they’ve been attacked?” - let’s recall why negotiations are held at all in war scenarios.

When do officials and representatives hold them with representatives of the opponent?
Huh?
First and foremost, it’s not a question of giving up immaterial “values” and virtues” that one side thinks to have on its side - it’s not a question of ideology and idealism.
Plainly, it’s a matter of pragmatism.

Negotiations over truces and “peace” are being held if one side recognizes that it’s about to lose and being crushed, so the smarter people among the state officials figure they’ll be better off stopping to try to win the war by force and rather try to save the slice of the cake that they still have under their control instead of eventually maybe ending up with none of it.

The essence of sitting down to hold negotiations is not surrendering and handing everything over to the enemy that it wants, but more than that securing some little bits of what one still has instead of losing everything and then depending on the arbitrariness or mercy of the winning opponent what few bread crumbs will be granted to oneself.

You practically do that by trying to find things to offer to the enemy fraction for which it shows itself willing to give up the demands for another item. And you do that up until the enemy fraction becomes content and leaves again.

It’s no different than negotiating a price in a handshake deal.
A buyer has interest in obtaining a particular item, the seller tells you the price, but the buyer doesn’t have enough money or doesn’t want to pay that much, so it needs to approach the seller and see if they are hardened in their stance or if there’s some room that can be debated over.

In that case, it’s “only” that the item that you want to buy is “peace” - or at least a truce so that the fighting and the destruction stops.

Negotiating is a tactic that is known in wars and armed conflicts for centuries. As old as such scenarios.

So this isn’t like an “absolutely crazy idea” in this conflict.
Rather it should be asked: What speaks objectively so much against it?

(Unless the explanation is that there are very stubborn humans involved in this specific case that are occupied by ideology and emotional biases who have a very distorted understanding about war at all - that all that there is to obtain is winning, like in a manic fanatic attitude heading for a crusade, heading towards total war, not just mere self-defense.)

Any party going through with either their plans or already having banned imports of Russian oil and gas and replacing it with liquefied petroleum gas from the US - offically call their agenda to "fight climate change" broke and dishonest (if it ever even officially existed at all).
Because transporting LPG with tankers over half of the globe, burning fuel to deliver fuel, there's nothing more harmful to the world climate than this in this aspect of the economy and regarding general supply with common contemporary energy carriers.
Not even talking about needing to make the energy-intensive efforts to first liquefy the gas to transport it and then turn it into gas again, sacrificing additional amounts of energy, when it's reached its destination. And the terminals that have to be specifically created and built in order to execute both jobs.

A thing that communism in the past definitely didn’t achieve - and which you could consider a task to rack one’s brains about for its adaption to the modern days and to the future: Freeing humans from the need to go working and earning money in order to finance a living.
Communism made the conditions of working takeable, even partly comfortable, for the workers, but it didn’t develop answers for a scenario when the workers won’t be needed anymore - when machines become fully able to replace them or when tasks are finished and needs for goods are covered for a while.
Last but not least, it didn’t develop an idea for when the point in time will be hit that the earth’s human population increases to such numbers that the enhancement of production won’t be good for the nature of the planet anymore as well as there will be no increase in workforce anymore proportional to the population growth because it isn’t needed for covering the demand of goods and services. (Or, in other words: Communism contains no idea what to do in case of human overpopulation - when children start getting born for which there is no task in society waiting for them when they’re grown up.)
If you still base a society upon everybody having a job to do grocery shopping and maintaining a place to live, then this is a major flaw when it comes to the future awaiting mankind now in the 21st century - overpopulation and ecological disasters.

Some annotation for the developers of "modern" technology:

Such things as swiping and pinpointing on touchscreens are very uncomfortable for people with clumsy or damaged fine motor skills.
If you already curse about hitting the space in between two keys on the keyboard too often, or directly not the keys that you wanted to push, and if you already hit the wrong places with your mouse cursor too many times on the screen on a normal computer, you'll cheer about a device that expects from you to just work with a single finger all the time.

In other words: This technology is definitely only developed for healthy people. Not for people with handicaps.

...You know, where you nerd activists for the internet and admonishers of data privacy have been missing?
Not where it was about bringing innovation into the living rooms and free education, not where it was about keeping snooping eyes out of you living room.
It's even more simple.
Where was your word as the internet was turned into a commercial field and a place of the same life seriousness like the real life?
Once it was a harbor for people who felt misunderstood, who had specialized interests and who didn't find anyone to talk to in the same situation so easily right around the corner living next to them. It was a place where people could meet anonymously and not be ashamed about every shit they think and put interest in - or where they needed to calculate that next day some S.W.A.T. team is gonna kick their door in because some dubious fucker didn't like their opinion or decided to act the "concerned citizen"!
Also, there weren't whole industries of lawyers which just live from telling people they violate some big corporation's copyright or they talk the wrong way about movie/game X!
You know where you would have been needed?
Just as this kind of Pandora's box started to be opened! As this resort was turned into a place of jealousy, hate and aggressive agitation!
'Cause when Pandora's box gets opened, you can never close it again. That's exactly what things have become in the reality...
Now all outcasts, misunderstood people and nerds have lost their place to be almost completely. "Almost" because, if you're unlucky, even in the most hidden place in the internet anyone finds you, reads you and sees the need to stop you from what you're doing!
Even all your software to become anonymous again doesn't revoke that process 'cause the race has already begun for long to get a hold of this. Just before it really got started and became a common thing.
...Tell everyone what you think you can do to give this back to them, to the people who wish and who need it - for the sake of creativity or their own sanity.

(Attention: This is highly speculative content and shouldn't be taken with scientific correctness!
Further down, it also shouldn't be taken as hatespeech or as a base to reason artificial interferences to execute population policy.
At first, it's just thoughts considering and philosophizing about a subject and it's meant as nothing more than that.)

---

World population grows every year, mainly in Africa and Asia.
Although in those areas, at least Africa the most, the common health care accessible to the normal people is far away from being satisfying. Still a lot of people die in their child years.
But even though, of those who are born, still a higher number manages to survive to make the population grow.
Is that so?
Population growth in Europe and other areas in the world counted as "developed" these days, it happened the most as technological and scientific progress appeared. As the influence of the Christian churches slowly declined, compared to the Middle Ages.
The increase in what health care could provide from the scientific viewpoint, and even the more as the distribution to the normal populace with low and average income for the time episode started to take place (for the sake of taking the soil away from social democrats and early communists), this is what is considered as the main reason for the explosive population growth that appeared between the 19th and the 20th century.
In Asia, this is partly the case, if you take a look at China which keeps increasing its capacities for provision constantly. But compare it to India. India is rich in population, but still the caste system is intact and richness and the deepest poverty both exist in this country without ever seeing light at the end of the tunnel to ever change. The normal population can't have that access to proper health care, otherwise it couldn't be one of the main research countries for medication tests on humans.
So, how would this rule apply there? Health care increasing the chances of survival of the individual, while people still tend to have families with many children born because of social reasons?
Is the population in the "developing" countries really the problem, if distribution of health care to everyone, as a base for survival of the masses of people born, is no topic in those despite economy experiencing growth all the time?

Taking a look at Europe and the already "developed" areas.
Population numbers in those areas have never been higher than today. Today is the max for these ever in history.
If those wouldn't live from getting people from other areas of the world moving into their territory, population numbers would already be in a noticeable decline. (Except for US because reproductive rights are under constant threat of clerical conservatives of being abandoned or killed by lack of funding, and people from the lower classes, who bear the most children there, depend on social programs to provide this to them, as proper distribution of health care to people from all states of wealth doesn't exist there.)
In the developed nations, about 95% of the population born survives into old age. Predators in the 5%-quota are diseases, malformations, accidents, pollution, man-made violence and psychic diseases caused by circumstances habored in this way of civilization.
So, population numbers in those areas remain constant with a slight decline in the long term. They get actively tried to be kept on the max. Be it home-bred population or through immigration.
And this through all the times.
So... basically, where does the point of attention lie really when it comes down to population policy?
In the developing countries, where still the least of the humans born survives until they're adults, and they die in a young age because of diseases damaging their health, or in those areas where nearly every person born survives until approximately 60 at least? And the number of people achieving this is being kept relatively constant at all times?
It may be worth picking up this hard constrast "95% survival" vs. "high mortality" for a closer look.
While the times of boom economic growth are over in the developed world, everything's build up that needed to be build up, now it only suffers from wrong proportion of the distribution, population decline in harsher numbers would be the logical consequence - as, in the phase of building something up, it needs more resources than when only maintaining and keeping up the state of things as they are currently. Also, there is not a need for "more" resources to be used as ante in the process.
Not even to speak of when the next stage of the technoligical age becomes reality and some more machines replace the human labor in the productive sectors, which makes the part of the population being employed in that sector become out of work and for sure also a part of them "obsolete" in the terms of the employment market.
So to say, the high population numbers of the developed world, in the long term, progress into a state of all of its population that it habors isn't "needed" anymore. It's like only in a position of consuming and sucking up resources, in a position of being a "consumer". Unable to give back or be of relevance to the integrity of the system. Others would call it drastically "trash", that's what they are then. - "Trash" that would need to be administered until its death and not be renewed / replaced by another person, to be exact.
So... when an area tries to keep its population number up in a state like before the big industrial boom at the beginning of the 20th century that it actually doesn't need anymore, it raises the question towards "How healthy for the planet is this strategy?"? How good in population policy worldwide is this actually?
And how much does it distort the numbers?
How much is it a factor that's part of the overall problem?
How much does that overclocked number cause in damage because a part of the population already exists in needlessness, but still they consume resources like all other people who are needed by the system to function?
To state something very clearly: The people who this applies to, they aren't to blame for what they are. If they have worked through a respective way of education and even performing an occupation for an amount of time throughout their lives, then there's no talking about "self-caused circumstances". Those people aren't obsolete because they haven't had ambitions and therefore were lazy and spoiled since a very young age. They've become obsolete because the system they live in doesn't need them anymore. In a certain span of time they were needed indeed, but now no more. - In difference to people who didn't even try for a decent school education and stayed away from it to hang out with friends, drink beer and destroy window glasses.
Therefore, because they're not to blame, they should at no point of the story be treated like if they were.
The solution for these should just be, plain and simple, to not to replace them in the next generation. Their life remains untouched, but as there is no need to have another person regrow into that position, there better shouldn't exist one to respawn.

When these obsolete numbers are being kept and maintained constantly, how much does it distort the real needs and the real functionality of the system that humans build for themselves to live in?
How much is it also responsible for overpopulation - for population that is there, but without a need of human civilization for them to exist?
What happens - how do the numbers look if that population doesn't exist anymore? In the developed world, as well as when Africa, Asia, South America only has the population number that it needs (considered, the economy of the "developing" areas also makes it to a state of things comparable to the so-called "industrialized nations" measured by what their environment allows)?
What if there are not that many people around anymore whose only purpose is to be there as a consumer because there is no task for them in this world?
And, what would happen to the yearly growth numbers if socially the issues of "children as security that supplies you in bad times / old age" would be adequately solved, in combination with that?
What would happen if mankind only grows or stays the same in such masses that it also has tasks for in its differing societies?

At least upon further thought it doesn't seem like the developed world is totally not to blame for the problem of the overpopulation. They try to keep up a number within their territories that's unrealistically high compared to the possible employment rate that it's able to supply when everything is run under fair circumstances (opposed to the current strategy of part-time work and letting the developing countries produce their food and their consumer goods).
When 95% of all humans survive until old age, you don't need people to have 2 and 3 children or more anymore. Better you should be happy if some people can't or don't want to have children because of certain reasons. Because that's getting closer to a realistic number, not even to speak of the children who would suffer for their whole lives as adults if there is no purpose in society for them.
And not even getting started to speak of the impact on the environment if there's one big resources-consumer less in the world...

It would be a drastic restructuring of society as it was to adapt to these circumstances with less people exsting again. But that process would be inevitable, as human civilization always finds a way of making work and production more effective than before, and by the time, this comes at the cost of human labor. No matter which economical system or system of world views it has in a century.
It is like one and only constant thread that keeps unfolding in history.

If not for those processes in mankind, which one can regard from one or another thousand positions, just think about the extinction of animal species: Animals vanished, as humans claimed the living space and bred like rabbits. Where humans live, animals have to go as humans want to live alone or even need the space for themselves.
One doesn't need to wonder about that process, as the earth has only a limited amount of living space.

Environment topics - overpopulation - vanishing of animal species - economy - social problems - all these topics are interconnected with each other. Each brick - another little factor in the other issue.
And when humans want to live up to the high goals they set for themselves in their enthusiasm, then they need to show a willingness to do something for this and to also adapt their societies to the links of the circumstances that are right in front of them.
There is no washing without getting wet. And no-one said it would be comfortable. Who thinks it would be, he lives in the world of a little child... Fairytales and unicorns.

Information vanishes when the last one to tell it dies.

Die klassichen Arbeitsteilung von Mann und Frau der früheren Jahrhunderten sollte auch unter dem Aspekt der Arbeitsteilung betrachtet werden.
Ein Tag hat nur 24 Stunden; wenn einerseits Geld, andererseits aber auch Essen gekauft, zubereitet, häusliche Arbeiten wie Wäsche waschen, Putzen und sonstige Erhaltungsarbeiten als auch die Besorgung von Trinkwasser bewältigt werden müssen ohne Zuhilfenahme moderner Geräte wie Waschmaschinen, Herden und Autos, trinkbares Wasser ebenso nicht aus einer Leitung und einem Hahn, sondern aus einem Brunnen respektive durch eine Pumpe aus dem Erdreich geschöpft werden müssen, dann erreichen, allein durch das tägliche Zeitlimit bedingt, die Möglichkeiten eines Menschen die Grenzen des Machbaren für den Einzelnen.
Es müssen also mehrere Personen an der Bewältigung des Haushalts beteiligt sein und an seiner Aufrechterhaltung. Erst die Mittel der Moderne machen es möglich, dass jemand all dies allein bestreiten kann, und dass beide Partner einer Beziehung vollzeit arbeiten gehen können (noch dazu zu den gleichen Tageszeiten).
Es ermöglicht sogar, dass nicht die älteren Kinder (ab ca. 7 / 8 Jahren) einer Familie fester Bestandteil dieser Aufrechterhaltung der täglichen Lebensbasis mehr sein müssen und es lediglich noch eine Frage der Vorbereitung auf das Leben als Erwachsener in einem eigenen Haushalt sein kann.

Vielleicht eine gewagte These: Obgleich beide Geschlechter hätten jeweils den Part des anderen einnehmen können ohne dabei nach diskriminierenden Punkten vorgehen zu müssen, bildete sich diese Form der Arbeitsteilung heraus auf Grund der biologisch bedingten physischen Eigenschaften der beiden Geschlechter. Männer sind in der Muskelkraft stärker als Frauen, deswegen sind sie besser geeignet für physisch anstrengenden Arbeiten und den täglichen Broterwerb - der ohne die Zuhilfenahme moderner Maschinen, nur mit Hilfe von Handarbeit, größte Anforderungen an den menschlichen Körper stellt.
Frauen dagegen müssen zwar für die Hausarbeit ein stabiles Rückrat haben, welches für beide Geschlechter gleichermaßen wichtig ist, da auch sie Lasten transportieren und Muskelkraft aufwenden müssen, es ist dennoch leichter für sie zu bewältigen, Wäsche mit einem Waschbrett zu waschen als 30 Kilo schwere Gemüse- oder Getreidesäcke zu tragen. Oder Gemüse zu putzen, zu schneiden und einen Kesel Suppe aus ihnen zu kochen anstelle ein Feld manuell zu bearbeiten.
Wenn eine Frau keinen Mann hatte - weil keiner sie wollte oder ihr Mann bereits verstorben war und kein Sohn bereits reif genug war, die Rolle in der Arbeitsteilung zu übernehmen - konnte es ihr passieren, dass sie solche Tätigkeiten trotzdem ausführen musste aus dem Grunde, dass sie dazu gezwungen war, weil es niemand anderes für sie tat. Manche Exemplare - sowohl heute als auch in früheren Zeiten - waren dabei weniger, andere besser begabt und dafür geschaffen.
Für Männer galt dasselbe an dieser Stelle auf Grund des vorherrschenden Patriarchats einmal nicht, da sie sich wesentlich schneller wieder eine Frau nehmen konnten oder wenigstens ihre Töchter die Rolle der Mutter in der Arbeitsteilung übernehmen mussten, sobald sie groß genug dafür waren.

Für das Grundlegende kann aber gesagt werden: Ob es Diskriminierungsgründe gewesen sind oder nicht, sekundär, im Detail betrachtet, ergibt sich sogar aus dieser Form der Arbeitsteilung eine gewisse Logik, die einige Zweifel offen lässt, ob lediglich Diskriminierung an Hand des Geschlechts dazu geführt hat, dass Mann und Frau die Arbeiten zugeteilt bekommen haben, die sie erhielten.
Ohne die technischen Hilfsmittel der Moderne wäre es auch heute nicht möglich, anders zu leben als auf diese Art und Weise - die Arbeit zu teilen, Aufgaben zuzuweisen, je nach der persönlichen Begabung und den physischen Möglichkeiten des Einzelnen.
Arbeitsteilung ist sogar etwas, was in die Moderne überlebt hat - wenn auch nicht mehr ganz so ausladend wie es in früheren Jahrhunderten der Fall war.
An Stelle der freien Zeit, die durch die Arbeitserleichterung durch Maschinen entsteht, wachsen Hobbys, andere Verpflichtungen, soziale Verpflichtungen, längere Arbeitszeiten - generell oder aufgrund von freiwilligen Überstunden wegen des zusätzlichen Geldes -, Vergnügen, Unterhaltung und das Befassen mit dem Weltgeschene - sowohl in politischer als auch in sonstiger Hinsicht.
Es eröffnet auch den Raum dafür, sich schick zu kleiden, sich zu schminken, einen Duft aufzulegen, weil man durch weniger Schmutzquellen belastet ist, und balzen zu gehen, insofern man noch keinen Partner gefunden hat, oder gar den bestehenden - ganz übel - durch einen anderen auszutauschen.

Did capitalists think for a second - what if when they made all state property theirs? How do they increase their piece of the cake still then? What do they want to put on top of that? Going to space?
What if discovering and exploiting space still is impossible? What if if you have to be content with the resources you find on the earth?
What if if you can't go to the depths of the ocean if there are still no technical means for that business, or they overstep the profits you wanted to make?
What do you seriously do if you have conquered the last area, the last territory on earth, to increase your stack of richness that you have?

They draw borders on the moon,
borders on mars,
property in bloom,
when do they take the stars?
Anytime they draw them in the sky,
errect traffic lights,
call that "freedom of mine"
and still tell me "join the fights".

Even the mountains they turn into tourist attractions,
shift change on the roof of the world,
space enthusiasts can live their affections
as long as money is their word.
Doesn't matter if they're sick,
if they're old or half-past death,
bigness can buy every kick,
and fuel on all fantasies in their heads.

The world is an amusement park
for humans of all shades,
beware if someone starts to bark,
that's not calculated in their plays.
A golden cage, pretending thrills,
the last trial to escape is meth,
but drugs don't work, it kills
the cognition is solid, adventure is dead.