we find comfort in numbers because nothing distracts us from life like counting.

2 million years into the future.
i hope human beings and all our civilizations can be gone by then.
and i hope whoever takes over, is better at giving way.

are human beings obsessed with being human, or is that what all species do?

how i see it is that human beings can't quite come to terms with their desire to own the earth and all that is in it - yes, they split the earth amongst themselves, but they're struggling to find a basis, for why they are not the same as "mere" animals, and why they rule above them.

it's an eternal struggle, trying to forget that we were once part of the food web - that being attacked and eaten by an animal, is a natural occurrence - more so than dying in a traffic accident. it's a struggle, trying not to imagine that another species can take over the planet in a way were are unable to prepare for. we think viruses as bad things, that they are not forms of life - and do not want to consider that they may one day become a life on their own right.

but let us consider this.

we human beings have chosen to have longer lifespans, so that individually we get to live through more. we focus our progress on our intellectual and technological dimensions. but do we not remember, that species that evolve, do so by dying, and giving way to the next generation? something tells me that we're resting on our laurels, and all other species are evolving ahead of us. we find other ways to deal with evolutionary pressure so our bodies do not change. is "technology" really where we should place our bets? but then again, we don't think of "us" as a species - we think of us in terms of individuals, families, countries. there's always a "them" every time we think of ourselves as "us".

let us consider this.

that each species is simply an expression of life. that in every situation, there are more than one way to walk through it.

i hate the saying "let us agree to disagree". i think it's more like every expression of life has its own grammar that makes it exceedingly difficult for one to really understand another in a deep way.

i think we should instead say, "let us admit that we cannot understand how things work out for you". and i think that applies to other all other species we share this planet with. that we cannot begin to understand how they live through all the recent changes we humans think of as "progress".

let us consider this.

homosexuality and euthanasia receiving mainstream attention is a manifestation of evolutionary pressure - that we human beings are getting over-populated. and i think it will only be intensified when medical science goes on to its next step, when we can fix problems at genetic level, and when people are able to live so long - they refuse to die.

let us consider this.

that the very fact we need to even think about pollution issues, is an evidence that we are overpopulated.

if we were suddenly one-tenth of our population on earth, we could still be living the same way, and we would have cut 90% of our emissions.

let us consider this.

that life is as much about the dying, as it is about the living.
gods do not die, but they do not live either.
the only thing that lives and does not know how to die, is cancer.
and yes, we're the most cancerous species on earth.

Suppose we have four currencies:

E$, for the amount of effort a person puts in,
V$, the value of effort delivered,
P$, the perceived value of a product,
M$, the amount of compensation one gets for the effort, and

And suppose it takes M$20 to make a decent living in this country, where

Andrew in an unskilled worker. He puts in E$20 every month to deliver V$20 of work a month and gets by with M$20 every month. To his boss, Andrew's work in worth P$20.

Benjamin is a semi-skilled worker. He puts in E$10 every month to deliver V$20 of work a month. To his boss, his work is worth P$20.

Charles is a skilled worker. He puts in E$20 every month to deliver V$60 of work a month. To his boss, his work is worth V$60.

Andrew, Benjamin and Charles work for Daniel. Daniel is a management-level worker, and puts in E$10 every month to deliver V$5 of work to coordinate Andrew, Benjamin and Charles. Together they deliver a total of V$300 a month. To Daniel's boss, this work is worth P$300.

Edna is an investor. She puts in E$10 of work every month to deliver V$1 of work every month. Andrew, Benjamin, Charles, Daniel and Edna together deliver a total of $V301, but by strategically positioning Daniel's work, she can deliver a product to 10 people, to each of whom the product is worth a value of P$400.

How should society compensate Benjamin, Charles, Daniel and Edna for their contribution?