happiness

To solve global problems, it is necessary to understand that:

1. My point of view is not superior or better than others.
2. I am not a catastrophist/denialist, fascist/communist, Christian/Muslim, ProUSA/AntiUSA, novax/provax: I am a human being.
3. I have clung to a point of view to feel like someone rather than no one. To feel superior, accepted, listened to, and more secure (and not confused and lost).
4. There is no us versus them situation: There are human beings all equal, and then points of view to which these human beings have attached themselves.
5. The points of view are against each other. Humans are not.

It is necessary to agree on the fact that we want to listen to each other and that we want to look for common points, not differences.

We must ask ourselves: What do I want for myself and my children? Don’t we all want security, peace, health, happiness?

Here we see how to do it; we must also change the way we communicate. Just look at how two people who see a topic differently now communicate, for example, the environment.

The debate we see on television leads nowhere. It is useless to hear two sides say two opposite things, each to their electorate, to reinforce it and to ingratiate some last-minute undecided.

The logic of the contradiction that fuels polarized thought must be eradicated and that of integrated thinking must be instilled. The text below is an example:

Approaching the dialogue on the environmental theme with a new key to reading, we seek to explore the internal discomforts that can push individuals to polarize on opposite positions, revealing how these may actually be manifestations of shared concerns and hopes.

Person A (Environmental Activist): “I feel that every day we are losing more contact with nature, and this fills me with anxiety. It’s not just a matter of environmental policies; it’s as if we’re losing part of ourselves.”

Person B (Industrialist): “And I feel the pressure to keep my company afloat in a rapidly changing world. This uncertainty about the future scares me. I have to protect the jobs of people who depend on me.” Both express a sense of loss and fear in the face of change, albeit from different perspectives.

Person A: “When I talk about safeguarding the environment, deep down, I’m trying to find a sense of connection and security. Maybe it’s similar to your search for stability.”

Person B: “Perhaps you’re right. My insistence on industry and production is my way of seeking security in a world that seems to be slipping away. I had never thought that, deep down, we might have the same fear.”

Person A: “What if we looked for ways to face these fears together? For example, developing technologies that not only protect the environment but also offer new economic opportunities and stability for workers?”

Person B: “That would be a way to address both of our concerns. We could explore together renewable energy projects or circular economy initiatives that reduce waste and create jobs.”

Person A: “This could also help us reconnect with the environment in ways that strengthen our community. We need to find a balance between progress and conservation.”

Person B: “And I admit that addressing climate change can also mean protecting the industry from future crises. Perhaps it’s time to see our challenges as opportunities to innovate together.” Through dialogue, both begin to recognize that their attachment to specific positions hides a common desire for security, stability, and belonging in a rapidly changing world.

Person A: “Talking to you, I realize that our fight is not against each other, but against our common fears. We must work together to create a future that makes us less vulnerable.”

Person B: “I agree. Facing these problems together could help us overcome our internal insecurities, finding solutions that benefit both the environment and the economy.”

In this conversation, the environmental theme becomes a starting point for exploring and sharing common vulnerabilities and fears. Recognizing these elements, the interlocutors discover that their differences can be overcome by searching for shared goals that address the roots of their internal discomforts, paving the way for meaningful collaboration.

Differences are only on the surface. To solve global problems, we must all go deeper.

The time for hiding our heads in the sand, the skeletons in the closet, or the dust under the carpet is over. Artificial intelligence will soon be able to replace every human function, even that of a boyfriend/girlfriend. It’s time to remember who we are and to value the one thing that will distinguish us from the rest: our humanity.

Humanity’s task is to teach/remember all this.