An unusually good description of what Buddhism is really about:

https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Buddha%27s+Answer%3A+Why+Are+We+Here%3F&oq=The+Buddha%27s+Answer%3A+Why+Are+We+Here%3F&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBBzY5MmowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3c4fcec7,vid:WmwcJ4ZDw1c,st:0

Todde

  Purpose of meditation: To just be - To just be the observer = consciousness = the true self.

 Meditation - The word Meditation consists of two parts (from Indo-European according to the American Heritage Dictionary) - "Med-" and "-tion".

 "Med-" means "To take proper action" and "-tion" means "condition".

 So meditation (according to the Indo-Europeans) means "to put oneself in a state of taking right action".

 If you study the Indo-European root words ("The American Heritage dictionary of the English language" contains an appendix, which defines the meaning of Indo-European root words), you discover that there was a much greater awareness of spirituality at the time when these spiritual words were introduced into the language of the time.

 According to Buddhist tradition, these are the imprints left behind by the first great Buddha (the first of five great Buddhas who will work in our era).

 I quote the Roman philosopher (Stoic) Epictetus : "You must regard your human (human-nature that lives only one life) as an insidious and dangerous enemy".

 And a link to a video about the Socratic method (especially interesting is the last half, which is more about the actual Socratic Method).

Link: Socrates' Secret to EXPOSING Fools

 Socrates: “I cannot teach anyone anything. I can only make them think”

 Also check: https://axiom1b.blogspot.com/2015/03/friends-true-friend-is-someone-you-know.html

 The fifth great Buddha according to Buddhism is called Maitreya, which is Sanskrit for "Buddha of Friendship".

Don't forget (part of the Socratic message) to ALWAYS APPLY SKEPTICISM

 

Nobel Prize rewards research on poor and rich countries

  A trio is awarded this year's economics prize in memory of Alfred Nobel. Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James A Robinson have asked why some countries are poor and others rich. They have found the answer in the colonization of the Europeans.

 Daron Acemoglu, is on video link from Athens when the award is presented at a press conference at the Royal Academy of Sciences. - It's a real shock, says Acemoglu, who was, however, among the pre-selected favourites.

 This year's prize is about understanding why some countries are rich and others poor. To arrive at that, the trio studied the Europeans' colonization of the world centuries back and what kind of political and economic institutions were introduced or retained in the various countries.

 The research has been able to show the importance of good social institutions for a country's prosperity. - It is very important because it provides a good tool for how to attack poverty and other types of problems that we see around the world, says Tommy Andersson, professor of economics and member of the prize committee. According to Andersson, previous theories have assumed that countries that become rich automatically get democracy.

 This year's award winners have shown that it is often the other way around - that countries with good institutions often become rich. The research has also shown that countries that were relatively rich when they were colonized today have generally ended up in a worse situation than countries that were poor when they were colonized. - In countries where you could exploit a lot of resources, you typically introduced institutions that benefited a small elite.

 This meant that countries that were previously rich got exploitative institutions that in the long run turned out to be very bad for prosperity, says Andersson.

 Poorer and more sparsely populated "colonies gave more space to larger settler colonies.- Europeans who came to those areas wanted to create a system that certainly benefited themselves, but also benefited others through better protection of property rights, for example, so they could invest in their new home countries, says Tommy Andersson.

 Institutions that protected property rights proved to be good for long-term growth. According to Tommy Andersson, the research has, among other things, influenced several bodies within the UN. - It is among their 2030 goals to create inclusive institutions. In that sense, they have contributed to bringing up the importance of institutions on the agenda, he says. All three prize winners are active at universities in the United States.

Todde

Also check: https://axiom1b.blogspot.com/2024/05/we-europeans-are-becoming-tiny-minority.html

 

The research helps us understand gaps

Memes?

 Weak social institutions are one of the explanations why some countries continue to be poor. Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James A Robinson, who research economic differences, receive this year's economics award. Why did this trio receive the award?

 Today, the richest fifth of the world's countries are around thirty times richer than the poorest fifth. Although all countries have become richer in recent decades, the income gap between the richest and poorest has not decreased. The prize winners' research has helped us understand why this is the case - i.e. why some countries are poor and others rich. This was stated by Jan Teorell, professor of political science at Stockholm University, in connection with the announcement of this year's economics award.

 What explains the large gap between rich and poor countries? The laureates' research shows that a large part of income differences is due to different countries having developed different economic and political institutions. Countries with so-called inclusive institutions – with democracy and protected property rights (C2) – have become richer than countries with exclusionary institutions that pose great risks of expropriation and autocracy.

 One of the reasons why some countries have inclusive and others have exclusionary institutions can be traced far back in time – to differences in what happened in different colonies after Europe colonized large parts of the world, beginning in the 16th century.

 More Europeans moved to colonies with fewer diseases and lower death rates. This in turn led to the creation of more inclusive institutions in these colonies. In colonies where fewer Europeans moved - due to diseases such as malaria and yellow fever - on the contrary, more exclusionary institutions were formed where the colonial powers usurped the country's resources at the expense of the local population.

 The laureates' research also shows that the colonies that were the poorest in the 16th century are today the richest, and vice versa. One of the reasons is that the poorest colonies were more sparsely populated. This led to more settlers moving there, which in turn led to the colony gaining more inclusive institutions.

 Over the centuries, all this has led to large differences between how much the economy has grown in different countries. Is it not possible to simply introduce inclusive institutions? It's not really that simple - something that the award winners manage with the so-called "commitment problem." In countries without democracy and inclusive institutions, the people will constantly fear that the assets they may have managed to build up will be confiscated by the ruling elite, even when the elite promises economic reforms. It inhibits people's incentive to create value for themselves, and in turn the country's economic development and opportunities to grow rich.

 The so-called "commitment problem" is also one of the explanations for why authoritarian states sometimes turn into democracies. The elite know that the only way for the country to get rid of the "commitment problem" - and thus become rich - is to introduce democracy.

Todde

Also check: https://axiom1b.blogspot.com/2024/02/we-are-good-guys-it-is-excellent-to.html

Poverty is not the fault of rich countries

 The question is whether an economics prize has ever had such immediate relevance to contemporary issues as the one awarded this year to Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James Robinson. Above all, Acemoglu and Robinson show in their best moments why both the self-hatred of the left and the complacency of populism are false alternatives. In the influential book "Why nations fail", Acemoglu and Robinson show that vocal parts of the academic left have a fundamental error in their social analysis: It is not the fault of rich countries that poor countries are poor. For example, Sweden was not poor in the 19th century because Great Britain was rich. On the contrary, we could also become rich when we copied reforms such as freedom of business and democratization. Thanks to these better institutions – Acemoglu and Robinson call them inclusive – Sweden was able to quickly build its own prosperity, with good help from other countries that had made, or were about to make, the same journey.

 So we don't have to feel guilty because we live in a rich country; the wealth we created has not been taken from anyone else. Most important among these inclusive institutions is the right to property. It means that you can trust that you have access to what you have created, also in the future. It allows us to work for others, sign contracts, invest, give credit and make business plans to get higher income in the long run. It is in such societies that prosperity grows.

 Poverty is inversely related to the difficulty of establishing functioning institutions. There is always a temptation for those in power to seize the resources available, which undermines ownership and the ability to build wealth in the long term. Acemoglu and Robinson call it extractive institutions. In their follow-up book "The Narrow corridor" (Penguin Press), Acemoglu and Robinson show how even strong clans keep societies in poverty and lack of freedom. But the fact that power is limited by the rule of law and individual rights such as freedom of speech, and is only on loan during the term of office until the next election, also makes it difficult for rulers to enrich themselves and their friends in the short term.

 As, among others, Acemoglu and Robinson's research has helped to show, democracies therefore generally have better economic development than authoritarian regimes.

 Even the extractive logic is unfortunately highly topical in our time. Namely, it is driving the authoritarian and populist trend that is sweeping the world. As the author and journalist Anne Applebaum recently showed in her book "Autocracy Inc" (Allen Lane), it is precisely the ruling clique's will to enrich themselves (and stay in power) that unites communist, nationalist and Islamist governments these days. These regimes not only spread unfreedom and geopolitical instability, but also economic stagnation in societies where it is easier to plunder.

 Acemoglu and Robinson show that, contrary to the notions often found on left-leaning culture pages, property rights and economic freedom contribute to creating and underpinning common interests, trust and community.

 In addition, they have shown that democracy's division of powers, equality before the law and individual rights such as freedom of expression are also important for economic prosperity. In short: We can become richer and freer - and so can all other countries.

Todde

Also check: https://axiom1b.blogspot.com/2023/05/overpopulation-and-future-of-mankind.html

 Is the world still getting better?

 In the mid-2010s, Hans Rosling became world famous for his hopeful presentations of everything that has steadily improved in the world. But what have the curves looked like since then? If you look more closely at the statistics, you will find many reassuring facts, but also clouds of worry.

 Is the world still getting better? The question may seem strange at a time when most things seem to be going in the opposite direction, but it is worth taking seriously.

 Books about the decline of society and humanity have always come in a steady current. In 2010, the British biologist and science journalist Matt Ridley's book "The rational optimist: How prosperity evolves" came out with a different view.

In 2016, the Swedish writer and liberal social debater Johan Norberg published "Progress: Ten reasons to look forward to the future". Perhaps the most famous is
"Factfulness. Ten tricks that help you understand the world" with the subtitle "Ten reasons we're wrong about the world – and why things are better than you think", by the doctor and public health professor Hans Rosling, published posthumously.

 In for example, the magazine The Economist's review of Norberg's "Progress". Ultimately, of course, it is aquestion of whether the world is getting better, but the indicators that are highlighted are generally uncontroversial. Few find it problematic that poverty decreases while peace, tolerance and democracy increase. The statistics come strikingly often from various UN organisations. This does not mean that there is no measurement error, but it is basically the same statistic that development researchers all over the world use.

 Another common denominator of the books about how to make the world better is that their authors work uphill and have been dismissed as naive. It is difficult to change people's world view. Most people are instinctively pessimistic about the world's development.

 In Rosling's book, the frustration is particularly clear. Despite educational data visualizations and YouTube lectures viewed by millions, Rosling often encountered ignorance and casual attitudes even among highly educated people who worked daily on global development. While Ridley and Norberg are outspoken market liberals, Rosling said he was just relaying the facts. He even protested against the label optimist: "You're not an optimist just because you know that child mortality has fallen faster in recent decades in Bangladesh, Egypt and Brazil than it ever did in Sweden.

 Rosling's apolitical approach made him hard to dismiss. But interestingly enough, it may also have contributed to making it more difficult for many to accept his message. Research indicates that people who are to be persuaded to change their opinion on important issues require more than facts that show they are wrong. An understandable explanation is also needed as to why things are different from what they thought. It may be easy to show with statistics that the world is getting better, but it is more difficult to convincingly explain why this is the case. Unlike Rosling, Ridley and Norberg have in several books presented a coherent narrative about what the positive development depends on: free markets and creative individuals.

 As explanations for human progress, market economy, economic freedom and technological development go a long way. But there are patterns that deviate from that worldview. Prosperous countries with high economic freedom also tend to have high taxes and a large welfare state. Technological development as an explanation for the world becoming better immediately raises questions about where the technological development comes from and what makes the technology used for good purposes.

 Overambitious, many say, but there is nevertheless a common denominator: man's dominance on the planet depends on an outstanding ability to cooperate. Human societies succeed better when there are institutions that promote cooperation. The explanation is fully compatible with Norberg's and Ridley's market friendliness: the division of labor that emerges in the market economy can be advantageously understood as a form of cooperation. But democracy, the rule of law and the welfare state are also institutions that in different ways promote cooperation and thus wealth creation. Perhaps it would be easier to get a voice for the idea that the world is getting better if development is explained as the result of human cooperation.

 A bigger problem is probably that the development of the world in recent years has made the thesis that the world is getting better seem dated, if not out of date. A global virus pandemic, continued global warming, multiple outbreaks of war, the return of inflation and a number of elections with populist successes around the world have created a doomsday feel in news reporting. But if there's one thing we've learned from Hans Rosling, it's that feelings are often contradicted by facts.

 In most cases, there is now another ten years of data for the measures and indicators that Ridley, Norberg and Rosling highlighted. What do we see if the time series are extended? Several metrics continue to improve at a steady pace. The proportion of the world's population with access to drinking water is increasing, from 66 percent in 2010 to 73 percent in 2022. Literacy, too, in 2022 it was higher than ever: 87 percent. For men, the figure is even higher, but the

gender gap is narrowing over time. Infant mortality continues to fall. The curve showing global life expectancy at birth for the world's population is It has increased from 47 in 1950 to 73 in 2023. The increase is strikingly stable, but there are two notches in the curve, one larger than the other. Pause your reading and test yourself: what two events after 1950 have caused significant but temporary drops in the average lifespan on Earth?

 The last hack was in 2020 and was caused by the corona pandemic. The second notch is larger and is visible in 1960 when Mao caused mass starvation in China. Otherwise, people die at increasingly old ages and newborn earthlings are expected to live longer and longer. Life expectancy is not the only indicator that took a beating during the pandemic and then recovered. The proportion of the world's population living in absolute poverty fell until 2020, when it increased significantly. But between 2021 and 2024 it fell back. The latest update came this spring and showed that poverty is falling regardless of whether the poverty line is drawn at two, four or seven dollars a day.

 The World Bank also reports the world's aggregate GDP per capita, adjusted for inflation. This "gross planetary product" fell in 2020, but quickly recovered and in 2023 was the highest ever. More gratifying is that more and more countries are now able to combine growing GDP with decreasing carbon dioxide emissions, even when imports and exports are taken into account. The trend towards increasing intelligence seems to be continuing, largely because better nutrition promotes brain development. The number of murders per capita continues to decrease, both in Europe and globally. Annual deaths from natural disasters are still falling. The trend of more and more countries banning ethnic discrimination in working life continues. At a time when many are sighing over developments in the United States, it may be interesting to know that the percentage of Americans who accept marriages between whites and people of color has increased continuously since surveys began in 1958. In 2021, the figure was the highest ever: 94 percent.

 Many people become skeptical and irritated when statistics about the world getting better are lined up in this way. What do the numbers really say? Have the indicators been selected to fit a certain narrative, while other statistics develop significantly more problematically? For the reader who feels hit, I have a reassuring message: several curves that pointed in the right direction a decade or two ago have stagnated.

 In many respects, the world is now going downhill. Does it feel better? The overview above is a subset of indicators I selected in 2017, when I summarized the message of Ridley, Norberg and Rosling. Why you're wrong about almost everything, yet won't change your mind”. There were 19 points, and as far as the data series then went, everyone was heading in the right direction. Now it's different. The prevalence of malnutrition increased during the pandemic, and there is no reduction in the data yet. The incidence of child labor has stopped falling, and the number of armed conflicts in the world has increased in the last ten years. More conflict does not necessarily mean more deaths, but 2022 was unfortunately the deadliest year since the 1980s. When data from 2023 and 2024 is added, it is unlikely to look any better. It is also disappointing that the percentage of people living in democracy is in a downward trend, and even if more countries manage to increase GDP without emitting more carbon dioxide emissions, both total carbon dioxide content and global average temperature are going in the wrong direction. The world is still getting richer and healthier, but it is also getting hotter, more violent and less democratic.

 The sad thing about this is that if violence and dictatorship spread, the institutions that promote human cooperation are threatened. Then even more prosperity curves will turn downward. The 2020s will probably be a worse decade for the genre of books about the world getting better.

ATTENTION! PS. The overpopulation problem is also forgotten in this contex

Todde

Also check:

https://axiom1b.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-earths-nature-is-being-ravaged-by.html

 Give Africa a chance to develope

 Africa's population will increase dramatically and more will continue to make their way to Europe. But with education there are ways to contribute to creating other conditions, write representatives of the organization Alef.

  According to forecasts, Africa's population will double by the year 2050. The number of people trying to escape to Europe from a hopeless life situation in their home country may multiply. In that case, it is not enough to have border guards and effective asylum screening.

  It is possible to take preventive measures to lift people out of poverty. Both humanitarian and economic reasons suggest that this is the right way to go. The EU election that took place was in many ways a reaction to immigration pressure from Africa. Walls and borders were keywords in the election campaign. The debate pointed to all these young men who seek Europe from a hopeless existence in their home countries. They rarely have valid reasons for asylum but are attracted by the dream of a tolerable life on our continent.

 Every year, large numbers of them drown in the Mediterranean. A humanitarian disaster that rarely makes headlines. The political response to the problem has been tighter border control, effective asylum screening and a rapid return of people without a valid reason for asylum to their home countries. But don't we need to look up and broaden the analysis? Everything points to the fact that immigration pressure will increase drastically. An underlying problem is population growth in Africa. While much of the world's population is stagnating, Africa's population is projected to double in the next 25 years. Of the eight countries in the world that will account for more than half of the population increase until 2050, five are in Africa. Nigeria is expected to overtake the United States in population. We are facing an incredibly dramatic demographic change. The consequence is obvious: More and more desperate Africans will seek a future in Europe. The number of small boats multiplies. Tens of thousands of people will drown in the Mediterranean with their longing for a more dignified life. Dealing with this increased migration pressure may become the dominant challenge for Europe in the coming decades.

  Regardless of one's view of migration, it should be clear to everyone that measures to increase border control will not be enough to deal with this challenge. As in other policy areas, preventive efforts are also needed. We need to look up and see what we can do to change the life situation these people are fleeing in the long term. A clear focus is needed on constructive efforts for lasting change, which are not squandered in bureaucracy and corruption. The positive message is that this is possible to do.

  A key issue is education. In 2024, it is estimated that 773 million people in the world will lack the ability to read, write and count. We find a significant percentage of these in Africa. Two thirds are women. In ten African countries, more than a quarter of the inhabitants are illiterate.

  In many African countries, a third of all children leave school before grade five. When women (above all) and men acquire basic reading skills, much changes both in their living conditions and in the surrounding society. They are empowered to change their lives and improve their finances. In doing so, they develop their local communities. Furthermore, they gain the ability to support their children's schooling, which is of great importance in the long term. In addition, they can participate more actively in social life and influence the country's development. We who are writing this have seen this tremendous power of change up close. We are active within Alef, a Swedish organization focused on effective learning of reading, writing and mathematics in one's own mother tongue in African countries. We have thousands of stories about people who created a new future for themselves after completing their education.

  They start their own companies. They can negotiate better business terms. They get a different status and can raise their voice in the local community. They break the negative spiral. They spread hope for a future in their own country. We know that it is possible to create big changes with small funds without either corruption or bureaucracy.

  The paradox is that, in this situation, Europe's governments choose to cut aid to Africa. One motive is that the reception of refugees takes a lot of resources. In Sweden, where there is an extensive restructuring of the aid, an organization like Alef will not receive a penny in government aid starting next year, even though scientific evaluations can confirm the effectiveness of the operation. Instead, we must rely on committed private donors and philanthropic foundations, who understand the developmental power of giving people literacy and thus increased empowerment. They realize the value of efforts for Africa's development that have a lasting effect. We are grateful for that. But at the same time we are frustrated.

  We wish that insight also reached our political decision-makers. We could do so much more! It is about giving people in African countries a future and hope. But it is also about measures that can affect migration to Europe in the long term and on a large scale. It's about looking away from border control and asylum testing and thinking long-term.

Hélène Boëthius founder and chairman, Alef – Adult Learning and Empowerment Facilitators Markus Ask Secretary-General-elect, Alef Bertil Forsberg board member, Alef

Also check:

https://axiom1b.blogspot.com/2021/02/populationgrowth-needs-to-be-slowed.html

and:

https://axiom1b.blogspot.com/2020/07/knowledgeof-history-is-important-part.html

Todd