A quote I can agree with, sometimes

Yesterday I read a quote some people may call "wisdom". Here I write it down and I will discuss when I think it is correct but how wrong it can be at other moments, including our current time.

Weak people revenge.

Strong people forgive.

Intelligent people ignore.

In certain conditions this can be right when e.g. people make fun of you because you don't have the latest tablet and thus they think you are not cool. Weak people will indeed become angry because people make fun of them for not having the latest tablet while strong people will forgive after they provided strong arguments (sometimes including shouting and even violence) that the others were wrong to laugh at them while intelligent people may try to convince the others that they can use their less advanced tablet much more efficiently than those with the newest one but if people will continue making fun of them they will walk off and ignore (but people are forgiven to ignore, to some extend, the "intellectuals" who claim that reading books is much better than reading eBooks because those intellectuals do not understand that while reading eBooks, one can even search for extra background information if necessary and thus become much more informed). In summary, sometimes the above mentioned sentences are correct.

However, I think in many circumstances it is not a good noun. For instance imagine following situation: you loose all your money when next time a bank goes bankrupt (e.g. investors decide it is better to sell huge amounts of shares when they are expensive so they have a big return than risking they will go down). Does that mean that if you ignore you have no more money, you are intelligent? Does that mean that when you forgive those who bankrupted the bank, you are strong? And if you are angry because your money is gone, does that mean you are weak (and many will use "weak" in its meaning of "stupid")?

I think most people will not agree with the above and call the first group of people stupid as they don't seem to understand that no money means no food and other pleasures. People probably will call the second group of people weak as it seems they don't want that to take actions against those who took the money. And concerning the third group of people, people will probably understand the anger and say those people have common sense (of course only when the anger stays within limits and is directed towards those who took the money and does not become directed towards other innocent victims as so often happens when people become very angry and frustrated when there is no-one to defend them. Or they become angry with those who help them).

When you don't loose money but others do and you are selfish, then of course you will ignore others lost money, you will forgive those who took the money of others as they didn't take yours while you will not become angry as you still have your money. However, does that mean the person is intelligent, strong and not weak? Does that mean there will be a solution so next time it will not repeat itself?

Of course, how you behave towards your own downfall is up to each person and thus people can ignore or forgive or not feel anger as much as they like. For instance, during the first part of the financial and economic crisis, I lost all my savings and I accepted this happened because crises can happen. But I no longer accept a second crisis may return because nothing has been learnt and people, including those who caused the crisis, simply continue as they did before the crisis. Therefore I am angry that the crisis may return and if it does, probably much worse as countries have spend so much money to save economies and companies during the first crisis that during a second crisis they probably will no longer be able to save the economy (or may not be allowed as they may not be allowed to spend too much as countries may be forced to keep their budgets balanced) and then many people may loose their job (and maybe their life) due to irresponsible behaviour of a relatively small part of society (although many people support them in the hope they too may one day become rich).

Similar with climate change. While there is more and more evidence climate is changing (e.g. three storms in one week over Mexico, major fires in USA, ...), we could have reduced the change ones we knew many years ago this can happen but we didn't because we want to continue getting richer and many don't want to do any effort to change our own behaviour. We used the argument that it may not happen thus ... wait and see. But even if climate change will not happen, reduction of burning fuels and gases will result in cleaner air. Now scientists are fighting a desperate battle to find solutions to reverse disaster because, as it all takes longer than expected we start to think it is all rubbish and thus we think we can continue as before. (For instance, it seems the level of the oceans is climbing much slower than expected. Thus, where is this water from the melting ice? Will it reached land because the pressure will push the water via the ground and thus may not be seen until it appears inland? Indeed, this is happening in some islands. Further, it seems sea levels even dropped after a major flooding in Australia as the water created an inland ocean.)

Similar with the destruction of large ecosystems while we can certainly prevent this, e.g. by not eating fish for only a few years so stocks can recover but we use the excuse that we need omega 3 fatty acids as they are good for our brains (while I think it doesn't seem to work much if we still don't manage to understand what we are doing to our planet). By the way, many margarine's have omega 3 acids added to them and thus we can live a few years without the need to continue killing all our fish (although maybe the fishy ones are better). Still, how were vegetarians in countries such as India ever able to live beyond their childhood seems to be a miracle if fish is essential in our diet.

Thus, a normal reaction is indeed that I become angry because I am indeed weak and can't change anything while those at the top continue misbehaving (e.g. there was recently news that the top of the Fortis bank knowingly misinformed people in 2008 concerning shares and thus many people lost their money; nevertheless, these bankers are still free). But I try to prevent that my anger becomes too big and targeted towards the wrong people, i.e. those who are also victims of the misbehaviour and loose their jobs (i.e. the unemployed). Therefore, I try to think of solutions that some people may find interesting and so they can use some of them to prepare a better society, although at this moment many people (including me) say we can't change the system (yet) as we are not (yet) willing to change it and thus in effect accept it will go down again. People who are cleverer than me, those with degrees in economy, should do what intellectuals should do: become angry nothing changes and start thinking of solutions, not ignoring the problems while they should make sure that solutions do not make life of ordinary people more difficult. The strong people should also become angry (within reason) and thus people with power such as judges but also politicians should show their strength by telling those who misbehave that enough is enough and that prison may wait when they don't change attitude. Only after people behave correctly again and stop milking companies and countries to pay themselves huge bonuses or stop disobeying generally accepted rules, only then strong people can forgive and give people a second change. But one can't forgive people who don't show any remorse and continue the same bad management by enriching themselves as this may again bring chaos to society. Those enriching themselves are not always the managers of banks and certainly not those working in banks who are on a daily basis in contact with customers, but as they are the public faces of banks, they may be the first to feel the anger of people while those misbehaving most are not known. Thus it is also in the interest of those working in banks (and other companies) that everyone behaves correctly.

Thus, for me, intellectuals will not ignore problems but think about solutions how to prevent problems in future, even when people may laugh with them and call them scaremongers while in reality they may simply think ahead and have done their research. For me, strong people will make sure those behaving badly will face criminal charges so that everyone else will know that wrong behaviour result in punishment and thus people will know they have to work correctly while the strong not only punish others who misbehave but they should be strong enough to prevent themselves becoming corrupt. Then ordinary (weak) people don't have to become frustrated and angry and call for revenge after things go wrong as they will be able to thrust their leaders.

In summary, people should do their job and get what they deserve (i.e. their wages), maybe even receive a bonus if considered appropriate. But when they do not behave well, they should get punishment. Of course, mistakes are always possible and to reduce them, people should be adequately trained. It is as simple as this and I think most people will agree with this summary.


Thanks for this precious explains

Popular posts from this blog

Brexit, refugee crisis and the EU

(7i) Return to (travel) business in times of a virus

(20b) Coronavirus statistics: how to present data about cases and mortality