My Musings

Blog

  • On The Moral Paradox That Lets Evil Persist

    In both medicine and society, the principle is clear: destructive entities must be contained and eradicated early, even if doing so affects surrounding healthy systems. In medicine, doctors accept collateral damage to remove cancerous tissue, knowing that hesitation allows the disease to spread. Yet when it comes to society, politics, or global crises, the same logic is repeatedly ignored—with disastrous consequences.

    Consider small-scale examples. In families, a broken object may lead to collective punishment when the culprit is unknown. Innocent children bear short-term discomfort, but this system teaches accountability, deters future misbehavior, and maintains trust. Similarly, in a classroom, collective consequences for misbehavior incentivize students to police each other, creating a culture of compliance and vigilance.

    Extrapolate this to society. Extremist or violent networks often embed themselves within civilian populations, from Northern Nigeria’s Boko Haram to the Taliban in Afghanistan and insurgent groups in Pakistan, Syria, and Palestine. Once embedded, these threats cannot be surgically removed without harming innocents, leaving governments confined to decades-long containment measures. Such palliative strategies suppress but rarely eliminate the threat, consuming enormous resources and allowing cumulative harm to civilians over time (RAND Corporation, 2022; International Crisis Group, 2024).

    The moral calculus often cited to justify inaction—”innocents will die”—is seductive but short-sighted. Inaction guarantees more suffering in the long term. Collective punishment or decisive containment is politically and ethically fraught, yet incremental measures fail to eradicate the core problem, leaving societies in a perpetual state of vulnerability.

    The same pattern applies to pandemics. COVID-19 originated in Wuhan, China, but initial inaction allowed the virus to spread globally. Countries hesitated to implement strict border controls, testing, and quarantines, resulting in millions of deaths that could have been mitigated with early, decisive containment (Nature, 2024).

    Decisive action is more than a pragmatic strategy; it is a moral imperative if we prioritize long-term survival and well-being. Incremental, palliative approaches may seem ethically comfortable and politically convenient, but they allow destructive forces to metastasize, guaranteeing higher cumulative costs in lives, resources, and stability.

    Societies must confront the uncomfortable truth: protecting moral comfort today often condemns innocents to prolonged suffering tomorrow. Just as medicine treats aggressive disease decisively, so too must humanity confront threats to its social and political body with courage and strategic precision.

  • On the Welfare Myth About Migrants

    Across Western countries, a troubling narrative persists: migrants, especially from Africa, India, or Arab regions, are said to come and live off welfare, draining economies. This belief is widespread—63% of Germans and 42% of Europeans hold it (European Social Survey, Pew Research). Yet, the truth, backed by data, paints a different picture.

    Migrants’ Economic Impact

    In Germany, migrants contribute significantly to the economy. For instance, international students brought billions in 2024 (DW), and foreign workers generate hundreds of billions in overall economic output (Migrando). About 70% of working-age migrants find employment within two years, often in sectors like healthcare or technology (IW Köln). Their taxes and social security contributions support pensions and welfare systems.

    Even when migrants bring families, responsibility largely falls on the individual or sponsor; governments are not liable for welfare unless specific conditions are met (Pew Research).

    Racial Bias in Welfare Perceptions

    Racial bias influences perceptions of welfare use. For example, in Germany, many Ukrainian refugees (mostly white) received benefits initially (DW), while African migrants, despite lower usage of social support, are often portrayed as a “burden” (InfoMigrants). Employment rates for some African groups, such as Nigerians, are higher than for other migrant groups (Spiegel).

    The Role of Media and Politics

    Media coverage and political narratives often amplify bias. News outlets emphasize African boat crossings more than Ukrainian arrivals (DW), while far-right parties disproportionately focus on non-white migrants (SVR Migration). Anti-migrant sentiment in Europe frequently targets visible minorities, reflecting historical and cultural prejudices (European Social Survey).

    The Policy Reality

    Governments acknowledge that migrants help address labor shortages, admitting hundreds of thousands each year, including students and skilled workers (Make it in Germany). However, public education on the positive contributions of migrants is limited, often due to fear of backlash from nationalist groups (Stockemer et al., 2020). NGOs attempt to counter disinformation but often lack funding and broad public trust.

    The True Burden: Racism, Not Migration

    Data consistently shows migrants contribute more than they receive (DW, InfoMigrants). The welfare myth is frequently a product of racial bias rather than economic reality. Leaders, media, and institutions must present accurate information about migrants’ contributions to prevent misinformation and protect societies that rely on these workers.

  • On Making It Work – Stop Trying

    I’ve recently been doing a lot of problem solving on a personal and professional level the past couple of weeks. A pattern began to emerge. A pattern which should be obvious but often isn’t. There’s a problem you’re trying to solve, say getting the result of 2+2. You come up with a solution to count sticks and they don’t add up to 4.

    So, you decide to count stones instead. Now you’re getting 6. Then you decide to use color markers, and the new result is 17.  You decide to pay professionals to build you a pair of 6-feet stature so you can add it up. But then, you’re now getting 223. At some point, you realize that you’ve drifted far off from trying to solve the problem to trying to make your current solution work.

     

    This rudimentary example happens a lot in life. I believe the wise people of old call it sunk cost fallacy.The sunk cost fallacy is a cognitive bias that causes people to continue an endeavor, or continue consuming or pursuing an option, because of previously invested resources (time, money, effort), even when it’s no longer rational to do so.

    Imagine you’ve bought a $100 ticket to a concert. On the day of the concert, it’s storming, and you’re feeling sick. Going to the concert would make you miserable. Rational decision-making would say: “I should stay home and rest.” But because you spent $100, you might feel compelled to go anyway, even though the buses are on strike and your car broke down — that’s the sunk cost fallacy.

     

    As an engineer/designer, you come up with a solution. But then it keeps breaking and missing several edge cases. And you keep patching it. At some point, you must realize that maybe the solution is the problem. I’ve built solutions that took hours, several thousands of lines of code and I keep adding more and more to make it more efficient, which kept introducing new problems to solve. It’s exciting at first.

    But after a while, you must realize that the effort being put into making that solution work is better invested in coming up with a more elegant solution.

     

    Recently, I had to implement a solution that logs events happening within a system. The important thing is that we don’t want that logging to degrade user experience. After the typical brain racking, the solution I came up with was to use a queue. Smart right? When events occur, just send to a queue and move on.

    Then we have another system that processes the queue items as fast as possible. However, a small stress test quickly revealed 2 issues. First was that the queue grew very quickly, and secondly, that some queue items need to be processed sequentially for correctness, but our queue processor can’t guarantee that. To solve the first problem, I decided to add more resources to the queue processor.

    Instead of 1 queue processor, why not 5 or 10? Processing should be faster, no? Unfortunately not. Each processor tries to grab tasks from the same queue, so they often end up competing over who gets to process what.

    Even after processing, they all need to put their results to the same place, which causes more delays. Essentially, these queue processors will spend a lot of their time waiting and contending, instead of doing actual processing.

    After hours of work trying to make the queue processors more efficient, it occurred to me “I don’t need to make this queue work. I just need to solve the original problem a better”. What was the original problem? Log event but don’t make the user wait for you.

    Eventually, I came up with another solution, the same entity that attends to the user should log the event, just do it after responding to the user. I ran the same stress test on this and voilà! it worked more efficiently than I expected, without having to commit more resources to it.

     

    The lesson is not to give up on any problem you’re trying to solve. It’s that after trying to solve it a particular way for so long, it’s probably time to give up on that solution and re-assess.

    If a solution consistently introduces new problems or does not consistently solve the original problem you’re trying to solve, it’s probably not the most elegant solution for that problem.

    And if you continue to try to make that solution work, you’re almost guaranteed to spend the rest of your life still trying to make it work.

     

    For example, your personal finance, you realize you’re constantly broke before the month ends, despite being a salary earner. One way to solve that is to take a loan to stay afloat till the next salary comes in.

    However, months later, you’ll realize you’ve been accumulating and rolling over debt, despite having finite resources. Then you decide to just start taking stuff on credit. And when that introduces new problems, you start asking everyone you know for money.

    You see where I’m going with this? You’ve left the original problem and are now trying to “make the solution work”.

    Eventually, you must take a step back to re-assess the original problem i.e money finishes before the next salary comes in. A less complicated solution could be to rebase your monthly expenses so it fits inside your monthly earning.

     

    Lastly, if you’re trying to get a door open, you can try different keys and different key sizes. But you must consider at some point, that maybe that’s not a door.

  • On Vibe Coding: Building Hobby Projects with AI – My Workflow for Fast, Fun Development

    Lately, I’ve been on a roll building side projects at ridiculous speed, and honestly? It’s been a blast. With AI tools like ChatGPT and GitHub Copilot, turning weird ideas into real apps is faster than ever. Here’s the chaotic, nerdy, surprisingly effective workflow I use to go from “what if…” to “it’s live.”

    The best part? You don’t need to be a software engineer to follow along. This workflow is beginner-friendly, perfect for non-coders who just want to build cool stuff with the help of AI. And if you’re already a dev, it’s an awesome way to explore new platforms (like going from web to mobile without crying).

    1. Chatting Up ChatGPT

    Every project starts with some random idea that won’t leave me alone. I open ChatGPT and start vibing:

    • What’s a decent structure for this thing?
    • Which features should I care about first?
    • Can you summarize it so it sounds like I know what I’m doing?
    • Oh, and give me a name. Bonus points if it’s punny.
    • What color should the app feel like?
    • Can you do a short pitch and a longer one for app stores or that one friend who always asks questions?

    Then I get extra: I ask GPT to generate a logo based on the vibe so far. Same for a banner image. If I’m planning to ship it as a mobile app, I also get it to write up some sweet, professional-sounding release notes.

    Basically, by the time I’m done chatting, I’ve got a name, colors, a logo, descriptions, and a solid idea that looks like a real project (even though it’s still in my head).

    This step alone can give non-tech folks a solid sense of direction before even touching code.

    2. Spawning the Project Skeleton

    Next up: Visual Studio Code. I slap that idea summary into GitHub Copilot Chat and say, “Scaffold me, captain.”. Claude Sonnet is usually better for scaffolding.

    Depending on the stack (React, Next.js, Expo, whatever), it spins up:

    • A README.md
    • Some folders that look organized
    • A theme.js file for vibes
    • Placeholder components that feel like they’re waiting for greatness

    Boom. Skeleton complete. Time to add flesh.

    For non-devs: Copilot Chat literally writes the files for you. You can ask it to explain things along the way, or tweak stuff with plain English prompts.

    3. Coding One File at a Time Like a Chill Wizard

    Now I open each file, one at a time, and ask Copilot to fill it in. The README stays open for context (and to keep me from spiraling).

    Examples:

    • In Navbar.jsx: “Make a responsive navbar with Home, About, and Contact. Tailwind me up.”
    • In utils.js: “Add a function that formats dates like ‘May 18, 2025’ because that’s obviously important.”

    I go file-by-file. No rush. No stress. Just nerding out.

    Even if you’re new to code, you can copy-paste these prompts and get real results. Copilot will hold your hand more than you think.

    4. One Theme to Style Them All

    To keep things looking like they came from the same universe, I make a theme.js or theme.ts. It’s basically my app’s personality in code:

    export const theme = { colors: { primary: '#3B82F6', secondary: '#64748B', background: '#F1F5F9', text: '#111827', }, spacing: { sm: '0.5rem', md: '1rem', lg: '2rem', }, };

    Whether I’m using Tailwind, Chakra, or rolling my own styles like a rebel, this file keeps everything snappy and consistent.

    Not a designer? No worries—just ask ChatGPT what colors work well together. Done.

    5. Deploy and Yeet

    Here’s where things get spicy: I use Expo with React Native, which means I can go from idea to web app to mobile app (Android/iOS) in no time.

    For web, I deploy straight to Netlify. It’s just a Git push away.

    If the project needs a backend, I usually:

    • Use Cloudflare Workers to handle API endpoints. Super fast, no backend server headaches.
    • Reach for Supabase if I need a real database with auth, storage, etc.
    • Or Firebase Firestore for quick setup—plus I’m already using Firebase for quick social auth.

    Even these backend tools are AI-friendly: you can ask ChatGPT for help setting them up and it’ll walk you through the entire process.

    So yeah, deployment feels like cheating now. But I’m not complaining.

    Why This Madness Works

    No meetings. No blockers. No waiting for design approval. Just flow. Just fun. Just shipping.

    And the best part? Every little project teaches me something new. Could be a CSS trick, a new library, or just a better way to talk to AI. Fast feedback loops rule.

    Even non-coders will walk away with real skills and the confidence to keep building.

    Final Words From a Vibe Coder

    This chaotic-but-cozy workflow made me fall back in love with coding. If you’ve been stuck or bored or just need to make something goofy and cool, give this method a try.

    Whether you’re new to this or you’ve been coding for years, AI can help you skip the hard parts and focus on the fun. It’s never been easier to just start.

    If enough people care, I’ll drop screenshots and maybe even a video walkthrough. Until then, keep shipping weird stuff.

  • On AI and Automation

    Introduction

    Throughout history, technological advancements have changed the way we work. From the Industrial Revolution to the rise of the internet, new technologies have disrupted industries, eliminated jobs, and, in some cases, created new ones. However, the rapid rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and automation is different. Unlike past innovations that primarily replaced manual labor, AI is now replacing cognitive jobs as well. The looming question is: if AI and robots can do everything, what happens to the billions of people who rely on jobs for survival?

    This article explores the reality of AI-driven job displacement, the myths surrounding technological job creation, and the potential economic and societal consequences of widespread automation. More importantly, it examines whether our current economic system can survive this shift or if we need a radical new approach to avoid catastrophe.

    The Myth: “AI Will Create More Jobs Than It Destroys”

    Tech optimists often argue that AI will follow the pattern of previous technological shifts by creating more jobs than it eliminates. This belief is based on historical precedents, such as:

    • The Industrial Revolution, which replaced artisans and craftsmen with factories but created new factory jobs.
    • The Dotcom Boom, which eliminated many traditional retail and media jobs but created an entirely new industry centered around the internet.
    • The rise of automation in manufacturing, which displaced assembly line workers but generated jobs in tech-driven fields.

    However, historical data suggests that the idea of net job creation is not universally true. While some individuals and industries benefit from new technologies, many displaced workers never recover their lost earning potential. For example:

    • The Internet wiped out millions of jobs in print media, retail, and clerical work. Many affected workers never transitioned to high-paying tech careers.
    • Automation in manufacturing led to mass layoffs, with many workers ending up in lower-paying service jobs. The idea that laid-off factory workers became programmers or engineers is largely a myth.
    • The rise of mechanization in mining eliminated jobs without creating equivalent replacements. Many former miners struggled to find stable, well-paying work afterward.

    The key issue is that the jobs created by new technology often require entirely different skill sets. A coal miner, for example, cannot simply transition to a software engineering role. This leaves a vast portion of the population struggling to adapt, leading to permanent unemployment or underemployment.

    The AI Disruption: Why This Time is Different

    Unlike previous technological revolutions that primarily affected manual laborers, AI is eliminating both physical and cognitive jobs simultaneously. Jobs once thought to be safe—such as legal research, customer service, journalism, and even software development—are now under threat. Consider the following examples:

    • AI-generated content can write news articles, reports, and even fiction, reducing the need for human journalists and writers.
    • Chatbots and AI-powered customer service are replacing human support agents at an alarming rate.
    • AI-driven medical diagnosis systems are showing accuracy rates comparable to or better than human doctors, potentially reducing the need for radiologists and other specialists.
    • AI coding assistants like GitHub Copilot are streamlining software development, raising concerns that even programmers could face job losses.

    With each passing year, AI improves at performing complex tasks that were once considered impossible for machines. If this trend continues, the number of jobs AI destroys will far outweigh the number of jobs it creates.

    The Economic Paradox: Who Buys AI-Generated Goods?

    One of the biggest flaws in the AI-driven economy is a fundamental economic paradox: if AI replaces most jobs, who will have the money to buy AI-generated products and services?

    In today’s economic system, workers earn wages, which they use to buy goods and services. Companies, in turn, use those profits to pay workers. If AI takes over all jobs, this cycle is broken. Consider the following scenarios:

    1. A Few Billionaires Own AI, While the Majority Live in Poverty
      • A small elite controls all AI-driven enterprises and hoards most of the wealth.
      • The vast majority of people are unemployed or underemployed, leading to extreme inequality.
      • Economic collapse follows as there are no consumers left to sustain the system.
    2. AI Companies Sell to AI Companies: A Useless Economy
      • If AI is both the producer and consumer, human economic participation becomes irrelevant.
      • AI-generated companies trade with each other, but this serves no meaningful purpose for society.
      • This scenario leads to a collapse of human-centric economies, making money and traditional economic systems obsolete.
    3. A Utopian AI-Driven Economy?
      • Some argue that AI could create a post-scarcity society where goods and services are freely available.
      • However, history shows that powerful elites do not willingly give up control of resources.
      • Unless AI-driven wealth is redistributed, this vision remains unrealistic.

    Why Universal Basic Income (UBI) Won’t Work

    One proposed solution to AI-driven job losses is Universal Basic Income (UBI), where the government provides every citizen with a fixed income. While this idea sounds appealing, it has several critical flaws:

    1. Governments Are Inefficient and Corrupt
      • Many governments already struggle to provide unemployment benefits, healthcare, and pensions.
      • Corruption and bureaucratic inefficiency make large-scale wealth redistribution difficult.
    2. Where Will the Money Come From?
      • If AI replaces most workers, traditional income tax revenue will disappear.
      • Some propose taxing AI companies, but corporations always find ways to avoid taxes.
    3. Inflation and Devaluation
      • If governments print money to fund UBI, inflation could render the payments meaningless.
      • Without economic productivity from human workers, the value of currency could collapse.

    Because of these challenges, UBI alone is not a sustainable solution to AI-driven unemployment.

    The Only Viable Solution: Redistributing AI Wealth

    If AI eliminates most jobs, the only way to prevent societal collapse is ensuring that AI-driven wealth is distributed fairly. Here are some potential approaches:

    1. AI-Generated Profits as Dividends for All Citizens
      • Instead of letting a few corporations hoard AI wealth, profits could be distributed as dividends to everyone.
      • This would allow people to sustain themselves even without traditional jobs.
    2. Cooperative AI Ownership Models
      • Workers could collectively own AI-driven companies, ensuring that AI-generated wealth benefits all employees.
    3. Strict AI Monopolization Laws
      • Governments could regulate AI ownership to prevent a small elite from controlling all economic power.
      • AI technology could be nationalized to ensure fair distribution of its benefits.

    Conclusion: A Crossroads for Humanity

    AI and automation are advancing rapidly, and if left unchecked, they could create a dystopian future where a few individuals control all economic power while the rest of humanity struggles to survive. The argument that “AI will create more jobs than it destroys” is not supported by historical evidence, and traditional economic models may not survive the disruption AI will bring.

    If we fail to implement fair wealth redistribution mechanisms, we risk plunging into a world of extreme inequality, mass unemployment, and social unrest. The only way forward is to rethink how economic power is distributed in an AI-dominated world—before it’s too late. It is important to not always do things because we can, but always evaluate if we should.

  • On Declining Birth Rate in Western Nations

    Introduction

    Western nations are experiencing a major demographic shift. Birth rates are declining, populations are aging, and fewer young people are entering the workforce to support growing numbers of retirees. Governments have tried various measures to reverse this trend—cash incentives, parental leave, and even immigration—but none have effectively restored birth rates to sustainable levels. Why? Because the root issue is not just financial, but societal incentives.

    In contrast, developing nations continue to have high birth rates, despite being poorer on average. This suggests that economic hardship alone does not suppress family growth—it’s about what society values and supports. If Western societies truly want to encourage family formation, they need to rethink their entire approach. This article explores why current measures have failed and how real incentives can change the trajectory.

     

    Failed Attempts to Boost Birth Rates

    1. Immigration as a Quick Fix

    One of the primary strategies used by Western governments to compensate for declining birth rates has been mass immigration. The logic is simple: bring in working-age adults from developing nations to sustain the economy. While this provides an immediate labor force, it is not a long-term solution for several reasons:

    • Cultural & Political Tensions: Many locals fear being displaced or outnumbered, leading to rising anti-immigration sentiment.
    • Short-Term Economic Gains: Migrants age too. Without a steady native-born population, nations will eventually face the same problem.
    • Integration Challenges: Differences in language, culture, and economic status can create social tensions, making mass immigration a band-aid solution rather than a real fix.

    2. Small Cash Incentives for Babies

    Several countries, including Japan and South Korea, have experimented with giving couples one-time payments for having children. However, these programs have largely failed. Why?

    • Raising a child is a long-term commitment: A one-time payment of $5,000 or even $10,000 barely scratches the surface of the financial burden over 18+ years.
    • Parents need structural support, not just money: Childcare, work flexibility, and affordable housing matter far more than a one-time bonus.

    3. Parental Leave & Childcare Subsidies

    Nordic countries like Sweden and Norway have some of the best family policies in the world—paid parental leave, childcare subsidies, and flexible work arrangements. While these measures have kept birth rates from collapsing, they have not significantly increased them. The reason? Women still prefer careers over motherhood when the two seem incompatible.

    Simply giving parental leave doesn’t address the core issue: raising kids is still seen as a burden rather than a rewarding societal role.

     

    A Better Approach: Incentives That Truly Support Families

    Rather than treating family formation as an afterthought, societies should make it the most attractive lifestyle option. The goal should be to make marriage and child-rearing so advantageous that the majority of adults naturally choose it. Here’s how:

    1. Fewer Work Hours, Same Pay

    • Couples should work 7-hour days but get paid for 8.
    • Parents should work 6-hour days but get paid for 8.
    • This makes family life sustainable without sacrificing income.
    • Companies already allow pet owners to take breaks—why not parents?

    2. More Leave and Sick Days for Parents

    • More vacation days and sick leave should be given to parents and married couples.
    • If people know they won’t have to choose between career and family, they are more likely to have kids.

    3. Priority Social Housing for Families

    • Affordable housing is one of the biggest barriers to having children.
    • Couples should be prioritized for social housing.
    • Parents should have access to mortgage-style rent payments, where they pay what they can afford long-term, similar to how US student loans work.

    4. Low or No Taxes for Families

    • Married couples should pay 50% less tax.
    • Parents should pay ZERO taxes.
    • A family that knows they can raise children without excessive tax burdens will be more motivated to have kids.

    5. Workplace Daycare Facilities

    • If companies can allow pets in the office, they can set up small in-house daycare facilities.
    • Parents can work while their children are cared for nearby.
    • This eliminates daycare costs and allows parents to stay engaged in their careers.

    6. Making Children a Normal Part of Society Again

    • In many Western workplaces, it’s okay to bring a dog but frowned upon to bring a child.
    • Businesses and public spaces should normalize children being present.
    • If you can hear dogs barking on Zoom calls, why should a baby’s laugh be a problem?

     

    How Would This Change Society?

    If these policies were implemented, within 10 years, 90% of adults would be married with children.

    • Marriage and family would become the default lifestyle.
    • Career and parenthood would no longer be in conflict.
    • Financial and workplace support would make raising kids easier.

    Would some people feel penalized for not having kids? Possibly. But right now, the reverse is happening—parents and families are being penalized while child-free individuals enjoy a system built around them. If we truly believe children are the future, society must prioritize them, just as it does with pets, careers, and individual freedoms.

     

     

    Conclusion: The Time for Change is Now

    Western societies are at a crossroads. They can continue to rely on ineffective solutions like immigration and small cash bonuses, or they can restructure incentives to make family life attractive and feasible. The choice is clear—if we want a future where birth rates are sustainable, we need to stop punishing parents and start rewarding family formation.

    Governments and businesses alike must recognize that investing in families is not a short-term expense, but a long-term investment in the survival of the nation. The policies proposed here may seem radical today, but they are the only way to ensure that Western societies thrive for generations to come.These measures are probably anti-capitalist. Capitalism has gotten us so far, it doesn’t necessarily have to be the one to take us further.

  • On Time and Chance

    “… but time and chance happeneth to them all.”

    I find this portion of the bible very interesting, especially because it seem like it’s lesson is lost to many who come across it.  The lesson being that just as everyone is subject to time, everyone gets a chance.

     

    A very important lesson I learned a long time ago, which is summarized recently as “how your entire life pans out depends on 1-3 key decisions”. Sounds scary, but it’s true.

     

    Everyone gets a chance, or chances. What we don’t know is how many chances you get. And when the chances will come. But the chance will come, if it hasn’t already. Question, will you recognize it? Will you be prepared to take advantage of it?

     

    Whether you end up being poor or rich depends on what you did with the opportunit(y/ies) that came your way. Might have been when you were a teenager. Might be your early 20s, could be your late 30s.

     

    And when you think deeply about it, everyone you know very well, what their life is currently boils down to 2 or 3 decisions. Which job offer to accept, who to marry, where to reside, etc.

     

    Now, this is not me disputing the geographic or family lottery. That is, where you’re born and the family you’re born into already determines the direction of your life, to a high degree. However, what you will be able to make of your life eventually boils down to a few decisions. That is, what you do with the chance or chances that come your way.

     

    Hence, it’s very important to stay prepared for opportunity. Remember, everyone will get at least a chance. Problem is, you don’t know when it’ll come. Just as you don’t know how many you’ll get. So, stay prepared. And when the chance comes, pray for the grace to recognize it for what it is. And then make sure you treat it like it’s the last chance you’re ever gonna get.

  • On Second Chances

    One of the greatest strength of humans is the ability to forgive. To give those who have wronged you or erred another chance to do better.

    Two things I’m wondering

     

     

    How many second chances?

    I’m wondering how many second chances we as a society consider appropriate until there’s no more chances. The bible says it’s okay for someone to wrong you 70 times 7 in a day.

     

    Within the legal framework, some laws have something like 3-strike rule. That is, if you’re busted for the same crime 3 times, you get life imprisonment. I guess because it means you’re unrepentant.

     

    More than 50% of people in prison are repeat offenders. Most people that leave prison, end up back there within 10 years. And in some cases, end up commuting bigger crime. A man rapes a 3 year old girl. Why is that man deserving of redemption more than the millions of other people who’ve done nothing wrong?

     

    And then there’s several programs in place to give people second chance. For example, there are programs meant to help ex-convicts get a job. Some scholarships here and there. And so on. Which are all nice. And that brings me to the second thought…

     

     

    What about zero chance?

    I’ve noticed a trend that’s been around since I can remember, especially on social media. We as a people seem to have an unhealthy obsession with redemption arc. Someone who’s done bad things before but we want to save them. And I’m not saying it’s a bad idea. I’m just wondering why we don’t extend such grace to those who haven’t done anything bad.

     

    1. Some years ago, in one of the Nigerian tertiary institutions, video surfaced of what appears to be a girl and a guy being intimate, and it appears both parties were fully aware they’re being recorded. Video trended on social media. The lady was devastated, as you can imagine. Anyway, it didn’t take long for an anonymous philanthropist to offer to sponsor her education abroad.

     

    2. About 2 years ago, someone online made a proposal that they wish to enroll kids that have chosen to indulge in cyber fraud to school on scholarship.

     

    3. As recently as last week, video surfaced online of a lady who verbally and physically assaulted an elder who also happens to be a lecturer in her school. As is the trend, someone somewhere has offered her scholarship to study abroad.

     

    You’ve probably heard or seen these kinda thing happen severally over the years. And again, I’m not saying it’s a bad thing. But my concern is, aren’t we being unfair to those who’ve gotten zero chances?

     

    In as a much as it’s good to give the lady in (1) or (2) a second chance at education, what about those who’ve gotten zero chance despite not indulging in such incriminating act? Even in that her school, her set, her department, I’m almost certain there’s at least 1 person there struggling to pay school fees or make ends meet. Why does this lady deserve the scholarship more than those ones who’ve not done anything wrong? Kids chose to indulge in cyber fraud, probably with parental consent. Some kids in exactly the same circumstances didn’t. But it’s the kids that chose crime that deserve scholarships?

     

    Another interesting thing to point out is that for everyone who offers philanthropy as second chance, they have many people around them who’ve not gotten 1 chance. You’re offering to sponsor the education of a lady that assaulted an elderly man for no reason. Does that mean you have not one person around you who needs the scholarship and hasn’t done any harm?

     

    Why does it seem more rewarding to do wrong and be redeemed than to “never” do wrong? Even in the case of the prodigal son from the bible, yes the father accepted him back. But the bible didn’t say he was given another inheritance. The father inferred to the other son that everything he has is his. Because the prodigal son already squandered his inheritance. What we seem to do in this age is to take the “good son” and give it to the prodigal son as redemption.

  • On Responsibility, Accountability and Submission

    I’ve come to understand is that a very pivotal feature for the progress of any society is responsibility and accountability. There should be people responsible for certain things. There should be people and resources submitted to those responsible. And those responsible should be held accountable for any shortcomings regarding who and what they’re responsible for.

     

    Traditionally, the man of the house is responsible for providing for and protecting the wife and kids. If any harm ever befalls the wife or child, the man is inclusively held accountable. Where was he when someone was slapping his child? And for that arrangement to work, the wife and child are expected to be submitted to the man. If he insists you should not go to XYZ place, don’t go. Going despite his instruction is you consenting to not be entitled to his protection. His reason for asking you not to go isn’t important. And that is accountability on your part. No one is going to hold him responsible if kids 50km away are homeless. It’s the kids he’s responsible for that he’ll be held accountable to.

     

    Hence, in many societies, parents can make certain decisions for the child. And the child can’t make certain decisions without parental consent. Because the parents are responsible for the child and the child is accountable to the parents. If you’re saying parents don’t have a right to make certain decisions for the child, you’re also agreeing that the parent isn’t responsible for the child in certain matters. So, when the child becomes an adult and seeks independence to do as he pleases, he’s also choosing to relinquish the protection and provision from the parent. This is not to say a parent can’t protect or provide for their adult children. It’s to say it’s no longer their responsibility, but mere benevolence, once the child has chosen to be independent.

     

    We were taught early in school that family is the smallest unit of the society. So, the matter of responsibility, accountability and submission scales as you begin to zoom out. From local government, to regional to national. People vote in leaders, put them in charge of their common wealth. And in exchange, those people are responsible providing certain things including amenities and security. And even in the case where the leader wasn’t voted in but forced his/her way in, the rules are still the same. The leader is in charge of the common wealth of the society, the citizens submit to the leader, and in exchange, the leader provides for and protects the people.

     

    However, some societies hold their leaders responsible more than others. And I think that distinction is what differentiates a society that will make it from the one that won’t. A society that cannot hold its leaders responsible is not going to make it. When things go well, the first thing most people think of is who to blame or who’s responsible. And it’s why society evolved to have dedicated roles. Most times, if you try to run a system with the ideology of “everyone is responsible”, then no one is responsible and the system will fail. Because you’ll have some trying to do everything and some doing nothing. It’s why you’ll usually specify roles.

     

    So, when there’s a problem with water, and the society decides to blame the person put in charge of music, that society is not going to make it. But that’s exactly what happens in some societies today. You have elected leaders, put in charge of your common wealth so they can provide for and protect in certain regard, say water. Suddenly, there’s no water. Instead of holding the Minister of Water responsible, they will handpick, people will turn to the Minister of Music, insult him and say he’s to blame for lack of water. That kind of anomaly incentivizes people to not do their job, knowing someone else is gonna be held responsible for it anyway. End result? A dysfunctional society.

     

    An unfortunate event happens somewhere in the country and instead of holding the elected and delegated leaders responsible, you hold a political aspirant responsible. So you want them to be responsible for you, without you submitting and being accountable to them.

     

    Someone decides to educate the public on certain matter and you’re holding them responsible for the situation of things. There’s fuel scarcity in your territory and you’re holding software engineers for building an app to identify which stations have fuel. The roads are suddenly unsafe and you’re holding the citizens accountable to buy bullet proof buses and provide armed escort. Foreigners paying for your medication decide to stop and you’re holding them to it instead of the people you pay taxes to. Another country decides that they don’t want to admit more people into their country, and you’re insulting their president instead of holding yours responsible for making your home country unlivable. In what world does that make sense?

     

    I’m yet to figure out if it’s the inability to determine who’s responsible. Or maybe it’s just cowardice. Let the weak one take the blame instead of laying it firmly at the feet of the person responsible.

  • On Conflict Resolution: Geopolitics

    RUSSIA AND UKRAINE

    Russia invaded Ukraine February 2022 and the “conflict” has been going on since then. Summary of the issue is that Russia believes certain parts of Ukraine should be part of Russia and they want to take it back. Also, they don’t like the idea of having a country close to them joining NATO. As they consider that a threat to their sovereignty since NATO is strongly driven by the US. Ukraine specifically wants to join NATO to help protect it from Russian encroachment.

    Now, things could have gone differently before the fighting started. For example, Ukraine could have agreed to concede some of the land to Russia is exchange for not having a war. And I also understand why they didn’t. Because say they agree to concede 1%. What’s stopping Russia from coming back to demand for 10% more? Most of the western world decided to sanction Russia heavily, with the hope that it’ll force them to back down. Locked them out of the SWIFT payment system. Stopped buying oil and other export from them. De-banked a lot of Russian entities home and abroad. Threat of force doesn’t seem to deter Russia. And invasion is probably not on the table because Russia possess nuclear weapons and they’ve made it clear they’re willing to use it.

     

    Summary is, every form of escalation option has been explored and status quo remains the same. So? Perhaps it’s time to go the other direction, de-escalation. Neither Russia nor Ukraine and its allies having infinite resources.

     

    Because the question we have to ask ourselves is, what’s the possible endgame scenarios.

    Ukraine wins the war

    What will that mean? Does it mean Russia ceases to exist? Meaning all Russians are suddenly dead? Does it mean Russian military is heavily decapitated? Meaning they can regroup and come back? And assuming any of this happens? What’s left of Ukraine? How long will it take to get back to where they were before the war?

    Russia wins the war

    Does this mean Russia annexes the whole of Ukraine? If that happens, will the Ukrainians take that lying down? Does it mean all Ukrainians were evicted from the territory, hence no one to fight for it again? And if that happens, what’s to stop them from coming back to try to fight for their land again?

     

    The only way forward as far as I can tell is a middle ground where Ukraine gives what they can and Russia takes what they’re given.

     

     

    ISRAEL AND PALESTINE

    The Israel-Gaza war started October 2023 when Hamas (Palestinian militant group and political organization that governs the Gaza Strip) launched a large scale surprise attack on Israel. And it’s been going on since then.

     

    The summary is that Israel believes the land is theirs. Palestinians believe the land is theirs. It’s been an argument of who got there first. Palestinians attack Israelis. It teaches the next generation of Israelis to want to have their revenge on Palestinians. Israelis attack Palestinians, it breeds a new generation of Palestinians that hate Israel.

     

    How can the conflict be ended permanently? Each party has been taking turns to escalate for decades and it hasn’t yielded fruit. Perhaps it’s time to try de-escalation? Agree to split the land between the 2, with a clause that whichever party breeches that agreement will have the full force of the UN (or whatever enforcing body) descend on them. While also providing resources for the most affected party to rebuild and re-educate it’s people.

     

    Conflicts like this are going on all over the world. Tribes/ethnic groups fighting over who should own or rule a territory. And after generations of continous escalation, one party needs to take the first step towards de-escalation.