
ENGLISH TEXT
When Everyone Teaches, Who Learns?
An analysis of how intellectual authority is built on the internet and what happens when knowledge becomes viral content.
“The teacher who has never been a disciple is an impostor. He who does not know he is still a disciple is a danger.”
Never before have so many aspired to teach while having so little to offer. Never before has the position of the teacher been so easy to occupy and so difficult to legitimize.
This new form of intellectual authority is the construction of subjectivities that need to teach in order to affirm themselves—subjectivities that turn pedagogy into an extension of the ego and knowledge into a performance. In this environment, there emerge those who adopt the role of guide or reference without the necessary training, institutional backing, or ethical commitment.
In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche proclaimed the death of God and, with it, the death of all transcendent authorities. What he did not foresee was that this death would not lead to the Übermensch, but to the proliferation of petty gods, each with their own revelation.
The pseudo-teacher is the bastard child of democratization. They are born when access to communication tools becomes universal, but the necessary training to use those tools with intellectual responsibility does not. Their equation: technology + ego + audience = authority.
Their origin is tied to three major historical shifts that have redefined today’s intellectual landscape.
The first is the crisis of educational institutions. Universities, once temples of knowledge, have become degree factories. Education has been commodified, bureaucratized, and stripped of substance. In this scenario, the pseudo-teacher’s anti-institutional critique thrives, building influence by discrediting traditional figures of authority.
If traditional authorities are illegitimate, then any alternative voice gains legitimacy by opposition. The pseudo-teacher does not need to prove their credentials—they only need to discredit the credentials of others. It is a zero-sum game where authority is obtained by destroying other authorities.
If anyone can be a teacher, there is no need to be an apprentice; if all knowledge holds equal value, then criteria for evaluation disappear; if every opinion deserves equal respect, then specialization becomes meaningless. Thus, we move from open knowledge to widespread confusion.
The second transformation is the temporal acceleration that Byung-Chul Han describes as destructive of contemplation and depth. The pseudo-teacher is both a product and a producer of this acceleration. Their pedagogy is based on the immediate delivery of consumable content, on the instant gratification of the desire for knowledge.
The time available for learning has drastically shrunk: university courses that once took years are compressed into intensive seminars, books are summarized into infographics, complex theories are explained in ten-minute videos. This temporal compression inevitably leads to superficiality, as certain cognitive processes require time to settle.
The third transformation is the fragmentation of knowledge brought about by digitalization. Knowledge is no longer presented as a continuous process or an interconnected system, but as a series of fragments designed for immediate consumption. A short video on quantum physics can have as much visibility as a university course; a social media thread on philosophy can reach further than a carefully crafted academic work. In this context, the idea that understanding something complex requires prior steps, time, and gradual training is lost.
Pseudo-teachers present fragments of knowledge as complete wholes, stripping concepts from their theoretical contexts, disconnecting ideas from their traditions, and offering superficial syntheses as deep analyses.
On digital platforms, everything appears to hold equal value: a serious analysis and an improvised opinion circulate in identical formats, compete for the same attention, and are measured by the same metrics.
The Devaluation of Knowledge
Empty authority generates an inflation of knowledge similar to monetary inflation: the amount of content presented as “knowledge” multiplies, but its quality is devalued. This inflation has consequences, including disorientation—where the audience is overwhelmed by the sheer volume of available “knowledge” and loses the ability to distinguish between valid and simulated information.
It also leads to the devaluation of intellectual effort: Why study for years when you can get “the truth” in a ten-minute video? Empty authority devalues effort and promotes a culture of instant knowledge.
A piece of content is “truer” if it has more likes, more valid if it generates more reactions. Criteria of validity are replaced by criteria of popularity.
Pedagogical Imposture
Different forms of “authority” have emerged from the dynamics of digital platforms. Each adopts various ways of constructing authority, but all attract large audiences without requiring serious commitment to learning.
-
The Critic of Modern Society: This figure builds authority through generic critiques of “modern society,” “the system,” or “the matrix,” without providing in-depth analysis or concrete proposals. Their pedagogy consists of pointing out social issues (consumerism, alienation, media manipulation) as if they were the first to discover them.
-
The Consciousness Awakener: This archetype positions itself as responsible for “awakening” the sleeping masses. They use apocalyptic rhetoric blending conspiracy theories, superficial social critique, and promises of revelation. Their authority relies on supposedly possessing hidden knowledge that “they” don’t want us to know. They divide the world into “the asleep” and “the awakened,” appealing to paranoia and the desire to belong to an exclusive group of “enlightened” individuals.
-
The Self-Help Guru: This guru mixes elements of psychology, oversimplified Eastern philosophy, and self-help techniques. Their authority is built on the promise of quick personal transformation, using their own “evolution” as proof. They reduce ancient spiritual traditions to self-help formulas, trivialize deep psychological and philosophical concepts, and present their biography as evidence of their methods’ effectiveness.
-
The Self-Taught Intellectual: They present their lack of formal education as a virtue, claiming that academia “limits” thought. They indiscriminately mix elements from different philosophical, scientific, and cultural traditions without truly understanding them. Their narrative is elaborate enough to seem rigorous but accessible enough that no specialized knowledge is needed. They offer superior knowledge without effort.
-
The Armchair Political Analyst: Lacking training in political science, history, economics, or sociology, they confidently interpret political dynamics. Their arguments rely on clichés, unacknowledged ideological biases, and hasty generalizations. Their authority rests on the apparent ability to “make sense” of what others supposedly fail to understand.
-
The Amateur Science Communicator: Their authority is built on making technical concepts “accessible.” Though lacking scientific training, they present theories as absolute truths. They borrow science’s prestige but strip concepts of their uncertainty and methodological context. Their “popularization” often creates more confusion than knowledge.
The End of Intellectual Traditions?
Empty authority contributes to the erosion of intellectual traditions—understood as the transmission of knowledge across generations. Instead of traditions, we have trends; instead of schools, we have influencers; instead of teachers and disciples, we have content producers and consumers.
Without solid traditions, intellectual memory is lost. Each generation must reinvent the wheel, rediscover long-known truths, and repeat past mistakes. The pseudo-teacher, unaware of their discipline’s history, presents centuries-old ideas as revolutionary breakthroughs.
Intellectual Humility
Whoever aspires to teach must first recognize how much they do not know. —A Socratic principle.
The true teacher never stops being a student. They remain open, curious, willing to revise their ideas, admit mistakes, and consider other viewpoints. Intellectual humility is not just an attitude but a constant practice: those who cultivate it avoid imposing rigid answers, reducing problems to easy formulas, or confining reality to comfortable explanations.
Everyone reading this can identify, in their daily lives, ways in which intellectual authority is constructed. Detecting these patterns does not require great effort—only critical attention in the spaces where knowledge circulates.
The quality of knowledge depends not only on who produces it but also on how we receive it. In this constant exchange, what we value as knowledge is defined.
HOW. THEN I THINK
The loss of critical thinking is often attributed almost entirely to digital technologies. Screens, algorithms, and social media are singled out as the main culprits behind attention fragmentation and the deterioration of our mental capacities. While this perspective is partly correct, it overlooks another crucial factor.
We think with our bodies, with our history, with what we inherit and what we suffer. There is no isolated “thinking self” suspended in some metaphysical ether. There are elements and circumstances that shape our cognitive abilities. Among these determinants, one stands out for its daily and persistent influence: food. Every bite sends chemical signals to the body that affect the mental processes through which we perceive, decide, and reason.
It’s not just algorithms that shape our decisions—what we eat does too. While attention focuses on the effects of digital exposure, the biochemical burden damaging our cognitive functions from within goes unnoticed.
The Information You Eat
Every food is a chemical message that our body reads and translates into physiological states. When we consume sugar, we trigger hormonal cascades that have evolved over millions of years to respond to survival situations. The body interprets a glycemic spike as a signal of sudden abundance followed by imminent scarcity, responding with patterns of desperate accumulation and anticipatory anxiety.
Blood sugar spikes create hormonal roller coasters: energy surges followed by crashes, euphoria followed by depression, hyperactivity followed by lethargy. It’s impossible to think clearly when the body is on this biochemical ride.
When we eat ultra-processed fats, we give the body defective building materials. Cell membranes stiffen, intercellular communication falters, neurotransmitters struggle to move fluidly. The brain begins to function like an engine with dirty oil—slow, clogged, prone to failure.
When we eat foods loaded with preservatives, dyes, and flavorings, the immune system stays chronically activated, trying to process unrecognizable substances. This constant inflammation directly impairs our ability to think clearly.
The hormones regulating our mood, energy, and focus are synthesized from the nutrients we eat. Serotonin, which makes us feel good and think optimistically, is primarily produced in the gut from amino acids in proteins. Dopamine, which motivates us and sharpens attention, requires iron and specific amino acids. If you don’t eat the right materials, your body simply can’t produce the substances needed for clear thinking.
As neuroscientist Antonio Damasio has argued, our cognitive abilities depend on the body’s homeostatic regulation. Thinking clearly requires a well-nourished body—not just in calories, but in chemical stability.
The Second Brain
The gut contains more nerve cells than the spinal cord. It processes information for the brain, influencing our mood and decisions. The gut-brain axis functions as a bidirectional information highway.
This “second brain” is inhabited by trillions of bacteria forming the microbiota. These bacteria are active partners in thinking and feeling, producing chemicals that directly affect our mental state. Some strains generate compounds that induce depression; others produce calming substances that enhance clarity.
Foods loaded with preservatives, dyes, and synthetic chemicals feed bacterial strains that produce inflammatory and neurotoxic compounds. These “disruptive” bacteria create chronic low-grade inflammation, impairing cognitive function. Fermented foods, plant fibers, and healthy fats, on the other hand, nourish bacteria that benefit the brain.
You are literally feeding an ecosystem that determines how you think. If you feed anxiety-inducing bacteria, that’s what you’ll experience. If you nourish bacteria that promote stability and clarity, that’s what you’ll embody.
The Ancients Knew
The philosophers we consider great thinkers lived in eras untouched by industrial food. Their nutrition came from fresh, seasonal, local sources.
In India, thinkers like Buddha based their teachings on dietary moderation. The traditional Buddhist diet—centered on grains, legumes, vegetables, and fruits—sought mental stability for meditation. Overeating was seen as an obstacle to clarity.
Taoist sages in China developed a food philosophy treating each ingredient as medicine. Their diet of whole grains, fermented vegetables, medicinal herbs, and proteins aimed for energetic balance, enabling philosophical contemplation.
European Renaissance thinkers like Erasmus of Rotterdam practiced simple diets of grains, vegetables, fruit, and fish, believing intellectual production required dietary sobriety.
Their diets maintained stable blood glucose levels. The fats they consumed supported neurotransmitter production. Fermented foods nurtured a healthy microbiota generating brain-beneficial compounds.
The mental health epidemics we face today (depression, anxiety, ADHD) were rare in those times—not because life was idyllic, but because the biological systems underpinning thought weren’t disrupted by modern food chemistry.
Indigenous Peoples and Nutritional Transformation
Ancestral diets persist in pre-industrial communities. The Inuit, before processed foods, relied on fish, wild game, seaweed, and wild plants. Their cognitive abilities—navigation, geographic memory, problem-solving—consistently surpassed urban populations.
Traditional Mediterranean communities (Greek islands, rural Italy and Spain) eating whole grains, legumes, vegetables, fruit, fish, and olive oil show lower mental illness rates and better cognitive stability in old age.
Andean rural populations, whose diet is based on quinoa, native potatoes, high-altitude grains, and vegetables, exhibit more cohesive collective thinking and fewer mental disorders than urban counterparts in the same countries.
Japan’s traditional diet, rich in polyunsaturated fats and fiber, has shifted toward Westernized eating in recent decades. This nutritional change coincides with rising mental health issues. Once tied to honor codes, Japan’s suicide rates now mirror Western patterns—linked to depression, anxiety, and hopelessness.
South Korea presents an even starker case. Among OECD nations, it has the highest suicide rate (24.6 per 100,000, 2003–2019), coinciding with rapid adoption of Western dietary patterns, especially among youth.
The United States
The U.S. invented and perfected ultra-processed foods, engineered food marketing, and exported its business model globally. It also has the developed world’s highest mental disorder rates.
In the 1950s, before processed food dominated, U.S. depression rates were 1%. By 2020, after 70 years of industrial eating, they exceeded 10% among adults. Geographically, states with the highest processed food consumption (Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, West Virginia) correlate with the worst mental health outcomes. States with ancestral-like diets (Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Hawaii) fare better.
Cognitive Dispossession
The inability of low-income populations to change eating habits isn’t due to lack of will or education. Advertising, cost, and availability conspire to keep critical thinking diminished. Marketing targets vulnerable groups—children and the poor—who have limited access to healthy options.
Children are especially susceptible. Their developing brains, immature hormonal systems, and forming gut microbiomes are programmed by early diet, setting lifelong patterns. Hence, massive investment in child-targeted ads, “addictive” product design, and school partnerships normalizing unhealthy consumption.
The same corporations dominating the food industry (Nestlé, Unilever, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola) heavily invest in psychological manipulation. Facebook’s “Creative Shop” helps brands like Coca-Cola and Nestlé design algorithm-driven ad campaigns. PepsiCo’s “Consumer DNA” database profiles users for targeted ads. Coca-Cola operates over 40 social media monitoring centers to track online behavior.
These corporations benefit from populations that consume more and question less. They know malnourished people are cognitively vulnerable—more susceptible to emotional manipulation, less capable of critical thought that might challenge power structures.
Strategic Alliances and Regulations
In Mexico and Brazil, Coca-Cola and Nestlé have funded health, employment, and sports programs, cozying up to governments to preempt regulation. They’re embedded in global lobbying networks (like ILSI) alongside Unilever, Danone, and Mars, coordinating efforts to block food-related laws.
Political Funding and Institutional Ties
In Australia, food giants like McDonald’s and Nestlé donate to political parties. PepsiCo has faced scrutiny for opaque campaign financing in Brazil. In Colombia (2018–2020), beverage giants funded legislative and executive campaigns, influencing health, education, and tax policies.
The Chemistry of It All
Everything is chemistry. Natural foods are complex compounds evolved over millennia to interact with our biology. An apple contains over 300 chemicals; a spinach leaf, hundreds of bioactive molecules. The problem isn’t chemistry itself—it’s industrial chemistry designed for purposes beyond nutrition.
Food additives aren’t inherently evil. Preservatives prevent microbial growth, ensuring safety. But synergistic toxicity—where safe individual compounds become harmful in combination—is ignored. Regulatory agencies assess additives in isolation, not the cocktail of chemicals in processed foods.
A soda can contains caffeine, aspartame, sodium benzoate, phosphoric acid, and artificial colors—each approved individually, but their lifelong combined effects are unstudied. This knowledge gap stems from a regulatory system prioritizing commerce over public health.
Flavor Engineering
Food corporations employ neuroscientists, chemists, and psychologists to design hyper-palatable combinations of sugar, salt, fat, and additives that hijack brain reward circuits.
The “bliss point” is the precise mix maximizing pleasure while minimizing satiety—creating foods you can’t stop eating. Artificial flavors are more intense than natural ones, recalibrating taste buds to make real food seem bland.
MSG and other enhancers distort satiety signals, making the brain perceive adequate food as insufficient. Eating becomes an experience of perpetual lack.
Pharmaceuticalization
Big Pharma commodifies malnutrition’s consequences. The ADHD, anxiety, and depression epidemics—driven by industrial diets—generate trillions in drug sales. These medications treat symptoms, not causes, keeping a cognitively impaired population functional.
The same investment funds holding stakes in Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and McDonald’s also own shares in Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street are major shareholders in both processed food and pharmaceutical giants.
A malnourished population consumes more drugs: diabetes fuels insulin sales, depression fuels antidepressants, ADHD fuels stimulants.
Corporate Tentacles
Food companies are nodes in vast corporate networks. Nestlé, the world’s largest food corporation, owns pharmaceutical brands like Alcon. PepsiCo (Quaker Oats, Gatorade) invests in biotech. Unilever (Hellmann’s, Ben & Jerry’s, Dove) controls supplement companies, selling both the processed food that sickens you and the supplements claiming to heal you.
Media Simplification
Influencers cyclically promote contradictory food trends, fostering confusion that prevents solid nutritional literacy. They sell the myth that individual “superfoods” can defy biology, obscuring how corporate systems engineer dietary dysfunction.
Nutritional problems are framed as personal failures of will, not outcomes of rigged food systems. “Mindful eating” becomes an individual duty, ignoring the economic barriers to accessing real food.
Cognitive Politics
Every food policy is cognitive policy. Subsidies, regulations, labeling laws, and child marketing restrictions are decisions about what kind of thinking we cultivate in society.
If thought is embodied, then policies affecting bodies are cognitive policies. Air and water quality, food access, green spaces, healthcare, labor conditions—these shape a population’s thinking capacity.
Economic elites know this. They eat organic while pushing industrial food on the masses. They live in clean neighborhoods while polluting poor ones. They access preventive medicine while underfunding public health.
We need doctors who treat anxiety with diet, psychologists who recognize ADHD’s nutritional roots, educators who tie academic performance to food quality.
The mind-body split lets elites naturalize cognitive inequality while artificially sustaining its causes. It blames individuals for intellectual limits while ignoring the systems that impose them.
This struggle isn’t won in the realm of ideas but in the visceral terrain of existence. It’s won every time we choose food that fuels clear thought.
ISOLATION AND VULNERABILITY
Isolation and vulnerability were built brick by brick.
An analysis of how urban design has fragmented us and left us defenseless in the face of any crisis.
For years, it was said that the city was the pinnacle of progress. A place where everything moved faster, where life gained possibilities. Efficiency, dynamism, modernity were touted. But what wasn’t said is that, behind that speed, we began to lose our breath.
Cities have been designed to function with precision under normal conditions, but they crumble at any disruption. Like an assembly line, if just one part fails, everything stops.
Urban planners, armed with T-squares and computers, designed cities to function like factories. Every element had to have a function, every movement had to be predictable, every space had to generate productivity. An urban world operating with the precision of a clock and the warmth of an operating room.
The Dead Centers of Economic Life
The financial centers of large metropolises embody the current city model: zones of extremely high economic activity that are almost completely devoid of urban life. They are places where capital concentrates, but not community.
These districts concentrate enormous flows of money and people during working hours but empty out completely after six in the evening. Restaurants close, plazas become deserted, buildings go dark floor by floor. The city stops beating because its heart is financial.
A worker can spend eight hours a day in one of these towers for years without knowing a single resident of the area. This is understandable because, in many cases, there are no residents. These spaces were designed exclusively for production.
The urban experience of these workers is reduced to functional commutes between specialized spaces. They lose the ability to perceive the city as a social ecosystem.
Non-Places
We have lost the ability to orient ourselves not only geographically but also emotionally in space. Airports, stations, hotels, hospitals, residential units – all of these are “non-places.” Functional, uniform spaces. You can be in one without knowing which city you’re in.
Shopping malls are a prime example of a “non-place.” These spaces are designed to generate a controlled and predictable consumption experience. Their architecture eliminates references to the local context and creates an artificial environment that could be replicated in any city in the world.
A shopping mall operates on invariant principles: constant climate control, artificial lighting simulating natural light, absence of clocks and windows, circulation circuits designed to maximize exposure to stores. These spaces generate a feeling of timelessness, making it difficult for visitors to estimate how long they have been inside.
Spatial orientation becomes diffuse. Maps pointing out “you are here” become indispensable because the architectural design removes all natural spatial references. Visitors move down corridors that lead nowhere, observe displays showcasing similar products, listen to ambient background music designed to promote consumption. This experience is stimulating but empty.
The shopping mall has evolved beyond its original function. It is no longer just a place to shop but a substitute for the city. It includes offices, medical clinics, universities. It has become a private, controlled, and monitored city, where entry is conditioned on purchasing power and where the rules are set by the owners.
This diversification turns them into self-sufficient urban microcosms that compete directly with the street. Neighborhood commerce, which functioned as a social meeting point, cannot compete with the comfort and security offered by shopping malls. Traditional public spaces gradually empty while private spaces of consumption solidify as the new centers of socialization.
Now, social interactions seem to occur only in contexts where someone is trying to sell us something. This commercial mediation has altered the nature of urban social relationships.
The Architecture of Isolation
Residential buildings have been designed to show us that the best way to live in a community is to avoid encountering the community. Towers of glass and concrete are designed to generate ephemeral neighborly relations, nonexistent neighborhood identities, and community bonds that dissolve as easily as they form. Community is promised but isolation is delivered; security is sold but anxiety is produced.
People want to feel safe, and safety has been redefined as the absence of the unpredictable. But the unpredictable is precisely what keeps a city alive. Chance encounters, unplanned conversations, the possibility of discovering something new around a corner.
During the pandemic, these towers became vertical prisons, and their inhabitants discovered that the security they had purchased was also their cage.
These “spaces without place” occupy a geographical location that could be anywhere in the world. And just like a shopping mall, an apartment in a glass tower in Singapore is functionally identical to one in São Paulo. This global interchangeability produces the feeling of not being anywhere.
Nature Deficit
In cities, nature appears as part of the urban landscaping but rarely as part of daily life. Parks are green islands amidst asphalt that are visited, not inhabited.
Disconnection from environmental cycles alters circadian rhythms and collective dynamics. Living in the concrete jungle means submitting to artificial rhythms that only respond to the demands of economic efficiency. Traffic lights regulate pedestrian flow following algorithms optimized for vehicular traffic, not the rhythms of walking. Business hours are extended to maximize consumption opportunities, eliminating the differences between day and night, work time and rest time.
This imposition of mechanical rhythms onto bodily experience generates temporal disorientation that arises when the body loses contact with its natural rhythms. Inhabitants of large cities develop a neurotic relationship with time: always in a hurry, always busy but rarely satisfied with what they accomplish.
The city imposes a mechanical, uniform, continuous time. Work schedules, school bells, traffic lights, alarms. Everything indicates that you must do something, move, arrive, perform. But it rarely indicates when to stop, rest, contemplate.
Suicidal Architecture
Extreme weather conditions are revealing how disconnected cities are from their environment. Concrete roofs retain heat, impermeable soils worsen floods, sealed buildings prevent natural ventilation. They were built with their backs turned to the climate.
Glass facades act like lenses concentrating solar heat, turning buildings into ovens when the outside temperature exceeds the limits for which they were designed. During extreme heat waves, these structures become uninhabitable without massive energy consumption for artificial climate control. It’s a race against the climate that cities cannot win.
Urban design progressively eliminated all elements that could provide natural climate regulation. Trees were sacrificed to maximize buildable space, permeable surfaces were replaced by concrete and asphalt, interior courtyards were closed off to gain sellable square meters. The result is an urban landscape that amplifies all the negative effects of climate change.
The city is not a machine independent of its natural environment. Urban planners designed as if climate were a variable controllable by technology, as if nature were an obstacle to overcome rather than a system of which we are a part.
The consequences of this architectural arrogance manifest every summer. Cities become heat islands that can be several degrees hotter than their rural surroundings. Their inhabitants must take refuge in artificially climate-controlled spaces, exponentially increasing energy consumption and creating a vicious cycle of urban warming.
Collective but Isolated Mobility
The car promises speed and efficiency but delivers its opposite: traffic jams that turn minute-long journeys into hour-long odysseys. More importantly, the car isolates us from the urban environment. You can cross an entire city without experiencing it, encapsulated in a bubble of glass and metal that filters all direct sensory experience.
Transportation systems are optimized to move people as efficiently as possible, but in the process, they eliminate the possibilities for discovery that arise from slower, less directional movement.
Transportation systems reproduce a feeling of isolation on a larger scale. Subways and buses become transport tubes where people travel in silence, avoiding eye contact, creating a mobility experience that is technically collective but emotionally isolated.
Hundreds of people share the same air, feel the same train vibration, experience the same jolts and stops, but have developed sophisticated strategies to pretend they are alone. Headphones create individual acoustic bubbles, phone screens generate private fields of attention, avoidance of eye contact is practiced with the precision of a ritual. A subway ride presents similar characteristics anywhere: carriages where people avoid eye contact, use headphones…
Cities concentrate millions of people in confined spaces but organize this proximity in a way that minimizes the possibilities of encounter. Urban density does not translate into social density. People are physically close but socially isolated.
Urban highways have sliced the city into disconnected sections. More than uniting, they divide. Their layouts fragment neighborhoods, erect physical and acoustic barriers, and relegate the pedestrian to the status of a nuisance. The cyclist, in this scheme, is an anomaly that must be contained in narrow or marginal lanes, away from vehicular flow.
This obsession with fast movement has a cost not mentioned in the blueprints. Large avenues, saturated with cars, don’t just transport bodies: they expel particles that invade lungs. Breathing in the city increases respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, while inhabitants are trapped in a toxicity they never chose. All in the name of efficiency, as if shaving a few minutes off a journey justified exposing public health to constant deterioration.
The performance ideal has transformed streets into mere passage corridors. We no longer walk to experience the city; we walk to arrive. Sidewalks narrow, spaces to stop disappear.
The Fragility of Supply Chains
Cities function on the basis of globalized supply chains that have made invisible their dependence on resources and processes operating thousands of kilometers away.
The products we find on supermarket shelves have traveled thousands of kilometers, passed through dozens of transformation processes, and been handled by hundreds of people we will never know. This logistics creates an apparent abundance that hides extreme systemic vulnerability.
The invisibility of these supply chains generates a disconnect between consumption and its consequences. City dwellers can consume products whose manufacture destroys distant ecosystems, exploits workers on other continents, or depletes natural resources in regions they will never visit. This physical distance facilitates a moral irresponsibility that would be impossible in communities where the consequences of consumption were visible.
In recent years, some events have caused shortages of products consumers considered guaranteed. When these systems fail, cities expose their fragility, and their inhabitants realize the extent to which they depend on structures beyond their control.
This dependence is not limited to food. Electrical power, drinking water, waste management, communications: all these systems essential for life in these settlements operate on centralized infrastructures. Efficiency is also their weakness: they are optimized for normal conditions but can collapse rapidly under any disturbance.
This vulnerability is not new; it had simply remained invisible, like those pipes and cables that keep a building functioning but which we only notice when they break. The dominant model of urban development has bet on the hyper-concentration of specific functions and the elimination of local production. Neighborhood markets have been replaced by multinational chains that depend on centralized distribution systems.
Gentrification expels the economic diversity that makes a community resilient. The small businesses and workshops that constituted the local economy disappear.
Space as Commodity
Cities are also the result of economic, ideological, and symbolic interests that organize daily life, limit collective action, and, without us noticing, manufacture dependence.
“Abstract space” is a type of space that is homogeneous, functional, stripped of all collective memory. It doesn’t arise from daily use or interaction between neighbors, but from the cold layout of the planner, the engineer, the speculator. And it is precisely this type of space that makes us vulnerable.
The city is no longer simply a place to live; it is a mechanism for accumulation. It is built so money flows, not so life flourishes.
Large urban transformations (megaprojects, financial districts, gentrification, real estate bubbles) obey strategies of investment, speculation, and displacement. In this way, the most fragile communities are displaced, neighborhood networks are destroyed, urban landscapes are homogenized, and spatial inequality is sharpened.
The people who inhabit these cities are functional while they produce and consume. When they need solidarity or infrastructure for common life, they don’t find it.
Function without Function
Everything in the city has become a commodity: time, silence, movement, affection. There is no corner that cannot be packaged, optimized, and offered as a service. In this context, trades did not escape transformation. What once responded to a vital need (repairing an object, growing food, caring and healing) was displaced by tasks that don’t aim to address what keeps society standing, what truly matters.
The city, having suppressed bonds and substituted the body for the function, now requires a type of worker: someone who maintains the illusion of normality, even if they solve nothing concrete. That’s why jobs designed to simulate movement, guarantee presence, fabricate urgencies multiply. Professions that do not care, do not teach, do not build, but fill the empty stretches of the day with activity.
Most city inhabitants work in jobs that live off connectivity but not community, that respond to invented needs and abandon real ones. An app to measure productivity, a crash course on leadership, a social media manager who doesn’t know how to turn on a lamp if the power goes out.
The trade has ceased to be a way of responding to the world and has become an instrument to validate belonging to a system that rewards occupation above purpose. You get paid for being present, not for contributing. And the role is valued more than the function. Hence many people perform tasks they know are unnecessary but cannot leave because it’s their ticket into the simulation.
The city, then, is exposed not only by its infrastructure but by its very trades. When a crisis hits, the average citizen doesn’t know how to get clean water, how to treat a wound, how to preserve food, how to organize with others. Not because they lack intelligence, but because they have been trained to respond to emails, attend meetings, and write reports.
More is produced, but less is understood. And what could heal is ignored because it doesn’t generate immediate dividends.
Markets, Gardens, and Rooftops
Despite everything, other forms of urban life emerge in the interstices of the planned city. The street markets that appear on corners, the street vendors who temporarily occupy sidewalks, the groups of people who appropriate residual spaces to create community gardens.
The neighborhoods that best withstand crises are those that have maintained this diversity of scale in their economic and social activities. They aren’t necessarily the most prosperous neighborhoods, but those where multiple types of commerce, services, and housing coexist; where streets serve transit, encounter, and economic exchange; where public spaces are used in diverse ways by different user groups.
Some architectural proposals challenging the assumptions of dominant urbanism have also emerged. Instead of depending on costly and unsustainable systems, materials like clay are being recovered, capable of regulating interior temperature without artificial mechanisms. In densely populated areas, rooftops and walls become productive spaces through vertical gardens, providing fresh food and helping reduce ambient heat. Rainwater harvesting and solar panels respond to the need to alleviate the burden on inefficient public networks and offer alternatives when access to services fails. Though still not widespread, these initiatives point towards forms of housing with greater autonomy and resilience in the face of environmental crisis.
Experiments in Reconnection
Some cities have begun experimenting with urban designs that try to recover the human scale and the vitality of chance encounters. Barcelona has created “superblocks” that prioritize pedestrian and cyclist use over cars, freeing up public space that had been colonized by parking and generating conditions for diverse and spontaneous uses. Medellín transformed some of its most conflictive zones through architectural interventions that created high-quality public spaces integrated with public transportation systems. Copenhagen has developed a network of bike lanes that not only facilitates non-motorized transport but creates a slower, more sensory, more encounter-prone urban experience. Cyclists are not isolated from the urban environment like motorists, but neither are they subordinated to the pedestrian rhythm. They create their own urban tempo.
Conscious Vulnerability
A consciously vulnerable city would maintain multiple food supply systems instead of depending on centralized supply chains. It would integrate food production through community gardens, local markets, and urban agriculture.
It would have truly public public spaces: not commercial spaces disguised as public space, nor public spaces so regulated they lose their public character. Spaces that can be used in diverse and unpredictable ways, allowing both social encounter and solitude, both organized activity and spontaneous appropriation. It would integrate natural elements as a functional part of the urban system.
The COVID-19 pandemic was merely a rehearsal for the disruptions cities will face in the coming decades. Climate change, economic crises, technological transformations: each of these forces will test the adaptive capacity of our urban environments. The cities that survive and thrive will be those that have learned to be vulnerable intelligently.
Cities need to be designed for uncertainty, not predictability. They need spaces that can adapt to multiple and unforeseen uses, systems that can function when some of their components fail. They need to break with the production and consumption of space and build again from the human, making it possible for communities to know each other well enough to care for each other in times of crisis.
References used for this analysis:
(Note: Titles translated into English)
-
Jane Jacobs. The Death and Life of Great American Cities.
-
Richard Sennett. Flesh and Stone: The Body and the City in Western Civilization.
-
Zygmunt Bauman. Community: Seeking Safety in an Insecure World.
-
Byung-Chul Han. The Burnout Society.
-
Marc Augé. Non-Places: An Introduction to Supermodernity.
-
Timothy Beatley. Native to Nowhere: Sustaining Home And Community In A Global Age.
-
Jon Goss. (Academic Article). The Magic of the Mall: An Analysis of Form, Function, and Meaning in the Contemporary Retail Built Environment.
-
Henri Lefebvre. The Production of Space.
-
David Harvey. Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution.
-
David Graeber. Bullshit Jobs: A Theory.
Everyday Resistance That Transforms the World
While the media bombards us with catastrophes that feed our fears, a parallel reality exists, operating under a different logic. A reality where ordinary people do extraordinary things every day—not because they are heroes, but because they’ve understood that no one else will solve what needs to be solved.
This is everyday resistance. Not the kind found in grand manifestos or televised barricades, but the resistance of those who’ve stopped waiting for permission to act—who turn precarity into possibility and abandonment into an opportunity for self-organization. It’s a revolution that makes no noise because it’s too busy working.
The Power of Those Who Don’t Wait
In Kenya’s fields, a woman plants native trees where tea plantations had exhausted the soil. In Detroit’s suburbs, African American families transform abandoned buildings into community centers. In São Paulo’s favelas, young people set up recording studios so neighborhood kids won’t fall into drug trafficking. In southern Italy’s villages, where mass emigration once drained the youth, some return to revive agricultural techniques their grandmothers thought were lost.
In Syria, as bombs fall, teachers improvise schools in basements so a generation won’t grow up in ignorance. In Bangladesh’s Rohingya refugee camps, women organize childcare networks without waiting for international agencies to meet their immediate needs. In South Africa’s townships, where apartheid left deep wounds, neighbors build community libraries with donated books and repaired computers.
Their stories repeat in thousands of places: urban farmers in London turning industrial lots into community gardens, volunteer teachers in Indian villages holding classes under trees, elders in Japanese towns passing traditional crafts to youth who could’ve moved to Tokyo but chose to stay.
These actions don’t make the news because they don’t fit the media spectacle’s categories. They’re not dramatic enough to spark outrage nor successful enough to become corporate case studies. They’re simply life resisting, adapting, finding paths where none seemed to exist.
Each act might seem insignificant alone. But together, they reveal our capacity to generate solutions from below, to weave mutual aid networks, to make life possible even when structural conditions seem designed to prevent it.
This isn’t a romanticized view of poverty or a celebration of the state’s absence. It’s the recognition of a collective intelligence operating beyond formal institutions—a practical wisdom that meets real needs with limited resources.
There comes a moment when people stop waiting. When they understand that survival, dignity, and a decent life depend on what they can build themselves.
The Lagos slum dwellers constructing their own clean water systems aren’t aspiring engineers—they do it because their children need water, and no one else will provide it. The working-class mothers in Liverpool running community kitchens aren’t driven by culinary passion but by the knowledge that child malnutrition can’t wait for policy changes. The Mongolian grandmothers preserving traditional songs aren’t nostalgic—they know that if those songs die, something essential in their culture dies with them.
Necessity breeds an intelligence not taught in universities but learned through solving real problems with scarce resources. It’s collective intelligence, because rarely can one person alone meet a community’s needs.
This intelligence seeks sustainability, not profit; stability, not growth; cooperation, not competition; redistribution, not accumulation.
Beyond Ideologies
What drives everyday resistance isn’t socialism, capitalism, anarchism, or any doctrine—it’s the need to preserve what’s left of humanity in a world bent on dehumanization.
Conservatives defending ancestral farming traditions work alongside progressives promoting renewable energy. Believers who see Earth-care as divine mandate collaborate with atheists who view it as scientific responsibility. People who’ve never read political theory practice direct democracy in community assemblies.
This resistance isn’t defined by what it rejects but by what it builds. It doesn’t waste energy shouting about what’s wrong but works to create what works. Opposition mobilizes emotions, but creation generates new realities. Protest highlights problems, but collective action builds solutions. Denunciation discomforts the powerful, but community organizing can render them irrelevant.
When a community meets its basic needs through cooperation, it proves another way of living exists. It creates a fragment of a different world, operating by different logics. It shows alternatives aren’t just possible—they’re already working
.
The Business of Fear
We’re surrounded by industries that need our fear to function: media turning every negative event into a global catastrophe, security firms monetizing threats, politicians promising salvation from dangers they create. These industries convince us the world is collapsing, that others are constant threats, that we need more control, surveillance, and protection.
This disaster colonization paralyzes collective action by convincing us nothing can be done. It atomizes communities by breeding distrust. It legitimizes concentrated power by making us believe we need protection.
Meanwhile, resources flow toward destruction: more military than education budgets, more investment in surveillance than healthcare, more money for walls than bridges. In Gaza, schools that could educate thousands are destroyed. In Ukraine, hospitals that could save lives are bombed. In Yemen, ports that could deliver food are blockaded. In Congo, armed groups control coltan mines to feed our smartphones.
What Can’t Be Colonized
Spaces remain unclaimed by disaster colonization—where people still solve problems collectively, where cooperation outcompetes rivalry, where solidarity proves smarter than individualism.
These spaces show that other ways of organizing society exist. They prove humanity isn’t doomed to self-destruction.
The Rajasthan farmer saving seeds preserves biodiversity that monocultures destroy. The Mapuche healer using plants safeguards knowledge Big Pharma wants to monopolize. The Maldivian fisherman protecting reefs defends ecosystems mass tourism destroys. In West Africa, elders teach sustainable mud-and-bamboo construction, resisting industrial materials.
In Belfast, where walls still divide, Catholic and Protestant youth collaborate on urban art. In Paris’s immigrant neighborhoods, where media only shows violence, migrant mothers organize cultural activities to fight isolation. In Canada’s Indigenous reserves, where youth suicide rates soar, elders teach native languages to restore pride in roots.
Democratizing Knowledge
Everyday resistance disrupts monopolies of knowledge held by academic, technical, and political elites. It proves the most effective solutions often come not from experts but from those living the problems.
The Burkinabé farmer observing plants’ climate responses holds agricultural knowledge no agronomist learns in school. The Nairobi community leader mediating conflicts understands social dynamics absent from political science textbooks. The Galician fisherman knows marine cycles biologists study only in labs. The Andean weaver preserving ancestral techniques masters geometries industrial designers are rediscovering.
This democratization doesn’t negate specialized expertise but challenges the notion that only experts can solve social problems. The best solutions emerge when diverse knowledges combine in collective learning.
More Than Commerce
Everyday resistance spawns hybrid economies—mixing exchange, reciprocity, redistribution, and self-sufficiency as needed.
Solidarity economy fairs, from Dakar to Dublin, connect producers directly with consumers, cutting out speculative middlemen. Here, goods, knowledge, and community ties are exchanged.
In war-torn or deindustrialized cities, these alternative economies mean survival. In besieged Sarajevo, barter networks kept families alive as money lost value. In post-collapse Detroit, urban gardens and swap markets became lifelines for communities abandoned by the state and formal economy.
Here, wealth isn’t measured by accumulated money but by met needs, social ties, sustainable production, and collective well-being.
A community achieving food sovereignty is rich, even without big bank accounts. A grassroots school fostering critical thinkers succeeds, even without private-school infrastructure. A community health system preventing illness is efficient, even without shareholder profits.
The Limits
These efforts face real limits: scarce resources, scalability, power constraints.
A community garden feeds a Los Angeles neighborhood but can’t solve California’s hunger. A village school in Mali educates locally but can’t transform national systems. A community health network in the Andes can’t stop global pandemics.
In war zones, mutual aid networks in Aleppo can’t stop bombs. Makeshift schools in Mariupol’s basements can’t shield children from shells. Gaza’s urban farms can’t offset food blockades. Sudan’s community kitchens can’t end civil war’s humanitarian crisis.
These limits don’t invalidate such efforts but demand perspective. They prove alternatives exist but aren’t enough alone to dismantle oppressive structures.
Countless valuable initiatives operate in isolation, lacking connections to amplify impact. This fragmentation stems from precarity, scarce communication resources, and geographic or cultural divides.
Distrust also plays a role—many communities have seen political alliances co-opted by parties, NGOs instrumentalize networks for funding, or social movements bureaucratized by professionalized leaders.
Hope Against Hopelessness
The hope we speak of isn’t blind optimism. It’s hope rooted in evidence—in daily proof that people solve seemingly impossible problems, that communities organize to meet basic needs, that cooperation and care work.
This hope doesn’t delegate to others but takes responsibility. It doesn’t promise future utopias but builds better conditions now.
When everyday resistance works, it multiplies. Detroit’s community garden inspires Baltimore. A Jordan refugee camp school motivates Lebanon. Buenos Aires’ soup kitchens spark Rio’s favelas.
In Greece’s economic crisis, volunteer doctors ran free clinics for the uninsured—inspiring similar efforts in Spain, Portugal, and Italy. Post-tsunami Japan’s mutual aid networks became models for disaster-struck Indonesia and the Philippines.
This “contagion of practical hope” is slow but steady. It shifts expectations about what’s possible. It alters power dynamics by proving intermediaries aren’t always needed.
This resistance won’t appear in history books—it doesn’t seek power. It won’t have monuments—it celebrates ongoing construction, not victories. It won’t have anthems—its music is the sound of people working together to make life possible.
Every day, everywhere, people choose not to wait—to start building the world they want to live in. The most realistic hope we can have is to join the social transformation already happening.
#NietzscheRomania#KantPolan#HegelBulgaria#SchopenhauerHungary#HeideggerSerbia#MarxCzechia#HusserlSlovakia#AdornoCroatia#HabermasLithuania#FichteLatvia#SchellingEstonia#ArendtSlovenia#JaspersAlbania#FeuerbachMontenegro#MarcuseMoldova#SchlegelNorthMacedonia#DiltheyBosnia#RickertKosovo#GadamerBelarus#SloterdijkUkraine
NOSTALGIC-NOSTALGIA
No matter how many turns we take, there’s something in us that always wants to go back. Not necessarily to a place, but to a time. A moment we remember as simpler, warmer, fuller. An ordinary day that, looking back from the present, seems to have meant something. It doesn’t matter if it was five or twenty years ago, if it happened in a city, the countryside, or a school hallway. What matters is the feeling—the idea that back there, in that corner of the past, we were better, or at least happier.
We call that feeling nostalgia. And we carry it with us like a coat, one we wear when the present feels too cold. Often, we go beyond just remembering and try to physically return to that past: we seek out someone who was important to us, reunite with old friends, go back to the town where we grew up, replay a song, or reread a book that marked us. And then something strange happens: it doesn’t feel the same. The vibe is different, conversations don’t flow like they used to, emotions don’t ignite. Something doesn’t add up. And that’s disorienting.
When we remember something fondly, we’re not seeing it as it was. We’re seeing it as we need it to be now. Memory isn’t a camera capturing reality exactly as it happened. It’s more like an editor—selecting, enhancing, and adjusting. Memories are reconstructed every time we recall them, shaped by our present emotions, current needs, and future expectations. That’s why returning to something remembered as perfect always disappoints.
The present is full of uncomfortable details, things we don’t understand, painful silences. When we try to relive the past, we do so from a present that has already changed—and so have we. So even if we recreate the setting, the experience isn’t the same because we aren’t the same.
There’s another aspect we often overlook: we assume the people from our memories have stayed frozen in time. But they’ve changed too. The person we shared a story with has lived other stories since—new fears, different mistakes, wounds we didn’t see. We reunite with them hoping to find the version we remember fondly, but instead, we meet someone with a different gaze, other priorities, another way of being in the world. The same happens to them with us. No one remains untouched.
One of the great misunderstandings is thinking that going back is the same as repeating. That a reunion with old friends can revive those days as if nothing had happened. That rekindling a past relationship can make us feel whole again. That visiting the house where we grew up can restore the security of childhood. But life isn’t a tape we can rewind. Every attempt to return is also a way of confirming that time has done its work.
The Ghosts of Yesterday
This longing increasingly shapes our choices: the people we connect with, the places we go, the jobs we take or reject.
Many return to an old love hoping to reclaim what once made them happy. But when they rekindle the bond, they find nothing resembling what they remember. It’s not that things have gotten worse—it’s that they’ve changed too. The person in that memory no longer exists, just as we no longer walk, think, or marvel the same way.
What we’re searching for isn’t a person but the feeling they gave us ten or fifteen years ago. A version of ourselves—more confident, less wounded, with different dreams. So when faced with the present, something grates. What promised fulfillment leaves only a strange discomfort, like returning to a childhood home and finding everything smaller, grayer, or noisier than remembered.
This also shows up in career decisions. Some spend years chasing a job that reignites “the passion they once felt” or the sense of belonging they recall from another place. But what they seek is no longer there—or at least, not in the same way. The industry has changed, the environment is different, and so are they. What was thrilling at twenty-five may be exhausting at forty. Yet the mind insists on repeating, because if it worked once, it must work again.
Idealized Bonds of the Past
Childhood is remembered as a time of carefree play and sincere affection, but rarely do we recall the pressure, the fear of rejection, or the feeling of not belonging. Family ties are spoken of solemnly, though many were marked by silence, rigid rules, or unspoken expectations. What remains is a postcard: loving grandparents, long talks, open doors. Forgotten are the conflicts that often accompanied those scenes.
Now, when someone feels disconnected, they’re told social media is the culprit. That bonds have weakened because no one looks each other in the eye anymore. That phones have replaced hugs. But isolation didn’t start with technology. The digital world may amplify it, but it didn’t invent it. The problem runs deeper.
The Commercialization of the Past
Every few months, movies, songs, or series from decades ago resurface. They’re reissued, recycled, rewritten with the same characters and a repeated promise: “We’ll make you feel like you used to.” The same happens with fashion, video games, and slogans from the ’80s or ’90s, repackaged in new clothes. There’s no creativity here—just calculation. Because positive memories sell better than novelty. Because most people want to relive what they felt when they had fewer worries and more energy.
This manufactured nostalgia ends up replacing real memory. People begin to remember their childhood as if it were a TV show—saturated colors, conflicts resolved in thirty minutes. And when they compare that edited version to the complexities of the present, the present obviously loses.
Another industry has become expert at managing frustration: wellness, self-help, the “reconnection with oneself.” Regaining the energy and glow of your twenties, the waistline of your thirties, fresh skin. The focus is on repair rather than rebuilding, as if time itself were a malfunction. And in this quest to “be who we were,” we accept routines, diets, gurus, and transformation programs that don’t stem from real need but from an image stitched together from selective memory and advertising.
Eternal Youth
Aging has become a kind of personal failure. Not just physically, but mentally, culturally, socially. People are expected to forever retain the energy, curiosity, and interests of their twenties.
This pressure for eternal youth feels like a cultural mandate permeating every aspect of life. At work, “fresh thinking” is valued over experience. In technology, anything older than two years is obsolete. In relationships, people chase the spontaneity and passion of early encounters.
No matter their age, many feel their best years are behind them. Instead of finding value in each life stage, they strive to reclaim what’s already gone. Traditional cultures understood that each phase has its rhythm, losses, and gains—that youth isn’t the peak but part of the journey. But in a society obsessed with staying young, performing at maximum capacity, and accumulating memorable experiences, any change is seen as loss.
Nations Anchored in the Past
Every nation has a founding narrative steeped in pride. Each society picks a historical moment to showcase as its pinnacle. Myths are crafted. Statues erected. Simplified versions taught in schools.
But those admired eras weren’t as just or stable as remembered. They had conflicts, inequalities, abuses, arbitrary decisions. Official memory is selective—trimming the uncomfortable, highlighting the convenient, repeating until it feels true. From this come patriotic slogans, anthems, commemorations. They’re not outright lies, but incomplete stories.
And so, instead of moving forward, many societies spin in circles, trying to revive a model that no longer fits their reality. At their core, cultures do what individuals do: cling to the past. But a nation unwilling to change fossilizes. It loses pace with the world. Reacts too late. Makes poor decisions. And when it tries to correct course, others have surged ahead—because selling past glory is easier than building future conviction.
Children of Someone Else’s Yesterday
At home, in schools, on social media, there’s a constant repetition of past references. ’80s movies, ’90s songs, “retro” fashion, remastered video games, recycled political slogans, school curricula unchanged for decades. Adults present this material as cultural treasure. They recommend it. Impose it. And in doing so, they often don’t realize the message they’re sending: the present has nothing worthwhile of its own.
This idealization isn’t limited to family nostalgia. It’s reproduced on platforms where young people are the primary users. Entire accounts glorify eras those users never lived. They consume it as if it were part of their identity, often convinced their present doesn’t measure up.
The message to them is: You were born too late. They carry the pressure to appear happy, competent, productive—even if inside, they feel they arrived in a world whose glory days are over. This leaves them disoriented or forced to adapt to standards they didn’t shape.
Most education systems still focus on repeating content, not understanding contexts. History is taught as chronology, not as human decisions with consequences. Literature is presented without explaining its relevance. Dates and authors are memorized. Critical thinking isn’t nurtured—just the ability to regurgitate what others once thought.
The Digital Archive
Thirty years ago, remembering required digging through a box of photos, finding an old letter, calling a friend to confirm a detail. Now, the past appears unbidden. Facebook reminds you what you did five years ago. Instagram shows photos from this date in past years. YouTube suggests videos you watched a decade ago.
But this permanent archive also creates a version of each person that never ages. On social media, photos from ten years ago sit beside yesterday’s. Teenage comments coexist with adult opinions. The digital archive fuels the illusion that the past is retrievable—that a quick search can revive a moment. But what’s found isn’t the moment itself, just its representation. Not the experience, but its trace. And mistaking the trace for the experience is another way to get trapped in nostalgia.
The Past That Leaks Into Language
Everyday language is full of phrases assuming the best is behind us: “The good old days,” “Back to how things were,” “Restoring lost values,” “Like it used to be,” “When life was simpler.” These aren’t just clichés—they’re unchallenged truths.
Such expressions circulate in streets, media, and institutions, shaping how we understand current problems. When something fails, the immediate solution is to look backward. Old norms, family practices, and past examples are cited. New things are assumed to have less value because they’re “untested.” As if age alone guaranteed wisdom.
The same applies to symbols. Flags, anthems, religious imagery, parenting styles, relationship models, social rituals—all seem subject to preservation. Not because they still serve their purpose, but because they’ve become emotional anchors. And when questioned, the response isn’t debate but accusation: “You’re breaking what unites us.” Often, that “unity” is just a custom no one dared to reexamine.
Cultural and linguistic references almost always point backward. The future appears blurry, risky, lacking compelling narratives. At best, it’s described as an extension of the present. At worst, an inevitable threat. And so, caught between the familiar we won’t release and the unknown we fear, paralysis sets in.
Learning to Stay
The present has a bad reputation. It seems lacking—no epic, no easy explanations, no guarantees. It doesn’t seduce like the past or promise like the future. It’s uncomfortable because it can’t be controlled. There’s no time to edit it. It must be faced as it is.
So we retreat into what we’ve lived and idealize it. We project into what we desire and fantasize. And the only real thing—the now—goes half-used. Unobserved. Ununderstood. Unlived. It becomes a waiting room between two times that no longer exist or haven’t yet arrived.
Life doesn’t happen in memory or anticipation. It happens in this exact fragment—already gone by the time you read this line. And though it seems small, it’s all there is. And in that tiny, unnoticed, everyday everything, lies what we often search for elsewhere: clarity, meaning, direction. What we need isn’t more memory, but more awareness. Not to live on alert, but to stop living distracted.
“The Connection That Disconnects”
The rapid expansion of internet access in rural and remote regions is a recurring promise in national development plans, wrapped in the seductive language of connectivity and progress. It’s celebrated as an act of technological justice—bringing the world to those supposedly left behind. But is connecting always synonymous with advancing?
Connectivity is presented as a panacea: unlimited access to information, democratization of knowledge, educational tools, health monitoring, financial inclusion, political participation. From this perspective, when we speak of “digital inclusion,” we start from an assumption: that being disconnected equates to being excluded. This premise privileges a single model of knowledge and progress.
Traditional communities were not “disconnected” before the arrival of the internet; they were connected differently—through networks of reciprocity, oral transmission, and territorial ties that modernity has largely lost.
When traditional communities enter the digital space, they do not do so from a position of neutrality. They step into an environment saturated with dominant representations, where algorithms become behavioral guides. With every click, they are steered toward aspirational models centered on consumption, mediated notions of success, and a temporality marked by urgency rather than permanence.
In just a few clicks, rootedness can turn into a longing for migration. The young farmer who once aspired to safeguard ancestral knowledge of the land now dreams of becoming a YouTuber or influencer. The woman who passed down ancestral songs discovers her voice doesn’t “perform” within algorithmic metrics. It’s not that traditional knowledge vanishes overnight, but rather that it becomes irrelevant in the new hierarchy of visibility.
Connectivity, without cultural and community support, can become a form of symbolic dispossession. It’s no longer just about extracting resources from the land—it’s also about extracting meaning from the collective soul.
In Koonibba, an Australian Aboriginal community, the arrival of the Sky Muster satellite multiplied the time young people spent online. There were achievements: access to educational platforms, exchanges with other communities. But a cultural short-circuit also occurred. Local languages began fading from everyday speech. Oral histories, once shared in intergenerational circles, were displaced by tutorials and global content. Communal space was replaced by the solitude of screens. Belonging gave way to comparison.
As young Aboriginal people accessed the “global showcase” of the internet, they consumed content alongside lifestyles, value systems, and aspirations that ran counter to their cultural heritage.
In Nepal, the Nepal Wireless project connected dozens of remote villages, facilitating telemedicine and agricultural education. Yet some elders, who once traveled long distances on foot to share news and knowledge, now find themselves replaced by instant messages that inform but no longer listen.
In the name of progress, are we pushing entire communities to trade their autonomy for systems designed to distract, polarize, and monetize attention? Networks promise freedom but often operate as mechanisms for extracting time, desire, and critical thought. This is not about opposing access (that would risk a dangerous romanticization of isolation) but about asking: Access to what? Under what conditions? Toward what horizons?
Andrew Feenberg proposes the concept of “technological democratization”: the idea that communities should have the capacity not only to access technology but to shape it according to their own values and needs.
This would entail:
-
Acknowledging that technological development can be consciously directed toward specific ends. Communities could prioritize applications that strengthen local economies and traditional knowledge systems.
-
Pairing formal access to technology with the real capacity to use it in ways that expand life choices without compromising cultural autonomy.
Yet, in hyperconnected societies, the ability to disconnect has become a luxury, accessible mainly to educated urban elites who can afford “digital detoxes” or tech-free retreats. Meanwhile, traditionally disconnected communities are pressured to connect under the rhetoric of development and inclusion.
Technology is neither inherently emancipatory nor oppressive—it is a tool laden with political, ethical, and cultural decisions. Its impact depends less on its presence than on how it is appropriated. Installing a satellite is not enough to claim development. We must imagine forms of connectivity that do not dismantle community or silence the unique rhythms of each culture.
Perhaps true development lies in preserving and strengthening the diversity of ways of life and knowledge. Maybe we’ve forgotten that, in certain contexts, disconnection is not deprivation but a form of care. Not all solitude is isolation, nor is all silence ignorance. The goal is not to insert more screens but to protect the spaces where it’s still possible to look into each other’s eyes, to listen without haste, to narrate without algorithms.
Only then can we truly speak of development: as the expansion of possibilities for human flourishing in all its diversity.
NAMELESS, EVERYDAY AILMENTS
NAMELESS, EVERYDAY AILMENTS
Words like depression, anxiety, or stress are used so often that they’ve begun to lose precision. At times, they seem to explain everything—yet clarify nothing. Many people endure discomforts that don’t quite fit into these categories.
Here, I draw on thinkers like Erich Fromm, Jacques Lacan, Byung-Chul Han, Peter Sloterdijk, Yuk Hui, and others who’ve tried to articulate the unease permeating daily life. Through disciplines like psychoanalysis, critical psychology, humanist philosophy, neuroscience, and anthropology, I propose an approach that doesn’t separate the person from their environment or thought from lived experience. What we feel, think, or suffer has a history, a structure, and a context. We are products of relationships, systems of meaning, and ways of life that shape us—even when we lack the words to name them.
What goes unnamed falls outside language, and what falls outside language can hardly be understood, shared, or transformed. Without a name, things remain muddled, scattered—often mistaken for personal failure.
If you feel no vertigo reading what follows, you’ve already fully adapted. And that, dear reader, should terrify you more than any ailment.
The Fatigue of the Optimized Self: Existential Insufficiency Syndrome
Today, we have endless resources to “improve” ourselves and meet societal expectations. Yet the feeling of falling short—of never becoming who we should be—has grown pervasive. The rise of self-help, personal growth methods, and self-focused technologies has bred disorientation, not clarity.
Many measure their worth against a cultural ideal: someone efficient, creative, always in control of their well-being. The gap between achievement and expectation fuels a chronic exhaustion—a race toward a finish line that keeps receding.
Existential insufficiency manifests in contradictory behaviors: hyperactivity mixed with apathy, boundless ambition paired with emptiness, zeal for self-improvement alongside a refusal to look inward. You chase self-betterment to find peace, yet every milestone reveals new inadequacies.
Diffuse Referential Disorientation
Jacques Lacan argued that language shapes our identity. But when the symbolic frameworks that once gave life meaning weaken, identity becomes unstable.
Traditional anchors—family, religion, social belonging, political ideologies—no longer hold central sway. Without a fixed point to interpret experience, many navigate life with a sense that nothing endures.
This doesn’t always lead to severe mental illness, but to a persistent estrangement from the world. Everything feels possible, yet nothing truly matters. Freedom becomes a burden: too many choices, no certainty. References blur, values shift, and identity fractures into adaptable versions of itself.
Social media intensifies this. Bombarded by opposing narratives, fleeting trends, and fractured consensus, we’re left with a fragmented present—hard to grasp, harder to navigate.
Empathic Saturation Syndrome
We’re hyperexposed to global suffering, near and far. This breeds exhaustion from emotional overload—a fatigue of constantly being called to respond.
Digital media connects us simultaneously to wars, disasters, injustices, and personal crises. The sheer volume overwhelms our evolved capacity to process pain.
Those affected don’t stop feeling—they hit a limit. Emotional overload triggers partial detachment, allowing daily functioning but leaving guilt and frustration in its wake. You feel numb yet still care, drained yet unable to stop giving.
Meaningful relationships fray. Emotional connection weakens as psychic energy reserves dwindle.
Digital Experience Substitution Syndrome
Direct experience is displaced by its digital shadow. Life organizes around projection: a walk, a meal, an emotion becomes content first, experience second.
Memory fragments into external archives. Attention splinters. Concentration falters. But the deepest cost? The self mediated by others’ expectations—you act for an audience, not yourself.
Interiority erodes. Every moment feels subject to exposure. Privacy retreats; intimacy becomes visibility.
Hyperindividuation Paralysis: Decision Overload Syndrome
Exhaustion from the relentless obligation to choose in a world of equally valid—and equally unsatisfying—options.
Education, relationships, beliefs, even emotions demand justification. The burden isn’t deciding—it’s the perpetual pressure to choose right. Responsibility falls on the isolated individual, now judge and defendant of their own life.
The result? Paralysis. With endless paths, none feel sufficient.
Chronic Transgenerational Disconnection
Many feel like perpetual outsiders in their own homelands. This is Chronic Transgenerational Disconnection Syndrome: an inherited estrangement, as if the land you’re rooted in no longer fits.
It’s not just geography. Families have abandoned traditions—trades, customs, ways of being—without fully processing the loss. The result? A generational void, a grief for what was never quite had.
Without roots, direction falters. The past feels irrelevant; the present, alien.
Educational Obsolescence Syndrome
Years of schooling leave many unprepared for real-world challenges. We learned to memorize, not think; to follow steps, not adapt.
Information overload worsens it. The brain, bombarded, starts filtering—often losing what matters. We’re educated yet unready, informed yet unclear.
Compensatory Performative Activism
A mix of guilt and anxiety drives visible but hollow gestures—social media posts, symbolic declarations—that soothe personal unease without addressing systemic injustice.
It’s activism as emotional relief, not change. The cycle deepens: more discomfort → more performative acts → less substantive action.
Maladaptive Temporal Acceleration (Existential Jet Lag)
Social and technological change outpaces our ability to adapt. The result? A perpetual time lag—the world moves too fast; you’re stuck catching up.
Long-term planning feels impossible. Life becomes reactive—putting out fires, not building futures.
Diffuse Algorithmic Vigilance Syndrome
The creeping sense of being watched—not paranoia, but the reality of opaque data systems shaping behavior. We self-censor, not by choice, but to appease unseen algorithms.
Autonomy erodes. You live for an impersonal gaze.
Anticipatory Ecological Grief
Mourning a future that’s vanishing before it arrives. No single loss to grieve—just a canceled horizon.
Motivation withers. Why plant seeds for a world that won’t be?
The Therapeutics of Naming
To name an ailment is the first step to understanding it. As Lacan noted, what can’t be spoken resurfaces as symptoms.
This isn’t about pathologizing life but reclaiming shared struggle. What we call “individual symptoms” are often fractures from a system that demands too much and sustains too little.
As Fromm warned: healing requires changing the conditions that cause harm. Mental health isn’t just personal—it’s collective.
Jung said, “Who looks outward, dreams; who looks inward, awakens.” But I’d add: Who looks inward and outward at once, transforms. And transformation is the only therapy for these strange times we inhabit.
Ontotechnology: From Being to Interface
Before you even leave home, an artificial intelligence has already selected the news you’ll see, suggested an “efficient” route to your destination, categorized your emotional state based on your heart rate, and—without consulting you—prioritized certain data over others.
Meanwhile, your future choices are being shaped by predictive models. This isn’t science fiction. It’s ontotechnology.
Ontotechnology is a concept that describes how technical systems rewrite the basic conditions of what it means to exist, feel, decide, and relate. It marks the moment when technology ceases to be merely instrumental and becomes architectonic, structuring the very possibilities of reality.
From Tool to Existential Environment
Traditionally, tools extended human capabilities: a hammer amplified strength, a telescope sharpened vision, a book preserved memory. Ontotechnology presents a different scenario: systems that don’t just extend our faculties but replace, anticipate, and reorganize them according to their own logic.
Take streaming platforms like Netflix. It doesn’t just offer content; it produces specific subjectivities. Its algorithm “recommends” films, but it also generates a viewer whose capacity for choice has been outsourced to a system that predicts desires, minimizes uncertainty, and turns leisure time into efficient consumption. The user no longer chooses what to watch; they inhabit an ecosystem that has already processed, filtered, and preselected their experience.
When Google finishes our searches before we’ve typed them, it alters our relationship with curiosity, the unexpected, and the formulation of thought itself. When Spotify creates automated playlists based on our “mood,” it produces a form of self-relation where emotions become interpretable data.
The Underlying Grammar
Ontotechnology configures the possibilities of experience before we’re even aware we’re experiencing something. AI systems are both assistants and architects of existential contexts.
Consider dating apps. Tinder facilitates romantic encounters, and in doing so, it shapes a particular form of desire and recognition. The logic of swiping transforms love into a binary selection process based on images. The algorithm learns from our patterns and begins preselecting profiles, creating feedback loops that progressively narrow what we consider desirable. The result? It produces amorous subjectivities—individuals who learn to desire within algorithmic parameters.
Autocorrect fixes spelling errors, but it also standardizes expression, erases regionalisms, and homogenizes language. Each suggestion acts as a micro-intervention in thought. GPS systems guide routes while reconfiguring our relationship with space, eliminating the possibility of getting lost as a form of discovery.
Outsourced Memory, Attention, and Judgment
Ontotechnology is defined by the externalization of functions once considered inherently human: remembering, choosing, valuing, imagining.
Photography once required conscious decisions—what moment to capture, from what angle, for what purpose. Smartphones have automated much of this: auto-adjusting light, focus, and filters that “enhance” images according to algorithmic standards. Google Photos organizes our memories automatically, creates themed albums, and suggests which moments to share. Personal memory becomes a service managed by AI.
When we outsource memory to automated systems, we alter our relationship with the past, with temporality, with the narrative construction of identity. Classification algorithms prioritize certain events (celebrations, trips, “happy” moments) and minimize others (routine, reflection, solitude). Automated memory produces an edited version of life.
The Quantified Self
Self-tracking devices—activity bands, meditation apps, sleep monitors—introduce a new form of technological externalization. They redefine health, productivity, and balance.
Apps like Headspace, which guide meditation, mold introspection into quantifiable metrics, goals, and progress. Spirituality adopts the language of self-optimization. Sleep trackers turn rest into a task to improve, generating anxiety over achieving “good sleep.”
Experiences once lived qualitatively—well-being, calm, satisfaction—are now rendered as data for algorithms to analyze. The result is a form of self-relation where the unquantifiable becomes irrelevant or pathological.
Thought in Outsourced Hands
Generative AI systems produce texts, ideas, and arguments. For the first time in history, machines convincingly simulate processes we considered exclusively human: creativity, argumentation, critical synthesis.
Beyond generating text, AI systems now participate in decisions once requiring human judgment—determining loan approvals, hiring, or medical prioritization. These systems automate processes based on criteria that are often incomprehensible, even to their developers.
This is the “black box” problem: the system delivers answers, but its decision-making process can’t always be traced. Technical teams may not know which exact variables influenced an outcome, complicating audits, bias correction, and accountability.
When an algorithm decides parole eligibility based on data, it isn’t just calculating risk—it’s imposing a concrete idea of justice, a particular way of defining which variables matter in determining a person’s fate.
The Algorithmic Production of Sociality
Social media platforms epitomize ontotechnology in action. Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter determine what becomes visible, what generates engagement, what goes viral.
Facebook’s feed shows what its algorithm decides will maximize your time on the platform. TikTok doesn’t present videos you’re interested in; it serves content engineered to trigger specific neurological responses that prolong usage.
Social media doesn’t mediate sociality; it manufactures it according to optimization parameters that prioritize engagement over interaction quality, polarization over dialogue, and quick emotional reactions over slow reflection.
Algorithmic Morality
AI systems that moderate content, detect hate speech, or define acceptable interactions impose an automated morality. They enforce rules set by corporations, programmers, or legal structures. What’s deemed “correct” becomes just another adjustable parameter.
People adapt their behavior to system-permitted boundaries, not through reflection but by learning to operate within algorithmic limits.
Polarization as a Product
Echo chambers and political polarization on social media are byproducts of systems designed to maximize attention. Content that sparks outrage, surprise, or confirmation bias keeps users engaged longer.
Algorithms learn that divisive content generates more interaction than balanced perspectives. The result is the systematic amplification of extreme positions and the erasure of nuance. Political polarization can’t be understood without acknowledging how algorithmic systems have reshaped the informational ecology shaping opinions.
The Internet of Things (IoT)
IoT devices extend ontotechnological logic into domestic space. Virtual assistants like Alexa or Google Home, smart thermostats, connected fridges, and automated lighting transform our relationship with lived environments.
A “smart” home observes, records, and anticipates. It learns behavioral patterns, schedules, temperature preferences, and consumption habits. It promises efficiency and comfort but also produces an environment that knows its inhabitant better than they know themselves.
The fridge that suggests groceries based on habits, the thermostat that adjusts to routines, or the security system distinguishing “normal” from “suspicious” movements collectively create a home where daily life is organized by personal data—as if the house itself becomes an extension of our digital footprint.
Biometrics and Somatization
Facial recognition, fingerprints, heart rate, and voice are read by systems requiring no human mediation to classify or decide.
This automated reading affects daily life. Access to services, rights, or mobility may depend on what the system registers—or excludes—when scanning our bodies. A body that operates as an interface.
Health and wellness devices don’t just measure us; they dictate how we should live. Recommending steps, sleep hours, or diets proposes an ideal body model based on data—but these standards prioritize efficiency and commercial interests over personal choice.
The Educating Intelligence
Platforms like Khan Academy or AI tutoring systems replace not just teachers but pedagogy as a dialogic experience. Educational ontotechnology promises knowledge democratization, but its “personalization” leads to standardization.
Algorithms prioritizing efficiency streamline learning into pre-filtered, digestible content. Students no longer grapple with complexity; they receive prepackaged information. Learning becomes a process driven by quick rewards.
The Continuous Present
Ontotechnology generates a temporality defined by permanent immediacy. Notifications, real-time data, and endless updates produce an expanded present where the past grows inert and the future is algorithmically forecasted.
We no longer project the future; we predict it. Time becomes a manageable variable, erasing the possibility of the unexpected, the disruptive event that transforms.
Existential Obsolescence
Ontotechnological time is also time that expires. Software versions, product cycles, viral trends—everything decays rapidly. This technical rhythm imposes itself on bodies and lives. The fear of obsolescence reshapes self-understanding, fueling constant anxiety about staying relevant. Obsolescence no longer just applies to objects; it consumes ways of living.
Resisting the Algorithmic Capture
Ontotechnology—the fusion between being and the devices organizing our experience—extends its calculative logic to every corner of life. Yet, something persists beyond parameterization: pains without clinical cause, bonds defying utility, words misaligned with intended meaning. These aren’t system anomalies but reminders of the unquantifiable.
Yuk Hui argues that modern technology has been impoverished by a uniform, global logic, stripped of historical and cultural richness. Against this homogenization, he proposes a “diversification of technics”—a reappropriation that embeds devices in diverse lifeworlds rooted in varied knowledges and cosmologies. Inhabiting technology differently means making space for what no algorithm can anticipate or absorb: the irreducible, the incalculable, the singular.
Günther Anders warned early on that technology would outpace human comprehension, creating a “desynchronization between man and his world.” This gap is temporal and existential. As environments become machine-legible, human interiority risks irrelevance.
The goal isn’t to reject technology but to safeguard what can’t be rendered as data—what remains unproductive, erratic, untamed. There, in that functionless zone, lingers a world not yet captured. Presence without utility.
Ontotechnology isn’t an inevitable destiny, nor is it a neutral tool. It’s the ontological territory we now inhabit. Denial is naivety; uncritical acceptance, surrender.
We need a new pedagogy of being, an ontotechnical literacy—to read the codes that read us, to write within systems rewriting us, to inhabit architectures without becoming interchangeable parts.
Because if we don’t understand ontotechnology, we’ll remain its passive executables. But if we confront it lucidly, we might reclaim our capacity to exist beyond performance, profiling, and prediction.
EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM. SACRIFICE & CONFORMITY
How the Educational System Sacrificed the Future for Conformity
While the world reinvents itself every six months, our classrooms remain trapped in the 19th century, molding ghosts for jobs that no longer exist and citizens for democracies that don’t function. An entire generation of adults has decided to sacrifice their children’s potential on the altar of institutional conformity.
Never before has so much information been so accessible: free courses from MIT and Harvard just a click away, specialized YouTube tutorials that surpass the quality of many university lectures, global communities of practice where a teenager can learn from the world’s top experts. And yet, we continue forcing young people to sit in classrooms where unmotivated teachers repeat content that any smartphone can deliver in seconds.
The question no educational leader wants to face: What is school for if everything it teaches is better explained on the internet?
The Betrayed Generation
Today’s youth are not “distracted digital natives,” as painted by adults who fail to understand their reality. They are survivors of a failed social experiment. They’ve grown up watching their parents—armed with university degrees and impeccable résumés—struggle for precarious jobs or take refuge in work they hate. They’ve seen the promise of “study hard and succeed” crumble before their eyes.
When a teacher lectures them on the importance of creativity from a standardized classroom, when they’re preached critical thinking while being forbidden to question the system, when they’re promised preparation for the future using methods from the distant past—they recognize the lie.
Homeschooling: When the Elite Saves Itself
Faced with the collapse of education, affluent families have found their golden escape: homeschooling. But let’s analyze this “solution” without romanticizing it.
Homeschooling, as practiced today, is a class privilege. It requires at least one parent to dedicate full-time to education, access to diversified learning resources, and the ability to afford specialized tutors. It’s the educational equivalent of gated communities: a bubble of privilege that allows those who can pay to escape the problem without solving it.
Even more troubling, many homeschooling communities operate under tribal logic, reproducing the same biases and limitations of the traditional system—just with less diversity and more self-indulgence. A child educated exclusively within their parents’ ideological bubble is no better prepared for the real world than one subjected to mass standardization.
But the cruelest part? While elites design personalized exits for their children, the public system deteriorates further, abandoning millions of young people whose only options are conformity or dropping out.
The Silent Revolution No One Sees
While parents and educators debate methodologies and curricula, a silent revolution is underway. Young people are educating themselves outside the formal system. They learn graphic design on YouTube, coding on interactive platforms, business by creating content on TikTok, and social skills by navigating digital ecosystems.
This “wild” education has obvious flaws: lack of structure, absence of solid theoretical foundations, risk of biased information. But it has something the formal system lost decades ago: immediate relevance and practical application.
-
A teenager who learns to code because they want to build an app has motivation no mandatory math class can replicate.
-
A girl who starts a history YouTube channel because she’s fascinated by the topic develops communication, research, and management skills far beyond anything she’d learn in a traditional classroom.
Instead of recognizing and integrating this energy, the educational system sees it as competition to eliminate. Phones are banned like drugs, personal projects are punished as “distractions,” and natural curiosity is treated as a disciplinary issue.
Neurodivergence
The explosion of ADHD, anxiety, and other neurodivergent diagnoses in classrooms is the clearest sign that our educational model is designed for a brain type that may never have existed en masse—and certainly doesn’t match today’s neurological realities.
Asking a teenager to sit still and silent for hours, processing information linearly, is like asking a fish to fly. The fish isn’t sick—the environment is radically inadequate.
We’d rather drug our youth than question a system that systematically violates them.
Fragmented Knowledge in an Interconnected World
In the real world, solving any problem requires integrating multiple disciplines, not separating them into subjects. Building a sustainable business demands ecology, consumer psychology, finance, technology, communication, and ethics. Yet in school, these fields are taught as if they exist in parallel universes.
This fragmentation serves the industrial logic of creating interchangeable specialists. But in a knowledge economy where innovation arises from interdisciplinary intersections, we’re training experts to be obsolete before graduation.
Artificial Intelligence
The rise of AI has exposed the intellectual poverty of our educational system. When ChatGPT writes more coherent essays than most college graduates, solves complex math problems in seconds, and generates functional code from simple prompts—what value does rote memorization have?
But instead of seizing this chance to redefine education for the 21st century, institutions have responded with panic and prohibition. Universities develop AI detectors to “protect academic integrity,” as if the problem were the tool rather than the irrelevance of tasks it can automate.
AI should catalyze an educational revolution emphasizing creativity, critical thinking, collaboration, and complex problem-solving. Instead, we’re using it to entrench obsolete paradigms deeper.
The Violence of the Classroom
There’s a subtle violence in traditional schooling that’s rarely named:
-
Forcing developing bodies into hours of immobility.
-
Imposing uniform learning paces on diverse minds.
-
Measuring human intelligence with metrics designed for machines.
But the greatest violence is the destruction of natural curiosity. Children arrive at school with endless questions about the world. After years of “close your book and copy from the board,” those questions die. In their place remains a domesticated ability to follow instructions and reproduce “correct” answers.
This violence serves a system that needs obedient workers more than critical thinkers, predictable consumers more than empowered citizens.
The Forgotten Body
We ignore the bodily needs of learning. Decades of research show movement is crucial for cognitive development, circadian rhythms affect attention, and posture influences mood and focus. Yet we still design windowless classrooms, schedules that defy adolescent biology, immobility-enforcing furniture, and bans on free play.
This denial stems from a Cartesian view that privileges the mind and dismisses the body as distraction. But modern neuroscience has demolished this separation: we learn with our whole body. Denying this sabotages education at its core.
Teachers: Victims and Accomplices
Teachers occupy the system’s most paradoxical position: they’re both its primary victims and its most visible enforcers.
Most entered the profession with ideals of social transformation. Instead, the system turns them into bureaucrats, smothering what originally motivated them. They must follow rigid curricula, prep students for standardized tests, fill endless forms, and justify every class minute to supervisors who’ve never taught.
Meanwhile, they’re burdened with responsibilities far beyond education: psychologists, social workers, family mediators, and security guards—all for unlivable wages and dwindling social respect.
The Disoriented Family
Families aren’t spared this crisis. Today’s parents were educated for a world that no longer exists, with codes that no longer work. Many sense something’s wrong, see their children suffering in a system that doesn’t understand or motivate them—but don’t know what to do.
Social pressure is immense. Questioning the system risks their children’s academic future. It’s safer to adapt: hire private tutors, medicate nonconforming kids, and hope things work out.
This forced complicity props up the system. As long as parents prioritize grades over learning, conformity over creativity, and degrees over real skills—change remains impossible.
The Diploma Economy
The current system has turned education into an economy of hollow credentials. Degrees have inflated into minimum requirements for jobs that don’t need them, sparking an educational arms race where everyone must study more to get the same result.
Credential inflation has devastating effects: mass student debt, delayed workforce entry, and a class of “overeducated, underemployed” graduates who feel cheated. Worse, it systematically excludes those who can’t afford higher education, deepening social inequality.
Employers keep demanding degrees because filtering by credentials is easier than assessing real skills. It’s a silent collusion between schools needing students and companies wanting simple hiring criteria—both at the expense of youth and society.
Technology as Cosmetics
Classroom tech integration has been one of the most spectacular failures of recent decades. We’ve spent fortunes on smartboards, tablets, and educational platforms that mostly just digitize obsolete methods.
Using a tablet for the same repetitive exercises once done on paper isn’t innovation—it’s expensive cosmetics. Having internet access in class only to google irrelevant answers isn’t leveraging technology—it’s sophisticated waste.
Real integration would require completely rethinking what, how, and why we teach. It would demand teachers who see digital tools as amplifiers, not threats, and learning experiences that harness interactivity, personalization, and global connectivity.
Instead, we took the easy path: buying expensive gadgets to do the same old thing—just with more screens.
The Chinese Example
While the West endlessly debates reforms that never come, China has launched a radical transformation.
Since 2022, China’s Education Ministry has mandated “education for life” as compulsory: weekly practical classes where students learn domestic skills (cleaning, cooking, pet care, gardening) alongside advanced tech like 3D printing and laser cutting.
In Anji County kindergartens, children build their own kitchens with simple materials and prepare meals, developing motor skills, responsibility, and a direct connection to what they consume.
China has deployed adaptive AI learning systems that personalize pacing, correct work in real time, and guide students toward areas needing reinforcement. Here, AI isn’t a gimmick—it’s a companion fostering autonomy and freeing teachers for creative, relational roles.
Memorizing Mount Everest’s height is meaningless if you don’t know a family’s daily water consumption or how diet impacts health. In an age of instant information, value lies in application, questioning, and real-world transformation.
Inertia as the Main Enemy
The biggest obstacle to educational transformation isn’t lack of knowledge or resources—it’s systemic inertia. Institutions have lost the capacity for self-criticism and renewal.
This inertia is fed by:
-
Bureaucracies prioritizing institutional survival over education.
-
Teacher unions mistaking labor advocacy for resistance to change.
-
Parents clinging to the familiar, however dysfunctional.
-
Politicians fearing electoral fallout from deep reform.
We’ve internalized that formal education is intrinsically valuable, regardless of outcomes.
To question the system is seen as attacking education itself—when it might be the most authentic way to defend it.
Necessary Transformations
Change requires more than methodological tweaks or tech updates. We must reimagine what it means to educate in the 21st century:
-
Situated Learning: Engage students in real community challenges, not abstract problems.
-
Authentic Assessment: Replace standardized tests with project portfolios, peer evaluation, and metacognitive reflection—documenting growth, not ranking students.
-
Biological Rhythms: Adapt school schedules to adolescent development, incorporate regular movement, and design spaces respecting the body’s role in learning.
-
Interdisciplinary Integration: Organize curricula around big questions requiring multiple perspectives.
-
Smart Technology: Use AI to personalize learning and free teachers for human-centered education.
The Historic Moment
This isn’t the time for gradual reforms or half-measures. It’s time for an educational revolution that centers youth and their potential—not institutional survival.
This revolution won’t come from above. Ministries, universities, and bureaucracies are too invested in the status quo. It will come from below:
-
Families daring to question.
-
Teachers choosing innovation over safety.
-
Youth demanding relevance.
-
Communities building alternatives.
Every parent prioritizing real learning over grades is a revolutionary. Every teacher personalizing instruction despite regulations is an insurgent. Every young person rejecting irrelevant education is a freedom fighter.
The educational revolution isn’t a future event—it’s a present choice. Every day we delay, more young people lose precious years to systems that limit and violate them.
Conscious Double Standards
The most visible form of double standards is the kind practiced with full awareness. In this case, the person knows perfectly well that they are applying different criteria based on convenience but justifies it through the following mechanisms:
-
Exceptionalism: “My case is different; it has special circumstances.”
-
Relativization: “What I’m doing isn’t as bad as what others do.”
-
Compensation: “In other aspects, I’m morally impeccable, so I can allow myself this exception.”
-
Redefinition: “I’m not doing exactly what I criticize—there are nuances.”
The philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre called this “bad faith” in his work Being and Nothingness. Bad faith involves voluntary self-deception, a hiding of uncomfortable truths from oneself.
“The man who engages in bad faith hides an unpleasant truth or presents a pleasant falsehood as truth. Bad faith is thus the use of freedom to evade freedom itself.”
In politics, conscious double standards are a sustained pattern in public decision-making. Governments and leaders promote values like transparency, self-determination, and human rights but frequently act contrary to these principles when they conflict with their interests. Recent history and reports from international organizations show how it’s common to restrict information under claims of “national security” or adopt selective moral stances toward crises depending on the country involved.
The sociologist Pierre Bourdieu developed the concept of “symbolic violence” to explain how dominant classes make their particular interests appear as universal values, establishing a double standard where certain groups can violate norms with impunity while others must strictly comply.
At an individual level, double standards frequently manifest in everyday life. Consider those who publicly condemn certain addictions while vehemently defending alcohol consumption, ignoring studies showing that this legal substance can cause harm comparable to—or even greater than—some illicit drugs.
This demonstrates how moral judgments are influenced by social and historical constructs rather than objective harm assessments.
The Convenience Calculus
What characterizes this form of double standards is calculation. People who practice it consciously perform a cost-benefit analysis: it’s easier to point fingers than to correct oneself, more comfortable to accuse than to take responsibility, and more advantageous to judge than to be judged. Conscious double standards rely on a logic of self or group protection.
Friedrich Nietzsche was one of the first to argue that dominant moral systems are not disinterested expressions of universal truths but instruments of power.
“Morality is merely an interpretation of certain phenomena—more precisely, a misinterpretation.” —Nietzsche
The pretense of moral universality always hides particular interests, explaining why those who proclaim absolute principles often apply them selectively.
People don’t ignore their inconsistency—they perceive it but minimize, disguise, or justify it through narratives that preserve their positive self-image.
When a person holds two conflicting beliefs or thoughts, psychology calls this cognitive dissonance. To alleviate this discomfort, they may modify one idea, adjust both, or introduce a new one to restore a sense of coherence.
Unconscious Double Standards
Unconscious double standards are a way of evaluating the world that has been internalized without question, transmitted through family, culture, religion, media, and other social institutions.
Selective Blindness
For example, someone may feel outraged by the oppression women face in other cultures but fail to recognize the problematic beauty standards imposed on women in their own environment. They may reject explicit racism yet unconsciously reproduce microaggressions based on the belief that certain people “don’t fit” or “aren’t ready” for certain spaces.
These normalized prejudices stem from cultural roots. Another example is criticizing the sexual conduct restrictions of certain religious traditions while ignoring how one’s own tradition imposes equally rigid standards of beauty, success, or behavior. The difference is that one’s own cultural framework is perceived as “neutral” or “natural,” while others’ are seen as “impositions” or “restrictions.”
The most dangerous aspect of unconscious double standards is precisely that they are seen as neutral or innocent. Practitioners believe they’re applying universal, fair criteria when they’re actually perpetuating inequalities.
Market Environmentalism
Some movements advocate for a more sustainable and communal life but end up consuming products from corporations that contradict their initial ideals. From “eco-friendly” shoes made under questionable labor conditions to “alternative” music festivals sponsored by energy drink or tech brands, we witness the constant co-optation of idealism by the very market forces being criticized.
The organic food movement began as a critique of industrial food systems. Yet, the industry has selectively adopted “natural” or “eco-friendly” labels without changing production methods. Thousands of consumers pay premium prices for products offering an illusion of ethical coherence without questioning the contradictions of the system they seemingly reject.
This double standard can be conscious (“I know I’m not perfectly consistent, but it’s better than nothing”) or unconscious (“I’m doing the right thing by buying sustainable-labeled products”). Either way, it highlights the difficulty of upholding ethical principles in an economic system that absorbs and neutralizes criticism by turning it into new market niches.
Digital Activism and Personal Branding
We see influencers promoting social justice messages while monetizing their platforms through sponsorships from companies with questionable labor or environmental practices. Authenticity becomes a commercial asset.
This activism becomes personal branding, a form of distinction that may or may not align with coherent practices. Outrage turns into spectacle: noble causes are shared while aggression thrives in comment sections, empathy is demanded for certain groups while those who think differently are dehumanized.
The result is a society of moral appearances, where seeming virtuous matters more than being consistent, and accumulating moral capital outweighs transforming unjust structures.
Unconscious Double Standards in Everyday Behavior
-
Digital Privacy vs. Social Media Exhibitionism: Many criticize tech companies for data collection while voluntarily sharing intimate aspects of their lives online. This contradiction goes unnoticed because certain digital exposure is normalized as “social,” while other forms are labeled invasive.
-
Anti-Capitalist Criticism vs. Consumerism: People critique capitalism, economic inequality, and labor exploitation while compulsively buying luxury goods, cutting-edge tech made under poor labor conditions, or services from monopolistic corporations.
-
Cultural Appropriation: Diversity and respect for traditions are promoted, yet elements of other cultures are adopted without understanding their meaning, often trivializing or profiting from them. This unconscious double standard values others’ cultures only when useful or appealing.
-
Age Discrimination in Workplaces: Self-proclaimed progressives who advocate anti-discrimination policies may unconsciously bias against older workers in tech or younger professionals in leadership roles.
-
Mental Health Stigma: While mental health awareness grows, negative judgments persist toward behaviors stemming from disorders (e.g., calling people with depression “weak” or “uncommitted” for missing responsibilities).
-
Selective Free Speech: Freedom of expression is passionately defended when it benefits one’s views but questioned when it enables opposing voices. Restrictions on aligned opinions are seen as “censorship,” while limits on opposing views are framed as “fighting misinformation.”
-
Education Demands vs. Labor Precarity: Parents and educators push youth into debt for degrees while normalizing a job market that offers precarious contracts to graduates. Individuals are blamed for their success, but systemic barriers to mobility are ignored.
When Morality Becomes Identity
One reason double standards persist is that they’re tied to identity. Changing a moral belief means revising one’s self-image—admitting we may have been unjust, arrogant, or misinformed for years. Not everyone is willing to face that uncomfortable mirror.
Moral positions are also upheld by emotional ties to ideological communities. Criticizing one’s own group feels like betrayal, while pointing out rivals’ flaws confirms moral superiority.
This dynamic explains why people easily spot double standards in opponents but remain blind to similar patterns in their own camp. Confirmation bias absorbs information that reinforces preexisting beliefs while dismissing challenges to them.
The “I’m One of the Good Ones” Narrative
For many, it’s psychologically easier to cling to a simple narrative: “I’m one of the good guys.”
This self-complacent narrative blocks the self-critique needed to identify and correct contradictions. If we already see ourselves as morally superior, why examine our blind spots?
No one is entirely free of double standards. Cognitive limits, implicit biases, and unconscious motivations guarantee that everyone displays moral inconsistencies at some point.
The first step toward greater ethical coherence is abandoning the illusion of moral perfection. Accepting that everyone practices some degree of double standards opens space for self-reflection.
Strategies to Reduce Double Standards
-
Role Reversal: Ask how you’d judge a situation if roles were reversed.
-
Seek Counterarguments: Expose yourself to perspectives that challenge your moral convictions.
-
Cultivate Epistemic Humility: Acknowledge the limits of your knowledge and the possibility of being wrong.
-
Apply the Principle of Charity: Interpret others’ positions in their best possible light, not as strawmen.
-
Question Moral Reflexes: Critically examine automatic judgments and trace their origins.
There is no moral progress without recognizing contradictions, and no ethics without constant self-critique.
Eliminating double standards may be unattainable, but we can cultivate individual and social conditions to identify, question, and gradually reduce them
Hunger for Meaning
An essay on the symbolic void in modern eating and the need to reclaim the cultural and philosophical significance of what we consume. Beyond calories and promises of well-being, we have reduced food to its physical dimension: disease, aesthetics, performance. The bodily, invariably.
These angles, though necessary, have overshadowed an equally relevant dimension: what we bring to our mouths and how we inhabit the world.
The production and preparation of food shape the cultural fabric of societies. In every grain, in every cooking technique, lies a millennia-old story tied to the land and its roots. The Maya didn’t just cultivate corn; they revered it as the origin of life itself, weaving it into their creation myths where gods molded humans from corn dough. Their agricultural calendar dictated planting and harvest times, aligning earthly cycles with celestial movements.
Where culinary traditions yield to industrialization, critical thinking weakens. A diet detached from natural cycles, from contact with the earth, from rituals and time, alters the very structure of our consciousness.
Food carries narratives. Its industrialization transforms meanings. Throughout history, cosmogonies and cultural expressions have emerged, strengthening identity and social bonds.
The loss of these practices has given rise to other forms of resistance. The work songs of cotton and sugarcane plantations in the Americas birthed blues and son. Music became a response to the suffering of bodies forced to abandon their lands to serve imposed monocultures. From the pain of sugarcane came Puerto Rican bomba; from Colombian coffee, bambuco; from Japanese rice fields, ceremonial songs that set the rhythm of planting.
Fast food becomes a method of understanding. We digest information like food: hastily, rootlessly, effortlessly. Reflective and analytical thought requires pause, patience, absorption—like a slow-simmered broth or natural fermentation. When our food loses its temporality, our gaze on the world grows impatient and shallow.
The cruel paradox of our time: regions with extraordinary natural wealth suffer the worst forms of malnutrition. In Brazil, while the Amazon rainforest harbors thousands of nutritious wild fruits, its slum dwellers eat imported ultra-processed cookies. In Mexico, birthplace of corn with thousands of native varieties, children breakfast on sugary cereals made from GMO corn. Indonesian communities, surrounded by abundant oceans, buy canned tuna produced thousands of miles away.
Traditional cooking, even in scarcity, preserved ecological knowledge now in retreat. As childhood flavors vanish, so too do the emotional and sensory references that shaped our way of being in the world.
Preparing food with local ingredients was a way to teach ecology, medicine, astronomy, and ethics. When industry takes over, when cooking becomes an outsourced task, we surrender judgment. We no longer decide what we eat; we don’t even know what’s in it.
In societies where local markets and culinary ceremonies fade, mental deterioration spreads from the individual to the collective. What’s lost goes beyond taste: the logic that sustained forms of organization, economy, and memory collapses.
In tropical countries with fertile land, natural food becomes a privilege. An organic banana costs more than a pack of industrial cookies. Pineapples grown without chemicals are inaccessible to local families while exported to other markets. Meanwhile, in other nations, regulations enforce higher quality standards. Finland bans additives that flood Latin American products; Japan sets strict pesticide limits deemed acceptable elsewhere.
In Mexico, where nixtamal was the foundation of tortillas and culture, ultra-processed cereals now dominate. The disappearance of native corn varieties erases agricultural knowledge and local economies. This displacement stems from policies favoring monocultures and a narrative glorifying modernity at the expense of tradition.
Monocultures have redrawn the world’s geography for foreign interests. In Honduras, the United Fruit Company turned diverse ecosystems into vast banana plantations, creating economic dependence that birthed the term “banana republic.” In Indonesia, rainforests become oil palm plantations to feed Western processed food demand. These monocultures obliterate biodiversity, harvest songs, traditional medicine, and seasonal festivals.
As Laura Esquivel wrote:
“Many were weaned too soon, and so they spend their lives searching for something that truly nourishes them.”
This pattern repeats globally. In Korea, street tteokbokki succumbs to foreign franchises; in India, homemade dal yields to instant noodles; in Italy, cucina povera—wise in its use of humble ingredients—becomes pre-cooked pasta.
Nancy Turner, a Canadian ethnobotanist, documented that Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest used over 500 plant species for food, health, and culture. This orally inherited knowledge now risks extinction due to imported diets and abandoned practices.
In resource-rich countries, supermarkets stock shelves with packaged products whose ingredients grow just miles away. Raw materials travel thousands of miles, are industrially transformed, and return unrecognizable, with labels where additives outnumber real food. What grows nearby becomes inaccessible, repackaged as “premium.”
When eating becomes a solitary, automatic act, bonds of mutual care weaken. A society that abandons its stoves relinquishes the question of how it wants to live. It consumes indiscriminately: food, ideas, news, bodies.
This poverty transcends the mental to the economic. Traditional subsistence economies prove more resilient to environmental crises than monocultures.
Subjected to imported goods and patented seeds, communities lose decision-making freedom. A colonialism rooted in food dependency emerges, starting in the stomach and ending in the mind.
Health regulations operate with double standards: strict in developed nations, lax in biodiverse countries. What Europe rejects finds markets in Latin America or Africa. Communities producing the world’s finest coffees or cocoas consume the worst: sugary drinks, refined flours, hydrogenated oils. Palates trained for generations to discern natural subtleties are bombarded with artificial enhancers that dull sensitivity.
Nutrition must not divorce culture, nor health autonomy, nor food consciousness. What we eat shapes our understanding and limits what we can conceive. A society’s diet isn’t just ingredients; it’s historical decisions, power balances, and shared values.
Slow Food has documented over 5,000 traditional products on the brink of extinction, each carrying ecological wisdom. In times demanding critical thought, the first step isn’t reading another article—it’s returning to the fire, replanting, rediscovering what truly feeds the soul.
BREAKING DOGMAS
The world is full of certainties we accept automatically. From childhood, we learn that certain emotions must be expressed in specific ways, that some ideas represent “absolute truth,” or that the teachings of our early years must remain unchallenged.
This blind adherence to unexamined ideas—this rigid loyalty to beliefs we refuse to question—gives rise to what we know as dogmatism.
Though we often associate dogma primarily with religion, its influence extends to other realms of thought: political ideologies, educational systems, scientific methods, and even our personal relationships.
We recognize dogma when an idea becomes so sacred that questioning it is seen as offensive or treasonous.
Dogmatism transforms opinions, theories, or beliefs into absolute truths that admit no debate. It’s like building walls around our ideas, shielding them from scrutiny or criticism. These mental fortresses provide security—but they also trap us inside.
The Skeptical Gaze
Even in ancient Greece, skeptics noticed humanity’s tendency to cling to unprovable certainties. The Pyrrhonists called these believers “dogmatists.”
When Sextus Empiricus, the foremost exponent of this school, examined the doctrines of his time, he documented an almost inevitable inclination to seek certainty—even when we lack full confidence in it.
In the 20th century, philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine challenged, in his essay Two Dogmas of Empiricism, the supposed distinction between analytic truths (certain by definition or logic) and synthetic truths (dependent on experience). He showed that this division blurs upon closer examination of how language and knowledge actually function.
This argument casts doubt on the untouchable foundations of science. Even in the scientific realm, dogmatism can emerge when certain basic assumptions are defended as unquestionable truths, sidelining the critical attitude and constant scrutiny that should characterize all knowledge-seeking.
Our knowledge is organized as a system of interconnected beliefs that barely graze experience at its outer edges. When reality contradicts part of this system, we have multiple options for adjustment—and often, we choose to preserve the most deeply rooted core beliefs, modifying only peripheral ones.
Scientific dogmatism, for example, tends to shield theoretical cores by creating increasingly complex auxiliary hypotheses to explain anomalies. Research programs can become “degenerative” when they spiral into this kind of dogmatic self-preservation.
The Social Dogma
In medieval religion, dogma functioned as both social glue and a defense of established power. Christian creeds dictated, with absolute authority, what believers must accept. Any attempt to rethink these truths could be deemed heresy—with tragic consequences in many cases.
This stance ensured communities remained united under a single, official version of faith. Dogma thus offered a “guarantee of the heart”—the comforting certainty of sharing immutable truths with others.
When everyone believes the same unshakable certainties, we experience a sense of belonging and shared purpose. This is why societies have historically developed systems to transmit and protect their core dogmas.
Religions—and by extension, other dogmatic systems—foster mechanical solidarity, a unity based on uniformity of thought. This communal bond creates stability but also resistance to change and hostility toward those who challenge established truths.
The Anthropology of Certainty
Humans need stable interpretations to make sense of life’s chaos. We crave patterns, explanations, and predictions to order our world.
Traditional societies develop elaborate classification systems separating the “pure” from the “impure,” the “ordered” from the “chaotic.” Often reinforced by taboos and rituals, these systems reduce anxiety in the face of ambiguity. From this perspective, dogmatism can be seen as a defense against the anguish of uncertainty.
Modern Dogmas
In today’s society, dogmas persist in forms we often fail to recognize.
One example is the meritocracy dogma—the belief that personal success depends solely on individual effort. When taken as gospel, this idea ignores social structures that privilege some and limit others. Those who don’t “succeed” are blamed for “not trying hard enough,” while the systemic advantages of the privileged remain invisible.
Other modern dogmas include:
-
The belief in infinite economic growth as the sole indicator of progress.
-
The idea that technology will solve all our problems.
-
The conviction that consumption is the primary path to personal fulfillment.
These narratives function as secular credos, rarely questioned in mainstream discourse.
Another pervasive dogma is happiness as an individual responsibility. This belief insists that everyone must “work on themselves” to achieve happiness, regardless of external circumstances. Promoted by the self-help industry and certain psychological approaches, it reframes social discontent as a personal attitude problem. The inability to be happy is treated as a moral failure—not a symptom of structural issues.
Epistemological Dogmatism
A school of thought called epistemological dogmatism argues that if something seems self-evident and there’s no reason to doubt it, we’re entitled to believe it. The intent is to justify basic beliefs without requiring proof—but this leads to the dogmatism paradox: How can we dismiss evidence that contradicts what we already hold as certain?
A possible solution lies in fallibilism, developed by Charles S. Peirce. From this view, we can maintain our beliefs as long as they remain uncontradicted—but we must be willing to revise them if new data emerges. Thus, knowledge rests on reasonable confidence paired with a constant readiness to correct errors.
We naturally lean toward confirmation bias: giving more weight to information that aligns with our existing beliefs. Cognitive psychology has studied this phenomenon, revealing how dogmatism is rooted in our very way of thinking.
Paralysis and Violence
Culturally, dogmatism leads to stagnation and impoverishment. Societies governed by rigid structures often suppress innovation, punish dissent, and cling to outdated practices. The history of science abounds with cases where valuable discoveries were delayed for decades due to blind adherence to dominant ideas.
Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman analyzed how modern dogmas of racial and social purity culminated in the Holocaust—and how projects framed as “rational” can become machines of extermination when backed by absolute certainties. The persecution of heretics during the Inquisition, ideological purges in totalitarian regimes, and the persistent denial of scientific evidence all illustrate the destructive power of closed thinking.
Information Bubbles and Polarization
Digital technologies have intensified dogmatic tendencies. Recommendation algorithms connect us mainly with content that confirms our preexisting views, creating echo chambers where divergent perspectives rarely penetrate.
Nuance, doubt, and compromise attract less attention than bold assertions and demonization of opponents. This dynamic fuels social fragmentation, splitting us into increasingly isolated and hostile ideological tribes.
Dogmatism as a Mechanism of Power
Michel Foucault examined how dogmatic discourses on sexuality, madness, or criminality have historically operated as tools of control over bodies and minds. So-called “unquestionable truths” about acceptable behavior shape reality. Claims like “this is human nature” or “this is how the economy works” present social constructs—often serving specific interests—as inevitable.
Dogmatism is never politically innocent. Absolute certainties tend to benefit certain groups, even when framed as universal truths. This is why many emancipatory struggles begin by dismantling these supposed “self-evident” justifications for the status quo.
“The problem with the world is that fools are so sure of themselves, while the wise are full of doubt.” —Bertrand Russell
THE NEW MASCULINITY
In recent decades, we have witnessed a transformation in how masculinity is understood and lived. What once seemed an unquestionable concept is now a terrain of scrutiny and reinvention. This metamorphosis aligns with the social, economic, and cultural shifts that have destabilized the foundations of traditional gender identities.
For centuries, a dominant notion associated masculinity with traits like physical strength, authority, economic provision, emotional control, and detachment from caregiving roles. From an early age, boys were socialized to assume the roles of providers, leaders, protectors, and even combatants. This vision was reinforced by custom, myths, religions, economic systems, and educational institutions.
Where does this cross-cultural consistency come from? Some evolutionary biologists point to hormonal and physical differences that predispose (though not determine) certain behavioral tendencies. Ancient selective pressures may have favored specific traits in environments of scarcity and danger, though others argue these patterns reflect similar mechanisms of domination reproduced across diverse contexts.
Despite this apparent universality, research has shown how masculinity varies considerably across historical and cultural settings. While common patterns exist—such as linking masculinity to competition or self-control—there are also communities where caregiving, cooperation, and emotional expression are integral to male identity. This proves that masculinity, like any gender identity, is malleable and contingent.
The traditional model functioned for millennia but began to fracture in the 20th century. Feminist movements challenged male privileges and dismantled the presumed “naturalness” of roles framed as biologically inevitable.
World Wars forced reorganizations of labor and domestic life. Industrialization and later the service economy diminished the social value of physical strength. Democracy eroded rigid hierarchies. The sexual revolution decoupled sexuality from reproduction. Women’s access to historically male spaces and struggles for expanded reproductive rights have compelled a reevaluation of what is expected of men today.
As traditional markers of success and fulfillment fade, many men experience a liminal state: no longer part of the old order but not yet situated in the new.
While women rightly celebrate their liberation from predetermined roles as an expansion of possibilities, many men experience the same liberation as a disorienting void. On one hand, they’re freed from imposed constraints; on the other, they lose a naturalized sense of purpose.
This loss of reference breeds a silent anxiety that, lacking socially acceptable outlets, may manifest in destructive behaviors or nostalgic retreat. It’s no coincidence that male suicide rates in industrialized societies are three to four times higher than women’s, while substance abuse and behavioral disorders show markedly male prevalence.
Men today are freer but less emotionally equipped to handle that freedom, exhausted by the constant labor of constructing an identity without clear or socially validated models.
Nostalgia for lost certainties fuels reactionary movements promising to restore a mythical order where “men were men.” These groups often thrive in precarious contexts, where the promise of gender superiority compensates for other deprivations. Many men feel they’ve lost a place that once offered them certainty, status, and recognition. In this vacuum, some turn to rhetoric pledging to restore an older order—where hierarchies were clear and rules went unquestioned.
This need for belonging also explains the rise of traditional and virtual male communities (from sports clubs to online forums), which serve as spaces where masculinity can be performed without constant scrutiny. The problem arises when these refuges become enclaves of resentment rather than sites of positive transformation.
The Asymmetry of Gender-Exclusive Spaces
The contradictions of our era are evident in gendered spaces. While initiatives like The Wing or Hera Hub are celebrated as necessary for female empowerment, analogous male spaces like The Bohemian Grove face harsh criticism as bastions of privilege.
Female-exclusive ventures are hailed as innovative, while any male counterpart would be swiftly labeled discriminatory. This double standard, though understandable as corrective logic, fuels resentment among men who don’t perceive themselves as privileged or oppressive—particularly working-class youth facing their own forms of economic and social marginalization.
This evaluative asymmetry isn’t arbitrary or ahistorical. Yet one might ask whether transformative justice requires such temporary disparities or if they risk reinforcing the very categories they aim to overcome. After decades of observation, some now question whether we’re creating a new set of restrictive stereotypes—only now applied to men.
Institutional programs like Canada’s Women’s Entrepreneurship Fund or female-targeted engineering scholarships are legitimate attempts to redress historical imbalances. Data showing women receive just 2.3% of global venture capital or hold only 28% of corporate leadership roles fully justify these interventions.
Yet these efforts coexist with less visible realities: men account for 93% of workplace fatalities, have significantly higher school dropout rates, and face 63% harsher sentences than women for the same crimes. The growing crisis in male education—where women now far outpace men in university graduation rates across most Western nations—rarely inspires compensatory programs.
A truly equitable approach would require acknowledging gender-specific vulnerabilities on both sides. Gender justice cannot be a zero-sum game where one group’s progress necessitates another’s decline.
The Body and Mental Health
A frequently overlooked aspect is men’s relationship with their bodies. Pressure to embody unattainable physical ideals has grown exponentially, evidenced by rising rates of dysmorphia and eating disorders among young men. The media’s inundation of “perfect” male bodies fosters a new alienation.
Trained to see their bodies as instruments of production or performance, many men become disconnected from their lived physical experience. This disaffection harms both their well-being and their capacity for meaningful intimacy.
Another neglected dimension is masculinity’s link to mental health. Emotional repression, isolation, reluctance to seek help, and fear of appearing weak stem from traditional affective conditioning. The consequences include chronic psychological distress, substance abuse, and self-inflicted violence. Without emotional literacy, any social transformation will remain incomplete.
Fatherhood as a Frontier
Parenthood now emerges as one of the most promising arenas for reinventing masculinity. Whereas fatherhood was historically limited to economic provision and normative authority, new family structures enable more participatory, affectionate, and caregiving forms of fathering.
This engaged fatherhood yields tangible benefits: children with higher self-esteem and better social skills, and men more satisfied with richer, more diverse social bonds. The experience of caregiving transforms not only children’s lives but the men themselves.
Yet workplace structures, cultural expectations, and family policies still hinder this shift. Asymmetrical parental leave (significantly shorter for fathers) or the persistent wage gap that makes it “economically rational” for mothers to reduce work hours exemplify how social systems reinforce traditional roles—even when both men and women seek to transcend them.
Beyond Binary Battles
This is not a war between men and women but a collective effort to redefine humanity beyond restrictive binaries. It’s about legitimizing diverse ways of being a man—including those that defy norms.
The Fascination with Collapse
The end is no longer announced by apocalyptic trumpets but revealed through scientific reports, rising global temperature graphs, deforestation maps, and matrices of interconnected crises. Collapse has transcended its status as a future threat to become the emotional climate of the present—a lens through which we interpret current events and sketch future possibilities.
The narrative of collapse seems to tell us that we will witness no great revolutionary transformations, nor a future that improves upon current conditions. Only the gradual crumbling of the systems that sustain industrial civilization—and with it, a strange attraction to this terminal image, as if contemplating it produced a liberating effect.
Why this fascination with the end? What are the implications of viewing collapse as the most plausible—or perhaps even desirable—horizon, as opposed to social transformation?
Utopian imagination has weakened. Collapsology emerges as a substitute for utopian thinking. Instead of projecting alternative societies or possible worlds, we devote ourselves to calculating variables of disintegration, points of no return, irreversible ecological thresholds.
If the 20th century was marked by grand emancipatory narratives, the 21st seems defined by tales of exhaustion, limits, and finitude.
Collapsology’s work proposes a pedagogy for developing emotional resilience in the face of what it deems inevitable. The contemporary subject does not prepare to radically transform the material conditions of existence but to survive their deterioration.
Collapsology has evolved as a school of thought. Early texts emphasized the scientific evidence of imminent collapse: physical limits to growth, energy crises, climate disruption, mass species extinction. Later theorizations incorporated psychological, communal, and existential dimensions.
Contemplating the great collapse provides a kind of existential relief. In a context defined by perpetual acceleration, fragmented experience, productive overexertion, and informational saturation, the image of total collapse offers a purification through chaos.
The imagined end acts as a simplifying force. It promises to reduce overwhelming reality to an elemental, primal situation. This fantasy of returning to basics exerts a powerful allure in hypercomplex societies where individuals constantly experience their powerlessness against abstract, uncontrollable systems.
The expectation of collapse incorporates a dimension of cosmic justice. The system that has exploited natural resources, vulnerable populations, and subjectivities for centuries seems to “deserve” its end. If organized political transformation seems unviable, collapse appears as an impartial judge delivering a verdict under the weight of accumulated systemic contradictions. This inverted hope becomes a peculiar refuge for critical thought when other paths of social change seem closed.
Yet, fascination with collapse can easily become a form of passivity disguised as analytical clarity. Contemplating apocalyptic scenarios may induce paralysis, much like the ideology of indefinite progress once did. The real danger lies in the premature collapse of collective will for transformation.
The certainty of disaster can function as a self-fulfilling prophecy precisely because it eliminates the uncertainty necessary for action. If we are absolutely certain everything will collapse, why strive to prevent it?
Unlike the sudden catastrophes imagined by ancient apocalyptic traditions, collapsological collapse is gradual, distributed, often imperceptible in immediate daily experience. What was once conceived as a spectacular event is now understood as an accumulative process—an “apocalypse without an apocalypse.”
Indicators of systemic exhaustion proliferate: water scarcity in expanding regions, rising mental health disorders, progressive degradation of agricultural land, institutional fatigue in established democracies, growing political polarization, social atomization… None of these alone constitutes a definitive rupture, but together they form a landscape of persistent deterioration. Modern collapse resembles less a bomb detonation than the silent advance of a chronic disease.
We inhabit a collapsing world without experiencing it as such at every moment. We cognitively adapt to deterioration, normalizing what would have been alarming decades ago. Collapse forms a constant atmosphere rather than a singular event. Like a “hyperobject,” it is too spatially and temporally distributed to be fully grasped through immediate experience.
Thus, consciousness inhabits a suspended time—a prolonged present that never fully crumbles nor offers clear possibilities for renewal. This temporal suspension corrodes modern grand narratives based on progress, without providing a new organization of historical time.
The Commercialization of Collapse
Collapsology has undergone cultural commodification. The end of the world has become a mass-media product. Apocalyptic documentaries, dystopian literature, post-collapse video games, YouTube survival channels, social media accounts meticulously tracking every new catastrophic symptom, TV series, films… The attention economy has incorporated civilizational fear as a profitable engine.
Digital algorithms, designed to maximize exposure time, systematically amplify the most unsettling scenarios, feeding a constant stream of catastrophic imagery. This mass circulation of apocalyptic representations fundamentally alters our relationship with the very idea of collapse.
By transforming collapse into a cultural commodity, we neutralize it as a mobilizing force. We turn it into spectacle, vicarious experience, entertainment. While we passionately debate whether a given extreme weather event constitutes definitive proof of climate collapse, we continue participating in the daily practices that accelerate it. The spectacularization of the end creates a distance that immunizes us against its practical urgency.
This generates a kind of cognitive schizophrenia: we recognize the gravity of converging crises, yet this knowledge rarely translates into meaningful changes in our ways of life. Media representations of collapse act as a pressure valve, relieving cognitive tension without altering the material conditions that produce it.
We live in the “age of hypocrisy”: we know too much to keep acting as we do, yet we persist while obsessively circulating knowledge about the unsustainability of our practices.
Beyond Fatalism
It seems neither viable to deny the objective gravity of converging crises nor acceptable to surrender to paralyzing fatalism. Collapsology gets many diagnostic aspects right: the world shaped by industrial modernity faces a multidimensional crisis. Yet the proper response cannot be limited to melancholic contemplation of anticipated ruins or morbid fascination with catastrophe.
Reflection on collapse must account for the multiplicity of temporalities at play: the planet’s geological time, the biological time of evolution, the accelerated time of financial markets, the electoral time of democracies, the intimate time of subjective experience… Each of these temporal registers experiences collapse differently.
What we call “collapse” is a complex of asymmetric processes. While some species vanish forever, others thrive in altered ecological niches. While certain social institutions disintegrate, unprecedented forms of community organization emerge. While some technological structures fail, others gain previously unimaginable centrality.
This temporal heterogeneity is crucial to overcoming a monolithic conception of collapse as a single, homogeneous event. What we experience is more accurately “patches of ruin”: zones where life continues under altered conditions, where destruction coexists with persistence, where irreversible loss does not preclude unforeseen possibilities.
Understanding this multiplicity helps avoid two opposite simplifications: reducing collapse to an instantaneous catastrophe or denying it entirely due to its gradual nature. We need “words to think what is happening to us”—words capable of capturing both the gravity of our situation and the possibilities still open within it.
Each era dreams the next as it sinks.
Collapsology serves an important function in dismantling dangerous illusions about the sustainability of our current civilizational model. But its greatest contribution may lie in helping us imagine what kind of life is worth living when the promises of industrial modernity have lost credibility—and what we might yet learn.
THE ETERNAL QUEST FOR IMMORTALITY
The boundaries of existence have been a constant throughout history. This longing is the driving force that has propelled civilizations, inspired masterpieces, and catalyzed scientific discoveries.
It was in ancient societies that the first attempts to conquer mortality took shape. In Egypt, mummification sought to preserve the body as the eternal dwelling of the ka and the ba. The pyramids stand as testaments to a culture that devoted immense resources to preparing for the afterlife, convinced that existence must continue beyond the physical threshold.
Qin Shi Huang, China’s unifier, sent expeditions to distant lands in search of mythical herbs and substances that might grant him eternal life—yet many of these emperors died ironically poisoned by the same mercury-laden compounds their alchemists claimed held the key to immortality. The famed Terracotta Army symbolizes an alternative form of perpetuity: if he could not live forever in flesh and blood, at least his memory and power would be immortalized in clay.
European, Arab, and Asian alchemists spent entire lives deciphering the secrets of matter, convinced that understanding nature would unlock the means to reverse aging and conquer death. Paracelsus, the 16th-century Swiss physician and alchemist, relentlessly pursued the alkahest, a universal solvent he believed could purify the human body of all disease and decay.
The world’s religions have offered various forms of transcendence: Christianity’s promise of eternal life after Judgment Day, Hinduism and Buddhism’s cycles of reincarnation, or ancestral rites that preserve memory in the collective consciousness. These spiritual constructs reveal humanity’s resistance to accepting the definitive end of individual awareness.
Literature has long grappled with this obsession—from Robert Louis Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde to Mary Shelley’s The Mortal Immortal and Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, Jorge Luis Borges’ The Immortal, Milan Kundera’s Immortality, and countless others.
The 20th Century: A Paradigm Shift
The 20th century brought a new approach to immortality. Advances in medicine and biology doubled life expectancy in many societies. Diseases once considered death sentences became treatable or even curable. This biomedical revolution fueled scientific optimism, framing death as a technical problem to be solved.
Ray Kurzweil, Google’s futurist and engineering director, popularized the concept of the singularity—a hypothetical point where exponential technological progress would enable indefinite life extension. The transhumanist movement, of which Kurzweil is a leading voice, envisions the fusion of human and machine as the next evolutionary step, transcending biological limits—including death.
From supplement cocktails to self-administered experimental therapies and radical tech implants, modern seekers of immortality are turning their bodies into living laboratories.
Biotech and the Business of Immortality
Biotech companies have tapped into this ancient yearning, channeling it into aging research. Firms like Google-backed Calico invest millions in studying cellular aging, hoping to reverse or significantly slow it. Senolytics, a field focused on clearing aged cells from the body, promises not just longer lives but healthier ones.
CRISPR gene-editing technology has revolutionized interventions in aging and cellular degeneration. Scientists like Harvard’s David Sinclair explore how epigenetic reprogramming might reverse aging by restoring function to senescent cells. Regenerative medicine, using stem cells to rebuild damaged tissues, points toward a future where lab-grown organ transplants could indefinitely extend the human body’s lifespan.
Parallel research into plasmapheresis—transferring young blood plasma to older individuals—examines whether youthful components can revitalize aged tissues, blending science with a vampiric twist. Studies on the gut microbiome’s link to longevity reveal how bacterial composition directly impacts lifespan and health in old age.
Companies like Alcor Life Extension Foundation offer cryopreservation—freezing bodies or brains at ultra-low temperatures after legal death, betting that future tech will enable revival. This gamble hinges on defining death as the irreversible loss of brain information, not just biological cessation. Yet it raises existential questions: Would a revived individual be the same person or merely a physical copy with similar memories?
Vitrification (turning tissues into a glass-like state to avoid ice damage) has improved cryonics’ technical feasibility, but doubts remain about preserving the neural structures housing consciousness and identity.
Digital Immortality
Alongside physical efforts, digital immortality emerges as a parallel frontier. Our digital footprints outlive our physical selves. AI projects aim to create “digital twins” that simulate the personalities, knowledge, and thought patterns of the deceased, allowing the living to “converse” with algorithmic versions of lost loved ones.
This renewed pursuit of immortality coincides with secularization. As religious promises of eternal life wane for many, science and technology position themselves as new sources of transcendental hope. It’s no accident that Silicon Valley, the epicenter of tech innovation, is also a hub for life-extension movements.
Here, we see the rise of what might be called techno-religions. Transhumanism, championed by thinkers like Nick Bostrom and Max More, has crafted its own cosmology—where the technological singularity replaces religious apocalypse, and transcending the biological body substitutes spiritual salvation.
Ethical and Existential Dilemmas
Yet the dream of immortality poses profound ethical, social, and existential questions:
-
Psychology: Could a human psyche, evolutionarily adapted to finite cycles, endure an endless life?
-
Society: How would family, inheritance, or careers function if generations overlapped indefinitely? Would creativity stagnate without generational turnover?
-
Inequality: Life-extension tech would initially be accessible only to economic elites, creating a new stratification: the privileged “immortals” versus the mortal masses. This divide could spark unprecedented social tensions.
-
Governance: How would societies govern citizens with unequal lifespans? Would term limits prevent immortal elites from monopolizing power? Would new legal frameworks regulate immortal marriage, contracts, or intellectual property?
-
Ecology: Our systems assume generational turnover. Mass immortality would demand a radical rethink of resource use and habitable space. Elon Musk’s Mars colonization vision might reflect not just exploration but a need to accommodate extended lifespans.
-
Evolution: Generational renewal ensures genetic diversity and adaptation. An immortal species might lose the flexibility that secured our evolutionary success.
Is Immortality Even Desirable?
Philosophers have long questioned whether eternal life would be a blessing or a curse. Bernard Williams, in The Makropulos Case, argued that immortality would inevitably lead to unbearable tedium as novel experiences dwindled. Without evolving desires or unfinished projects, existence could devolve into existential indifference.
Martha Nussbaum suggests that a good life isn’t necessarily endless but one where we fully develop our human capacities. Finitude, she posits, lends preciousness to our experiences and relationships.
The immortality quest reveals humanity’s capacity to dream beyond apparent limits—but also our struggle to accept life’s fundamental conditions. Perhaps it’s less about escaping death than about making life meaningful. From pharaonic monuments to alchemical elixirs, timeless literature to cutting-edge biotech, the impulse remains the same: to leave a mark, to transcend, to declare that our existence matters enough to endure.
Archivos
Calendar
L | M | X | J | V | S | D |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Categorías
- #AdornoCroatia
- #ArendtSlovenia
- #Brigforaois
- #BrighForaois
- #certeza
- #Charles Peirce
- #collapse
- #Conexion
- #Conformismo
- #consciente
- #DiltheyBosnia
- #doblemoral
- #ecologismo
- #Educacion
- #Enfermedades
- #FeuerbachMontenegro
- #FichteLatvia
- #GadamerBelarus
- #HabermasLithuania
- #hambredesentido
- #HegelBulgaria
- #HeideggerSerbia
- #HenriLefevbre
- #HusserlSlovakia
- #Inmortalidad
- #Internet
- #JaspersAlbania
- #KantPoland
- #MarcuseMoldova
- #MarxCzechia
- #masculinidad
- #NietzscheRomania
- #nuevamasculinidad
- #pensamientocritico
- #Resistenciacotidiana
- #Retropop
- #RickertKosovo
- #SchellingEstonia
- #SchlegelNorthMacedonia
- #SchopenhauerHungary
- #SloterdijkUkraine
- #sostenibilidad
- #Sustentabilidad
- #United Fruit Company
- #VEneno
- #Willard van Orman Quine
- analisis cultural
- colapso
- cultura contemporanea
- John Gosss
- Marc Augé
- ontotecnologia
- Uncategorized