It would not hurt if every day we thought for a moment regarding social inequalities. We would realize that we live in a different time, but that it is almost the same as always. It is conceivable that the one and the other were organized around secure or credible foundations. But no, let’s say it’s a conjecture, perhaps an initial hypothesis that science has already proven false numerous times. A wishful thinking, no doubt, to think regarding it every day.
We wanted to believe that solidarity was a universal variable and we discovered that it is a determining factor for solos, but also for everything, if any. Alone we are nobody, although we seek our identity and protection from the multiple roars of life. Perhaps it was worth something in the first tribes of women and men who roamed the Earth, or not even then because it is said that in the union is the strength of survival. Not everything can be measured, but low-income countries are on their own. Moreover, even the rich show their nudity, even though they are virtues for them. With each passing day, investors, multinationals and other owners of the world They want us to believe that there are no limits at all when it comes to satisfying personal desires. What a jerk!
More can be less. Imagine the Earth and the attributes of it. More people to distribute and it touches something less to more, which makes those who did badly in the distribution feel very alone, when in fact the disadvantaged are a multitude. There are places in the world, perhaps Somalia and Mali –so many would fit here-, in which if we put much evil as an attribute, we spoil everything. Not even the (well) intentioned religions or other NGO initiatives have achieved in any country the minimum of something for all the people; human development might be worth but it is not purchased in stores. Until now, despite various vanities, having or owning are nuances of a life with ups and downs: in Europe or in the Sahel, in Spanish cities or in hidden rural areas, in the Wall Street area or in the worst suburb of Bombay . Being a believer or not in the improvement of inequalities takes time to show itself in everything lived.
Nor should there be factories of the best or the worst, but the fact is that it is counted as a quantity, as with everything; global scale shows dangerous trends, with Putin’s war, bread has risen even in Niger. Something similar happens with nothing, what a mistake that the noun is only feminine in Spanish. But there are the women without rights in Afghanistan and those persecuted throughout the world. By the way, it will be necessary to specify if the world is a unitary whole or pieces of a puzzle with various separations, if it is something or nothing; perhaps a fantasy, like the adverb nothing.
(GTRES)
It is never almost always nothing, the glass-half-full optimists would like to extend. José Hierro wrote that: “After nothing, or following all I knew that everything was nothing more than nothing”. Did he stay from then on in almost all African countries or was he already before? Neither nothing, nor never nor everything are written down in the agendas. They arise or are interpreted.
Much if brief is less much but can be enough. What is certain never reaches the universal equal; someone called it social ethics at the time. Here would come hunger and poverty. Never or nothing, despite their difficult existence, they have always been different for everyone, even in those countries. Which tells us regarding an unjust world. Just may be enough, then your opponent lies. It is fair that it barely fills, and then it is badly conjugated with solidarity. Official Development Assistance (ODA) would be worth here. It will be for this reason that it appears barely mentioned in the real history of the peoples. “After all” or “before anything” are in our language to mean something profound, they are not a fixed label that has served us in this year of various catastrophes: floods, fires, climate change and heat waves, hunger queues in front of the sidewalk of social centers, migrations without destination and various famines, galloping inflation, etc. All generated painful life scenes in crowds.
Don’t get me wrong, but to get closer to what is fair, some countryman, or unbeliever, invented Ethics, with capital letters. He had his admirers and detractors, or unaware. But since this is distributed badly, she had to learn something new: justice. This, they say, is neither bought nor sold. However, there are people who live in it, more or less, while others debate and fight once morest injustice. Place where many (millions of millions) already live. The favored ones defend it because if it is eliminated it will reach them without their realizing it, even if it is not by action but by omission. Look for any rich country as an example.
The different religions say that justice orders life in the kingdom of heaven. Nobody knows if there is justice on Earth, which is unjust due to its lack of solidarity. They speak of a heavenly justice, the one that puts everyone in their place and does not err as much as on the ground. And here he does it knowingly of the vigilantes or vigilantes. The data of famines, diseases, mistreated lives, unequal wealth, etc., are the result of life.
Never or always associated with justice are treacherous. There will always be some crumb to spread; or nothing will be non-existent because it is not a measurable magnitude with international criteria such as the metric system. We think of Africa in 2022, supposedly decolonized.
There are people who were named Justa or Justo. What a commitment. But the opposite does not exist, never, in names, but in actions or in social distribution. It is discovered when someone stops to think in which components of life there are more or less injustices; when you review the press and almost everything bears the mark of how unfair it is to have so little for some and have so much left over for others, send the usual ones. Wouldn’t it be to change the constitutions and make them humane? The news of the world are explosions that are taken as all or nothing, always or maybe not. The current covid crises, the invasion of Ukraine, price hikes, the bellicosity of some countries and our cursed climate change. They are everything and threaten to leave nothing for many people. Moreover, there is nothing left of what was nothing. A columnist gave it that title to talk regarding the social state of universal solidarity.
Nothingness or him never end up looking alike but for that they must hold on to something that can be counted. The whole or the always follow similar paths. Who says that it goes almost instantly from everything to nothing, from always to as if never; or compose a nothing always and a whole never. Sometimes it happens in natural or social catastrophes. It is being seen with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
It does seem certain that the same is never always the same. It was the illusion to break nothing, or something to be specified. It may not have been and will not be, as long as it is not regarding small concerns or things valued by a few. That’s where feelings come in too. Another chapter of extremes difficult to measure in the form of human rights. But it is time to contradict, mitigate this or that collective disaster and adapt to it, on key issues such as social inequality or the effects of climate change; the equation of loneliness at the same time as the binomial of the worst like this. It is time to demonstrate the lightness of “What difference does it make that nothing is nothing,/ if nothing else will be, following all./ following so much everything for nothing”, in the poem Vida de José Hierro (1922-2022,) .
PS: On Sunday the writer Javier Marías passed away. A tragic scene of life for literature. She hasn’t read any of his novels or newspaper articles anyway. She is always on time; His words will never remain in nothing.
