The Big Library Report Volume 1 Chapter 2: Society

The Great Library Report Issue 1 Chapter 2: Society#

date: January 15, 2023
slug: 16
status: Published
tags: Great Library Report
type: Post

1. An attack requires a clear sword drawn, a dignified gaze into the opponent's eyes#

Similar to terms like "wumao," "meifeng," "nanquan," and "easy girl,"

non-self-deprecating, derogatory labels used by A against B

are the greatest misuse of language by humanity. This invisible weapon, which kills without a trace, is indeed a powerful tool for those motivated to escape responsibility. However, one of the principles of being human is to avoid

sneak attacks. While this approach may indeed lead to difficulties in winning, it carries significant meaning on the other hand—such people will not be easily suspected by others of having declared war without notice. They will not easily invite malice.

2. How to view Bai Yansong's redefinition of "father flavor," stating that parents should grow together with their children and become "learning-type" parents#

To some extent, it is a pandering to popular taste. There are many lofty concepts in our lives, but often there are no practical operational plans.

Here’s a very realistic example:

Countless parents feel they have relaxed to the point of near paralysis, yet their children still believe that parents are meddling in everything.

In the bath of strange thoughts: we cannot understand why the previous generation disapproves of our generation—let's assume I have a daughter, and at this moment, the white left ideology is rampant in China. If she tells me she wants to participate in a nude protest, would I support her? If she tells me she has several casual partners, would I support her? If she tells me she likes open relationships and wants to participate in impact, would I support her? I would likely not support her, at least I would not approve. But doesn’t that make me a representative of the evil patriarchal system of the original family? I would be restricting my daughter's sexual freedom, her right to protest as a citizen, and I would be limiting her XXXXX and similar debate rhetoric. The same goes for my son; if he suddenly tells me at 16 that he wants to drop out of high school to form a band, or that he likes men and doesn't plan to have children, what should I do? If he were not my child, I would probably respect, bless, and understand him—but now I really have a cow.

A pile of educational issues under the so-called "equality" and "tolerance" banner have no solutions at all. Many who raise the concepts of "non-violence," "equality," and "tolerance" to earn applause from young people are either speaking empty words or have been lucky enough never to encounter these issues, so they think others cannot achieve them due to their low level. Many parents in families do not have the conditions or ability to "accompany" or "be equal"; some situations cannot be resolved by "equality" and "brotherhood."

It is not that children and parents should be unequal, but that this "equality" is not the "equality" of those above. Equality is not "why should I listen to you?" It is not that parents should use violence against children, but that the definition of violence is not what these people describe as "violence." Non-violence is not "why should you hit me?" These ideas are extremely appealing to young people, but they are actually harmful.

3. No sarcasm#

First, people have the freedom of belief. This means that whether a person's belief is right or wrong, good or bad, cannot be judged by others; only objective reality has the right to judge. In other words, you can only help yourself determine "this is wrong, this should be resolved" based on your own fate and judgment. If the other party does not believe this is wrong, you actually have no standing to judge them; you can only stop at refusing to be infected and self-isolating. Otherwise, merely forcing the other party to accept that it is wrong is itself violence, itself a sin—you cannot prove that crime must fail by successfully committing a crime; that is logically absurd. This enlightenment cannot be completed by you; it can only be completed by the objective world. You can only effectively help those who have already been awakened by the objective world; you cannot replace the objective world.

Those who engage in sarcasm have no great and righteous reason to do so; I do not need to worry about that. In any case, being constantly squeezed by these sarcastic things in the living environment is unhealthy. The dangers in the environment do not need to be provided by those who engage in sarcasm; objective constructive answers cannot naturally be derived from the mouths of those who engage in sarcasm.

Many people try to solve problems without using sarcastic means, saying "I will speak nicely," but they always fail. Where is the fundamental problem? It lies in the fact that this "speaking nicely" is often insufficient; it is merely somewhat better than "directly cursing," but in reality, it is still a forced and disguised expression of anger. The other party does not believe they are guilty, or at least does not accept being privately deemed guilty without a legal and reasonable process, and your "speaking nicely" is essentially "you are undoubtedly guilty, but I will reduce/exempt your punishment, and you should be grateful." If it were you, would you find such "speaking nicely" acceptable? From the first step, an enemy relationship has already been established, and the probability that the other party can still be positively influenced by you will naturally be greatly reduced. Therefore, to solve the problem, you must at least put away this judgmental mindset. Humans cannot judge humans; that is not your right. Your parents, teachers, leaders, and spouses can judge you, either through yourself or through fate's authorization. This is not a universally existing inherent right. If you do not integrate this into your very being, you will not be able to achieve effective breakthroughs in influence. Influence can extend beyond one's own authority and affect strangers with no vested interests; this is a very important threshold. This power is endless, has no ceiling, and is absolutely worth your tremendous effort to strive for and accumulate. And who should you learn from? Of course, you should learn more from experts, from those who can influence others without relying on sarcasm.

4. Negative Spiral#

The state of the world largely depends on you. This does not refer to how hard you need to work to change mountains and rivers, social order, and such grandiose statements, but rather that society itself, like XX, can speak to people and ghosts without flaws, instantly changing its "face towards the enemy." Your resentful glance at it will, before you see clearly, instantly decorate the conveyor belt leading to the meat grinder with dazzling gold and swirling auspicious clouds. It will send you on your way at the fastest speed. The unfairness of this matter lies in—when you complain, the world will arrange a bunch of people to echo you, serving you comfortably, praising your glorious correctness, and beating drums for your grand funeral. When you work hard, the world will arrange a group of people to come out and tell you "it's all useless," mocking you, ridiculing you, cursing you, and even attacking you. But if it were not for this, what value would there be in effort?

Under the premise that you do not take off your blindfold, how can you ask how to make the room bright? What do you say? "How do I judge whether I haven't taken off the blindfold, or if I have taken it off and it is truly dark?" Very simple, the latter can see the lights turning on.

This phenomenon is indeed interesting; I have a very useful sample around me that reflects the negative spiral.

There is a question on Zhihu: Help from friends!!! My daughter hasn't called me "dad" for three years; is it my problem? In fact, this is a question posed by the daughter herself under the guise of the father's identity; it is an "absentee judgment" based on the internet. What is the reason for asking this question? It seems to be looking for many people to further prove that she is completely correct. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, this entire writing and the mechanism of this "absentee judgment" objectively prevent readers from making any judgments favorable to the parents, don't they? In fact, the daughter has already judged the parents guilty and has executed it herself; she is just distressed that the parents are unwilling to admit guilt,

so she wants to establish a special court where parents have no chance to defend themselves, submitting a lawsuit to a jury that has not been selected by the defense and has a special mechanism for filtering, to create a consensual judgment that further proves she is just, righteous, and widely supported.

To change this logic of behavior that "finding enough allies allows for legitimate attacks/revenge," to change this logic of "living just to vent," "fairness and justice (an eye for an eye) are supreme" in doing things. When doing things, do not think "why," but think "why." Learn to use the physical and social laws that compel obedience to directly solve "why," and do not indulge in the foolish and ineffective logic of "gathering allies to solve 'why.'" Stop constantly proving that you are just and pure, hoping to use this "proof of being harmed" to seek "justice" from "public opinion"; this is a sure path to weakness and incompetence, ultimately leading to being coldly abandoned by others.

6. A senior high school student. Recently learned about the COP15 ecological protection plan and hopes to contribute a little to achieving the goals; what do I need to do?#

Ling's response:

It is recommended that your profession, career, and development direction should not be related to the "COP15 ecological protection plan." "Contributing a little" can be achieved through paying taxes according to regulations, engaging in consumer spending, etc.

At the COP15 summit, representatives from many countries were celebrating, but representatives from some countries expressed that their voices were not heard. In the final stages of the meeting, representatives from African countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Uganda were very disappointed. They wanted to secure more funding for the protection plan, but the final version of the agreement did not provide it. The Ugandan representative called the agreement a "fraud." Some members of the African delegation protested that the negotiation process was unfair to developing countries, believing that the agreement "would not make significant progress in stopping biodiversity loss"—this is quite euphemistic. The fact is that politicians eager to achieve some "victory" praised a non-binding biodiversity agreement that lacks enforcement mechanisms, accountability systems, and does not specifically mention commercial fishing or agriculture. The agreement does not require companies to track or disclose their impacts on biodiversity. The environmental impacts of multinational corporations and the fossil fuel industry will not diminish on their own. The agreement did not set clear targets for commercial fishing and agriculture. These are the industries that cause the most severe ecological destruction outside of the fossil fuel industry. Countries ultimately agreed that by 2030, funding for biodiversity from all public and private sources must increase to at least $200 billion per year. This includes wealthy countries donating at least $30 billion annually to low-income countries. The $200 billion figure is far below the approximately $700 billion needed for "full protection and restoration," as shown by relevant studies, and it is hard to expect this figure to be realized—since the COVID-19 pandemic, many old funding programs from wealthy countries to low-income countries have been suspended and have not yet resumed.

The World Bank's Global Environment Facility is very slow to allocate funds to middle and low-income countries. Representatives from France and the EU strongly opposed establishing new funds to assist middle and low-income countries. As a result, they intend to establish a trust fund under the Global Environment Facility and "call for" improvements to the processes of the Global Environment Facility.
The World Bank has committed to addressing climate change and provided a record $31.7 billion for climate-related investments in 2022, while simultaneously investing nearly $15 billion in fossil fuel projects. This includes a natural gas pipeline that crosses Turkey, transporting gas from Azerbaijan to Europe.

In August 2022, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) opened large areas of forest (including gorilla habitats) for oil extraction. At a press conference, DRC officials stated, "Our priority is not to save the Earth," and then wiped their sweat. We can tell him: No need to sweat, buddy. This is not anyone's priority. At COP26 in Glasgow, 196 countries and regions pledged to "review and strengthen" their emission reduction plans. So far, no country has fulfilled its commitment to improve climate plans, with Gambia being one of the better performers.

The agreement completely failed to address how to fairly share the benefits of "digital sequence information"—many biodiversity-rich countries and regions cannot control the commercialization of their biological samples and genetic data by other countries and multinational corporations, nor can they derive economic or other benefits from it.

The agreement did not provide a solution to the accuracy of emission reduction values.

In 2022, several devices used in Texas oil and gas fields to prevent methane leaks and reduce emissions were not functioning properly, a phenomenon that may be quite common worldwide. These equipment failures resulted in emissions five times higher than normal. The emission reduction values measured in the oil and gas industry over the past decade are likely laughable.
In some places in the United States, trees are planted to provide carbon sequestration and sell emission allowances, but wildfires have destroyed some of these planted trees, and the corresponding emissions have not been accurately calculated. This means that many companies in Europe and America that rely on buying emission allowances for "emission reductions" or "carbon neutrality " are essentially engaging in fraudulent accounting.

Of course, this agreement cannot do worse than its predecessor (the Aichi Biodiversity Targets), which failed to achieve any of the goals it boasted of at the time of its formulation. Some scientists claim that the failure of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets was due to the lack of an accountability mechanism, but you can more directly point out that the reason is

humanity is currently unable to uniformly implement such plans.

Stay away from such things. Building your life on this will lead to unhappiness.

If possible, you can try to become a billionaire or a powerful person, and then use your financial resources or power to drive down temperatures through geoengineering. Once successful, its direct impact could improve the living conditions of over 3 billion people, and its indirect impact could save at least hundreds of thousands of species.

7. How to deal with mental internal friction#

What is internal friction: It is the anxiety and restlessness caused by keeping thoughts bottled up. And then? Then no conclusions are formed, and no output products are created. Then the next day, it happens again. A million words run through your head, but not a single word comes out, nor is there a grain of tangible result.

Not communicating externally is called internal; not manifesting in material is called waste.

First, do not talk to yourself; find someone to talk to.#

It is very likely that no one wants to hear your nonsense,

so organize your language over and over until someone can listen and wants to listen. Talk to parents, relatives, or friends who cannot avoid listening or are willing to try to listen. Writing it out for others to see is also fine.

If necessary, spend some money to hire a therapist to listen.

In summary,

do not remain in self-talk.

Second, whether it is a notebook filled with writing or a clay figure pinched during anxiety, produce something.#

If someone is willing to buy this, then it naturally does not count as "waste."

If no one buys it, then strive to polish it to the point where it can be sold.

It is unacceptable for each round of output to be worse than the previous round or to be identical to the previous round. If you do not know how to improve, then force some changes—overall, do not be monotonous and repetitive.

A person who is talking to others and producing products that someone is willing to buy is, by definition, no longer a person experiencing internal friction.

8. How to refute "I am just playing, I am not wasting my life; I am just doing what I like"#

Wasting life has three definitions. One is not improving and extending life itself. One is not leaving enough memories for oneself to chew, savor, and explore. One is not leaving contributions and legacies for others to utilize. If you do something and none of these three benefits are generated, then that segment of life is wasted. Whether life is wasted has no specific relationship with whether you are happy. But if you can understand the immense happiness contained in "life has not been wasted," you will find that this happiness can counteract almost all misfortunes and pains, to the extent that you will objectively be happier.

If you can achieve these three values—at least one of them—through "playing," then the form of "playing" itself has nothing to be criticized, and others have no grounds to criticize it.

1) Doing what you like comes with a lot of pressure.#

If you really like it, then you should do it well, and you should do it well. But if you do not do well in what you like, what about other things? You might love playing games, but you only play at a mediocre level. You might love reading comics, but you can't quite remember what the comics were about. If liking something does not lead to expertise, it will quickly bring about a huge sense of frustration or even despair, easily pointing to "I am worthless, I have achieved nothing." Once there is a requirement for "expertise," it will demand that you study, learn, practice, be meticulous, have comprehensive skills, and continuously and honestly acknowledge your flaws and shortcomings. —Doesn't this just lead you back to the old path of "school aversion? The difficulty lies here—if you do not have the ability to play well with things you do not like, then you have to be careful with the things you like. Because once you let go of playing, you may easily ruin the things you love to play with. Going back to liking one thing and ruining another is even more tragic.

2) The most happiness comes from accomplishing things you know are necessary but do not like.#

You will know this after doing it a few times. Some things you really do not like to do, but due to circumstances, you have to do them, so you pinch your nose and do them, and as a result, you do them very well, and the outcome is quite beautiful. This feeling is much happier than "playing with what you like." The things that scare you are not so bad; since that is the case, what is there to worry about? It brings you a strong sense of freedom and liberation, suddenly making you feel that there is nothing in the world that cannot be done. The world becomes larger.

So, the secret to playing well lies in occasionally playing with things you do not like. Only playing with what you like is not the correct strategy.

Let others fully realize your talents, believe in your talents, and worry that your talents cannot be fully utilized; this is your responsibility. Because for any reason the other party does not realize your talents, even if this leads to significant losses for them, even losses greater than your own,

the responsibility to solve this reason lies with you. Talents must learn to shine on their own and not place their hopes on others.