Does this world need to change

Does this world need to change?


Hello.

I think that we need to become more considerate of each other.
At a personal level and at a global level.

Some people worry about global warming as though it were a religion but I remember from my childhood a similar scare about the coming iceage.
Humm still waiting!
But what people don't seem to worry about is the human suffering that happens every day.
The misery and murder happening in many places around the world.

If you are a young pretty girl forced into a refugee camp in Syria then there's a good chance that a rich Jordanian mongrel will rent you as a “wife” for a few weeks before discarding you like trash.

Or you might be from the wrong religion for those armed groups in your area.
Your life could be rape, mutilation, death and /or being driven from home and land into an uncertain future.

Where is our consideration in that? Even on the roads in my country there is no consideration for the humanity of other drivers.
If they make a mistake we are filled with rage.

Am I angry? Too right I am! It is an affront to God seriously.
If it isn't to yours then it should be!
This consideration is under our control and we can chose to be better.
All of us! We are humans travelling together through time and space.
We have choice.


“Need” implies we have a choice.

We have no choice.
The world is continuously changing.

The Sahara Desert has whale skeletons sitting on the surface of sand dunes and seashells from past seas that once covered all that sand.

The frozen tundra holds flash-frozen flowers.

Islands change size and shape.

Once, to have time for written philosophy, you needed to be rich enough to have servants to do all the “have-to’s” of survival.
Now, if you live in a country with reliable electricity and plumbing, you can be officially under your country’s poverty line and participate in Quora.

Once, you never knew if someone on the other side of the world suffered a devastating earthquake.
Today, we not only know, but relief organizations will send help.

We are changing as surely as a seed becomes a tree, as an infant becomes a man, as a song that was a daydream become an anthem.

We are aware of problems whose existence we would never have guessed.
By fits and starts, by wrong turns and inspirations, we are better.

The question is, can each of us help the change that is unavoidable be of the greatest possible good for the greatest possible number of people? And can we make room for those whose definition of Utopia is different than our own?


Does this world need to change?
The direction of the change is what is important.

Contrary to popular opinion, people do love change, life is change! They just do not enjoy having change thrust on them by someone who claims to have 'authority' over their lives.

All wars are about the POLICIES guiding change.
Who owns what, who governs whom, who has priority over various resources.

The current world system is poisoned with the blood of poverty stricken people, while those who consider themselves 'leaders' are poisoned with sexual perversions, venereal diseases, gout, obesity, and a whole range of other 'rich man's diseases' from over eating and drunkenness, and other excesses.

Yes the world needs to change, people need to awaken and mature.

The people need to awaken and each realise the centre of volition, the first, last and only authority in each person's life is within each person.

Then mutual respect.

Then the realisation that we cannot own the resources here for us all to share.
.
.

THIS is the change we need to guide so that everyone has a fair share and joy returns to the faces of people everywhere.

Peace on earth through the expression of good will to everyone, everywhere.

There is no other way.

What remains to be seen is how stubborn those are, who cling to the old regime which causes all the suffering.


That is an excellent question! There are so many people that assume that change is necessary for all manner of things without ever asking that question.
How could one know if change is needed if we do not ask if change is needed? So philosophically it is the first place to start regarding this concept, because it will cause us to ask so many more questions.

These are just some of the questions.
Making change is a huge thing, especially as it regards changing the world.
I can tell you this, I know the world needs to be changed.
I know of tremendous evil in many places in the world that needs to end.
The worst thing is bad government.
Bad government leads to all of the worst things in society.
A lack of freedom and liberty is the worst governmental sin.
From freedom and liberty flows all other good things in a society.
We could eliminate hunger, poverty, so many illnesses and suffering if governments were for the people and of the people, truly representative while preserving our liberty and freedom.
There is still slavery in the world.
There are places where women are not given equal justice.
There are horrible wars going on creating tremendous suffering, wars that do not need to happen.
America could feed the world.
We are so busy here fighting over the color of our skin and what some people think is hate that we are doing less and less good in the world.
If the bad people can keep us distracted we will not solve the real problems.
If good people do not take action we will also fail.


the changes that the world needs is that First all the countries need to eliminate its borders that divides the land and the races ….
Second the money spent on defense of all the countries in total is 1686 Billion dollars ….
just imagine all that money used for the betterment of humanity !!!!!!!!


‘Change’ appears faster than the velocity of light when we consider how much is going on.

Just “what’s going on?” can be a matter of physical geographic locations, demographics.

On one stage “this” is going on.
On another stage “that” is going on.

Some people are content with their “fish bowl” and would not like to jump into another fish bowl.

While others, do want to change, even escape from an imposed fishbowl.

From an ‘an masse’ advantage, a “survol view” (birds eye view) after witnessing a “worms eye view” the physical earth itself might not give a dam* anymore about the human species.
Thus “change” may be required from the human perspective as the God of the Law of Nature takes it course to “change.

Then we have the political ideologists and religious fanatics that spoil the soup.

These are the types that claim “My God is better than your God,” and “I’ll SHOW YOU whose God is God.
” That attitude needs to change, in my opinion.

If it is true that the word or title for our concept of “GOD” symbolizes either “THE SUPREME BEING” (One GOD) and/or “a supreme being” (more than one ‘God’) the fact that “everything exists” includes both holy/unholy.

“Opposite spins” of the same abstract exist.
Flesh cannot withstand “ideas” let alone a pure purging.
The material world is more or less demoted in terms of such properties like duration and dimmer light.

If we are “dark” the tendency for self destruction, usually touched upon in holy books in the three Western religions, Judaism, Christianity, Islam as monotheistic either have to agree on whether there is “ONE GOD” or “MANY GODS).
I think that would be a good “change” for the positive.

If we can comprehend “the light” and realize that we ourselves are made of “photons,” “Particles/anti particles,” atoms and molecules, chemical dna, and organgs as a multiplicity while at the same time operating as if in disguise as a physical person, a unity.

So if the parts, for example an organ is used in place of another organ, like trying to transplant a heart for a lung, they are both needed and still part of the body, yet they will not at this time, get along as if they were exactly the same.

So, a change also for those that declare that the globe has populations where on segment calls itself the head, and proclaims that the other is the a$$, and thereby they reason, they have no need for the a$$.
That attitude should change, in my opinion.

How can can a horse demand of a flower that it must experience the same exact thoughts, words, deeds, acts and spectacles?
They both require ‘light’ as a nourishment because everyone is all part of the whole, from my understanding of what we may accept as smart people, from philosophers to modern day mathematicians.

“In Einstein’s vision, the universe is like an organism in which each part is the manifestation of the whole” (Synchronicity: The Bridge Between Matter and Mind p 76).

The thing is, that human beings are not “one or the other” like spirit/body.
A human being is both spirit/body.
That is if one can appreciate a third dimension mentality where ‘past’ vanished, the ‘future’ is not yet existent for a very narrow perspective of ‘the present.

I think that we should consider changing our view of SPACEtime.

That is, we have to change from a “worms eye” view of the electromagnetic coordinate system as only a time dimension.
The electro magnetic system occupies “space.

It is the difference between two or more frames of reference as one standard of measure.
Experimental application of quantum mechanics seem to force In quantum metaphysics/mysticism that ‘spacetime’ is but one virtual reality as if oscillating with a corresponding physical reality.

That means that each iota of “change” is a global jump into another matrix womb.
The paradigm does not require “time.

We are now discussing ‘philosophy’ as if there is a connection with the philosophy of science.
Perhaps, it is more like tapping the shoulder of a blind man fumbling, having the advantage of being born afterwards.

Should science rise atop a mountain and shout, “Unless it is sanctioned by science, it is nonsense” ?
There is healthy and unhealthy incredulity, so the degree of skepticism of a “whole” and “part” system should change, in my view.

“’A good terminology’, someone said, ‘is half the game.
’ To get away from the traditional misuse of the words ‘whole’ and ‘part’, one is compelled to operate with such awkward terms as ‘sub-whole’, or ‘part-whole’, sub-structures’, ‘sub skills’, ‘sub-assemblies’, and so forth.
To avoid these jarring expressions, I proposed, some years ago, a new term to designate those Janus-faced entities on the intermediate levels of any hierarchy, which can be described either as wholes or parts, depending on the way you look at them from ‘below’ or from ‘above’.
The term I proposed as the ‘holon’, from the Greek holos = whole, with the suffix on, which, as in proton or neutron, suggests a particle or part.
” (Janus: A Summing Up p 33).

The thing is, most unusually do not think of such stuff.

The operation of a universal clock like synchronicity can be implemented right under most eyes and nose, eluding the thresholds of awareness.
The “puns” of nature with the God of the law of nature, is as if a land lord half joking and half serious.
That is, I think that we must “elevate our consciousness,” that would be a good change.

So, if we can imagine that the ‘world’ itself is another ‘janus faced entity’ as we are janus faced, a symmetry/asymmetry, it might have metaphoric hemispheres, just like a brain.

US? ME?
Metaphoric hemispheres, symbolized by abbreviations without periods with names of physical geographical locations and persons surround the ‘thinking planet.

Arthur Schopenhauer used the terminology “The One” and “the many.
” This is similar to the basic Aristotlean “whole” and “parts,” which a rare good Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius adopted to keep populations of different cultures and religion from going ape on each other.

The point is that not always are we able to utilize a facade that can evade the highest levels of attention that can be used as a methodology for “CHANGE!”
Again, imagine the Invisible Spirit as a “whole.
” Does it mean that there is a “mind” behind the material world that transforms it as if demiurge material from imaginary world of ideas? Is there a “sculpturing” of the physical world that reflects the “equivalent” of a “psyche” when we detect changes?
If we can shed our “opposite spins” as if we had to side with one or the other, that would be a welcome change.
For example, physics/psychology.
How many times have physicists bashed psychology and the imagination?
What if there is a “unified view” of these opposite spins of the same abstract? What if Einstein’s Matter Energy came with a Psyche and a non local not quite the other forms/formless?
These “EMPs” could operate well past the lifetime of individuals from cradle to grave and moreso, past generations.
We could find Patterns Across Times that point to our physical and mental whereabouts in an electromagnetic spacetime.

This “change” in thinking is an en masse’ view of existence.
If we nod in agreement with the advice of Depth Pychologist, Ira Progoff there are profound implications when we consider the work of Bohr, Pauli, Einstein, Jung, and Progoff adds, compare the vision of Pierre Tielhard de Chardin with Jung’s collective unconscious (which is Pauli’s “u-field”).

“Bohr was convinced that complimentary was relevant not only to physics but also to psychology and to life itself” (Deciphering the Cosmic Number p 102).

Mythologist Joseph Campbell, during an interview with Bill Moyers, suggested that we get past thinking of the physical objects but to see the world as if it were a poem.

That is a change we should consider, looking through Alice’s window as if the earth articulates.

Mathematician physicist W0lfGang Pauli has a dream illustration, his “countries mandala” that appears as if he is seated “above.

His dream illustration is on the left side of the table above.
He draws a situation of correspondence between the names of countries and the same four functions that Jung uses for an individual therapy.

It is as if an individual fractalized, jumps into another coherent collective orbit or level as a sort of Ultra Human.
Pauli’s exclusion principle seems to have provided a glimpse at a “higher level” of operation.

That is what we need to change, our “view” of how we operate, being entangled in both spirit/body, and by extension mind/body.

Is it possible that human species is part of a collective? Just as our multiplicity is itself a unity, a body both invisible and visible, we move about.

Are persons something similar, as if atoms and molecules in a higher unity and orderness?
German Scholar, Hans Georg Gadamer says,
“Aristotle.
.
.
Chapter 1 of his Metaphysics he describes how various perceptions unite to form the unity of experience when many individual perceptions are maintained.
What sort of unity is this?.
.
.
universality of concept…” (Truth and Method pp 350–352).

So it appears that we should change from thinking that the physical world is the only game in town.

“,,, the eminent astronomer, V.
A.
Firsoff suggested that ‘mind was a universal entity or interaction of the same order as electricity or gravitation, and that there must exist a modulus of transformation, analogous to Einstein’s famously equality E=mc squared, whereby ‘mind stuff’ could be equated with other entities of the physical world.
” (Arthur Koestler, The Roots of Coincidence, p 63);
Depth psychologist, Dr.
Ira Progoff says about the matter mind issue,
“…a concept that would be the equivalent of the relativity theory with the added dimension of the psyche”
“It is interesting in this regard to note that the recent opening of Einstein’s private papers has disclosed that dreams and images played a very important role in Einstein’s creative life.
Those luncheon conversations may have been more fruitful that Jung realized, especially since we now know that Einstein possessed a keen sensitivity to the deep levels of the psyche.
It may, at some later tie, be very fruitful to study the relationship between Jung and Einstein more closely, particularly in view of Einstein’s interest in Hindu/Buddhist thought and his later description of the archetypal qualities of the relativity concept.

“While Jung may have had an important psychological effect on Einstein, the theory of Relativity became the base and starting point for his own thinking about Synchronicity.
At several points he seems to have been consciously seeking to develop a concept that would be the equivalent of the relativity theory with the added dimension of the psyche” (Ira Progoff, Jung, Synchronicity and Human Destiny, p 152).

COMPONENTS
My argument here is that we should change our perception of reality to adjust with actual reality, the “complimentary” principle between these EMPs.

Arthur Koestler, writer, complained,
And that is the point here also in that the “complimentary” physics/psychology are “unified” and we do not have to choose which side and not the other.

For the “interested reader” Jung did offer and explanation, and so do other writers who have helped explain this notorious schematica.
Jung says,
“This schema satisfies on the one hand the postulates of mod­ern physics, and on the other hand those of psychology.
The psychological point of view needs clarifying.
A causalistic ex­planation of synchronicity seems out of the question for the reasons given above.
It consists essentially of "chance" equiva­lences.
Their tertium comparationis rests on the psychoid factors I call archetypes.
These are indefinite, that is to say they can be known and determined only approximately.
Although associated with causal processes, or "carried" by them, they continually go beyond their frame of reference, an infringe­ment to which I would give the name "transgressivity," because the archetypes are not found exclusively in the psychic sphere, but can occur just as much in circumstances that are not psychic (equivalence of an outward physical process with a psychic one).
Archetypal equivalences arc contingent to causal determination, that is to say there exist between them and the causal processes no relations that conform to law.
They seem, therefore, to represent a special instance of randomness or chance, or of that "random state" which "runs through time in a way that fully conforms to law," as Andreas Speiser says” (Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle par 964).

In other words, it is a “bi focal scope” where two areas of discipline can view the same thing, in this case Pauli-physics/Jung-psychology.

We should not that Koestler says something different to another audience,
“Why should we shrink mentally from Jung-Pauli’s synchronicity concept as an ‘acausal connecting principle’ when physicists calmly accept the same Pauli’s acausal exclusion principle as a cornerstone of modern science? Why should we be shocked by Jung’s claim that acausal connections might be ‘of equal importance in the universe to physical causation,’ when the laws of probability which lend order to that universe are the prime example of such acausal connections?” (Arthur Koestler, Order From Disorder, Harpers Magazine, July 1974).

In short, the “change” from the old Western view is as if a sudden back ward jerk reviving Greek philosophy/metaphysics and Eastern mysticism as part of the new emerging vision where most are unable to comprehend because of sheer lack of interest, and subjective relevance, except for their eternal.
The “temporal duration” has become more important for most throughout human history, simply because of such needs like survival, hunger, etc.

That is definitely a change worth noting that we find sparks of optimism in almost all areas of knowledge and discipline synthesizing that appear as part of the modus operandus.
We must change how we view our part in relation with the whole, in my opinion.


Peace be on you.
Does this world need to change? Everyone will like to change the world according to their preference.
Rich will like a change, to be richer and poor will like a change which will make their condition better.
Who will decide a change is needed and how? The desire for change through use of power has already given people, two world wars and countless proxy and small wars.

Some religious prophecies are there for a change and believers are waiting.

One believes, change is needed (change toward peace) and the process of change has been set in motion by Ahmadiyya Promised Messiah Mahdi since 1889.

Physical and spiritual changes (for goodness) are the need of every individual.


If you mean human society upon the world it cannot really be considered as one thing.

Some areas are clearly under the yoke of appalling primitive religious woman subordinating tyranny.

Others are desperately poor and live in regions awash with disease even as others live in riches, but those riches pay for the research into medicines and developments to address those diseases.

Also this wealth.
creates the technologies for warning systems to help alert those people to imminent earthquake or volcanic eruption (admittedly with imperfect efficacy as yet), the aircraft that bring in the aid and support teams or enable the evac , and invent and build all the machines, vehicles and electronica even comparatively poor societies rely upon.

The problem with desire for equality is that it is so often manifested as a resentment of those at the top, which then translates as being happier if they too can be dragged down into our mire.
That helps nobody.


Let love lead.
Stop speaking hatefully.
Stop judging.
Stop negative, angry speech.
Choose to be grateful.
Choose love.
This answer could get really long, but you know where I am going with this.
NO FORCE ON EARTH IS MORE POWERFUL THAN LOVE.
Love changes darkness into light.
Love people.

“Small things done with great love will change the world.


The “World” that you reference is a subjective realm, created by our own contexts.
To change that world, we have to begin to change the contexts, to change our vision of who we are and why we are here.

Why is a process approach to our existence applicable and or imperative?
Perhaps one person in a thousand has a strong working knowledge of quantum mechanics, game theory and emergent biology.
The languages and comprehension of the common person and those of the Cosmologist and Geneticist have diverged to the point that understanding of universal concepts is largely ignored in everyday parlance.
This divergence of world views does not release any of the billions of people living on this planet from the personal requirement of obtaining a world view.
None of us can avoid the process of assimilating a perception of the world around us.
Rather the huge diversity creates a monumentally problematic set of conditions for advancing the sustained stability of humans upon this planet.
Very simply there is no existing common vision of humanity that will allow us to proceed as a species and a culture into the future.
We will continuously flounder without any sort of unified field process identifying why we are here.

William Shakespeare, without expansive working knowledge of quantum mechanics, game theory, or emergent biology, famously wrote the following in 1599 CE:
All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man (person) in his (their) time plays many parts,…[1]
This observation is universally true and will continue to be indefinitely, saliently universally true, and in its simplicity, comprehensible by all who would openly read it for the duration of human presence on Earth, or wherever human presence extends.
The world is a subjective stage.
We write the scripts of all the plays we perform, and actively play our parts.
This common paradigm accommodates all diversity in perspective.

Questions arise.
Why does this stage exist? If there is a universal process involved with existence, it is time to avail ourselves of it and begin to press forward based on this knowledge, to utilize this stage as best possible for all the players, no matter when they arrive.

This vision holds that this universe, and all others in the multiverse are crucibles specifically designed to explore subjective experience.
The Earth we inhabit, and all the life that has evolved upon it, far from being an outlier with no relationship to the universe as a whole, should be considered a rampantly successful incubator, in a process that is designed to create incubators of subjective life experience.
The burgeoning, unguided success of this incubator in providing a forum for subjective life endeavor is directly causing its dire calamity.

[1]From the play As You Like It, Act II, Scene VII


Thanks Pooria for a2a.

This (our) world is in perpetual change every minute.
Something is happening, good or bad.
A few stalwarts are trying to shape the change their way.
Therefore they do a few things and mold changes so that their own objectives are met.
They do not aim at letting justice to prevail; they want to have a controlled justice in their favor.
So we see changes having specific contours.

There are resistances.
Opposing forces defy.
New avenues open.
Something unusual happens.
Someone is blamed.
Blame games abound.
There are nations who cry and see their own history mutilated.
There are hooligans trampling those who are powerless.
So there is sacrifice and power struggle at the same time.
Changes are bringing unpleasant change in most parts of the world.

OUR WORLD NEEDS NOT TO BLEED.


No it doesn't.
The world is well able to function according to its needs and repair itself when necessary, or at least that's the way it used to be before the Uber parasite started to evolve and lose the run of himself, becoming the most destructive organism the world has ever had to put up with.

The old saying don't defecate on your own doorstep, well mankind has gone one step further and is doing it in the house.

If you look at how the world/home functions,it relies on tried and trusted methods of regulating the floraand fauna that has existed on the planet since life began.
Then along came homosapiens and decided unilaterally to deregulate the delicate balance that has served the needs of all other living things for their own selfish needs.

The exploitation of world resources due to unregulated population growth especially in Asia is will eventually crash the echo systems of the earth and it is starting to fight back with more extreme events and slow long term events that will make life on Earth more and more uncomfortable for humanity.
But the sting in the tail is something I have forecast for a number of years the Advent of permanent pandemics especially in Asia and spreading around the world.
Why Asia… because their populations are unsustainable, demanding ever more finite resources to sustain itself.

When these pandemics take hold there is no way mankind will be able to manage the situation as our arsenal of antivirals and and especially antibiotics have been over stretched.
It would take another hour of writing to give you an idea of the devastation that will ensue if what I am forecasting happens, so I'll spare you the Gorey details.


Yes the world needs to change, in so many ways, it's hard to think of all the ways.

We are headed for destruction if we don't do something drastic to change ourselves and our behaviour.

The human race has become so selfish that we don't see anymore what we are or what we do.

Let me give an example, I saw a man and a woman sitting on a rug in the middle of a field on a sunny day, they were having a picnic.
I was approaching from several hundred meters away and could see that they were both talking on their phones.
The path I was on went past them so I got close enough to see they were sitting back to back, I passed by and kept going until I reached the end of the field and looked back, they were still on their phones.
I stood for another 5 or 10 minutes just looking around the field and spotted several other couples doing the same thing.
The first couple had been engaged in their conversations for about 20 minutes or more.

Try to imagine what this means, in the bigger picture, all over the world people are disengaged from one another while they are totally absorbed with media devices.
We are losing the subtle art of conversation.
A whole generation has now grown up with technology at their fingertips and has never learnt the real skill of face to face encounter.
I see this every day in my work place.
Young people under the age of 30, so called Millenials who cannot hold a proper conversation.
The device in their hand is far more important than you.

If Global warming doesn't kill us all our devices will.

So what can we do about it ?
Stop spending so much time staring at these little screens.


The world is always changing.
Every generation makes its mark on the world, whether for good or ill.
Often it isn’t for several generations before the effect of the changes are notable, but we are already seeing the rapid change of the world due to electronic communication.
The boomer’s focus on greed, the millennial on being offended, and so on.

Fortunately, (or unfortunately depending on your view) there’s no real way to control the change.
It will happen by movements and reactions of masses of humans to forces emplaced by the generations before.
Sometimes an outside galvanizing event can bring people together (wars, impending meteors crashing into the planet or even little things like Sputnik), but those are rare seminal events.
Even 9/11 was only a temporary galvanizing event in America, it wasn’t enough to bring everyone together for more than a few years!


Instead of looking outside for joy and pleasure the whole humanity needs to turn inward.
By engineering the outside world comfort and convenience has come but still we are not joyful.
We have engineered the world to the point that if we engineer it a bit more, there will be no planet left.
We need to engineer our interiorirty.
There are various methods and technology in eastern countries for this.


So far as I have seen this world.
Everything in it.
The beauty, the trauma, the happiness and the sorrow everything has been placed in carefully measured and balanced ratios.
And yes! “If you wanna change the world, dive into your soul and once you dived into the world inside you ill never wish to revolutionize the world outside’
Why? Because the trauma in it will teach you the worth of happiness and you ill see the balance the Almighty placed in clamour,chaos, tedium and leisure and calmness


Collapse of all Religions , killing of people in the name of god and religions.
Create awareness of one world one relifion on the foundation of love and truth.
It can can be called creation of a secular concept on regional aspirations to bring about peace and harmony in the world.

Gopinathan.



That's a pretty broad spectrum.
Change what? Impermanence is the basic tenant of life.
The way we live will change the world inevitably.
Right now we have a predatory life.
Two thirds of the world suffers to provide one third ease.
This can only go on as long as there are people to take advantage of.
We've just about gone through all of Asia, so Africa and South America can still be exploited, and they will be in time.
Resources of these places have been exploited for many years, but we need somewhere to move the sweatshops when Asians start making too much money and start having things we have in the “First World”.
If I were to change something it would be this.
We would live in harmony with nature and not make slaves of other human beings and other species.
As we refuse to do this, all will eventually be destroyed and humanity will fall, making room for a new world like the mass extinctions of the past epochs did.
The world will still be here, it will just be completely different from what we know.


Well, your simple question requires a complex answer.

The world has not changed in 1000s of years from a human perspective.
Society has evolved, cultures have evolved and technology has changed how we do things and the ease of doing them.
But greed, lust, jealousy, envy, and intolerance are alive and well.
I personally believe that the world can not change, but only mask and hide human nature.
A fundamental change would require an egoless implementation of communism, so therefore it would fail on the principle of unequal equality.
There is always someone with more power than you.
The world always changes, but those changes socially, physically, spiritually will take “forever”.


We humans are remarkably stupid for how much esteem we hold our selves in as the epitome of life & creation.
We ignore what is best for all with self interest in our micro worlds.
We tend to not change because we should.
We change only when disaster occurs, then we forget and go back to same-old, same-old.

The world tends to survive disasters, even mega disasters like extinction events eventually all new creatures & ecosystems evolve and take over.
It is unknown whether all or some of our species and civilizations will survive these events in the future.

I guess whether the world needs to change depends on your point of view.
Might could change for the better for us & nature, but we may not be capable of effecting any change for the better.
If we dive into disaster much or all will be out of our hands.
Change is always happening, but we may or may not benefit.


Hahahhaahhahahah
a good question and at the same time would be funny if answered.

to understand the question we have to first understand the origination of this very question.

are you in the so called comfort zone of the world
where from, you get to ask this question sitting and watching the world going to shit.

Well the world is no where other than you ! And your actions.

The world is just in the hands of the very individual who want to make it better and who want to make is worst.

World on what perspective and context.

every country is its own world! Keeping the very world of every country is in the hands of every citizen of this big world.

if you think the world you are referring should change
then yes
the world needs a change.

on a whole the whole world needs one thing to understand,
who we are
what are we doing here
why are we doing this
are we doing this right ?
once they get a clarity on the above then you can decide for your self if the world needs to change or not!
If there is a common code to all of us in the earth to live love and lead our very life, simple, easy and In peace then,
Yes we need to change to bring that change of a simple world where everything is there for everyone.

the everything I am referring here is
The very everything thing that satisfies one to lead a simple life towards the fuillfilment of living.

I am not referring to anything in terms of Ferrari to a trip to moon.

I am just referring to living with nature with no worry to lead the current tough life where we only focusing towards the very illusions created for men by the men, and where the money and it’s offsprings and great grand parents(greed) play a major role.

And now brother, to answer you – yes we need to change until we see the above happen to this whole world and not for one country.

every world citizen should work towards this very goal until we reach it.

The world need to change and should change only to make this world a better place for everyone/ everything who live on it and not for one/ one community / one society / one country.


Earthly reality changes daily because earthly humans continuously change their sense perceptions, their sense impressions, their sense opinions of anything earthly real.
These earthly human sense perceptions, sense impressions, sense opinions may be true, or, may not be true.
Which causes earthly reality to exist as a Phenomena.
Where does earthly human find Truth?
Until earthly human discovers Truth, yes, the world needs to change toward causing earthly reality not to be merely sense perceived, form sense impressions, form sense opinions.
Thus earthly reality remains a Phenomena.


The World does not need to change.
It is fine the way it is.

What needs to change is humankind.

Humans have been destroying ourselves for centuries over petty reasons.
Status, Power and Wealth, those are so indoctrinated into us we feel obliged to do it.

Humans should stop trying to enslave ourselves and others.

I myself am a slave to society and a slave to myself.
I can change.

But if others don’t change, that change won’t be for nothing and I would revert back to my own slaveself.



Definitely.
But only time will tell.


“Yesterday’s are today’s worlds tomorrows.
Change is perpendicular, pungent, prolific, philosophical, full of questions(many with few answers), and the most important factor of change which is self-perpetuating.
If it were not for constants of change there would be no more existence of our earthly experience.

©️Aster Freed

Updated: 18.06.2019 — 2:54 pm

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *