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. Offense 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 that kills silently is indeed a powerful tool for those with such motives who must evade responsibility. However, one of the principles of being human is not to plot secretly. Doing so may indeed lead to difficulties in winning, but on the other hand, it carries significant meaning—such people will not be easily suspected by others of having declared war without notice. They will not easily attract malice.

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

To some extent, it is a vulgar appeal for popularity. There are many lofty concepts in our lives, but often there are no practical operational plans.

Here’s a very realistic example:

How many parents feel they have relaxed to the point of near paralysis, yet their children still believe their parents are meddling in everything?

A curious thought: we cannot understand why the previous generation disapproves of our generation—suppose I have a daughter, and at this time, the leftist ideology is likely 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 find it hard to accept. But doesn’t that make me a representative of the patriarchal evil 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 arguments in discussions like XXXXX. 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 does not 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 headache.

A pile of educational issues under the banner of "equality" and "tolerance" has no real solutions. Many who raise the concepts of "non-violence," "equality," and "tolerance" to earn applause from young people are largely either speaking empty words or are lucky enough never to have encountered these issues, so they think others cannot achieve them due to their lower capabilities. Many parents in various families do not have the conditions or abilities 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 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 their children, but 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 is qualified 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, it is a crime—one cannot prove that crime must fail through successful crime; this 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.

Sarcastic individuals have no great and righteous reason to be sarcastic; I need not worry about this. 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 sarcastic individuals; objective constructive answers cannot naturally be derived from the mouths of sarcastic individuals.

Many people try to solve problems without using sarcasm, that is, "I will speak nicely," but they always fail. Where is the fundamental problem? It lies in the fact that this "speaking nicely" itself is often insufficient; it is merely somewhat better than "directly cursing," but in reality, it is still a form of imposed, disguised expression of anger. The other party does not believe they are guilty, or at least does not accept being privately deemed guilty without legal and reasonable procedures, and your "speaking nicely" is essentially just "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; this is not your right. Your parents, teachers, leaders, and spouses can judge you, either through you or through fate's authorization. This is not a universally existing inherent right. If you do not integrate this into your very being, you cannot 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 inexhaustible, 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 must work to change mountains, rivers, or social order... such grandiose statements, but rather it first refers to society itself being able to speak human language without flaws, to speak ghost language when necessary, and to instantaneously change "this faces 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 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, serve you comfortably, praise your glorious correctness, and beat 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 useless," mock you, ridicule you, curse you, or even attack you. But if not, what is so precious about 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 indeed dark?"
It's simple; the latter can see the lit lamp.

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 seeking 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 serve to largely prevent readers from making any judgments favorable to the parents, don't you think? 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, to submit a lawsuit to a jury that has not been selected by the defense and has a special mechanism for screening, to create a consensual judgment to further prove that she is just, righteous, and widely supported.

To change this logic of behavior that "finding enough allies can justify attack/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 irresistible physical and social laws 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, which will ultimately lead to being coldly abandoned by others.

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

Ling's answer:

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

At the COP15 summit, many representatives from various countries were celebrating, but some representatives expressed that their voices were not heard. In the final stages of the meeting, representatives from African countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo 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 preventing biodiversity loss"—this is quite a euphemism. The fact is that politicians eager to achieve some "victory" praised a non-binding biodiversity agreement that lacks enforcement mechanisms, lacks accountability, and does not specifically mention commercial fishing or agriculture. The agreement does not mandate 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 in granting 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 plan 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, but at the same time invested nearly $15 billion in fossil fuel projects. This includes a gas pipeline that crosses Turkey, transporting gas from Azerbaijan to Europe.

In August 2022, the Democratic Republic of the Congo opened large areas of forest (including gorilla habitats) for oil extraction. At a press conference, a DRC official stated, "Our priority is not to save the planet," and then wiped his 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; this phenomenon may be quite common worldwide. These equipment failures resulted in emissions five times higher than normal. The emission reduction values determined in the oil and gas industry over the past decade are likely to be laughable.
In some places in the U.S., 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 reduction" or "carbon neutrality " are essentially engaging in accounting fraud.

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 point out more directly that the reason is humanity's inability to uniformly implement such plans at the current stage.

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

If conditions permit, 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 brooding thoughts. And then? Then no conclusions are formed, and no output products are produced. 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 outwardly is called internal; not manifesting in material is called friction.

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 help but listen or are willing to try to listen. Writing it down for others to see is also acceptable. If necessary, spend some money to hire a therapist to listen. In short, do not remain in self-talk.

Second, whether it is a notebook filled with writing or clay figures made when anxious, produce something.#

If someone is willing to buy this, then it naturally does not count as "friction." If no one buys it, then strive to polish it until it can be sold. It is unacceptable for each round of output to be worse than the previous round or identical to it. If you do not know how to improve, then force some changes—overall, do not repeat monotonously.

A person who is talking with 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 memories that are sufficient for oneself to chew on, savor, and explore. One is not leaving contributions and legacies that can be utilized by others. 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 feel happier.

If you can achieve these three values in the form of "playing"—even just one of them—then the form of "playing" itself has nothing to be criticized, and others cannot criticize it either.

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 what if you do not do well in the things you like? You love playing games, but you are only average at it. You love reading comics, but you can hardly remember what they said. If liking does not lead to expertise, it will quickly lead to immense 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 lead 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, you will have to be frugal 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 things that bring the most joy are precisely those that you know are necessary but do not like to do.#

You will know this after doing it a few times. Some things you absolutely dislike doing, but due to circumstances, you have to do them, so you pinch your nose and do them, and as a result, you do them well, and the outcome is quite beautiful. This feeling is much happier than "playing with things you like." The things that scare you are not that bad; since that is the case, what else 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 has expanded.

Therefore, the secret to playing well lies in occasionally playing with things you do not like to play with. Only playing with things 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, if the other party does not realize your talents, even if this leads to significant losses for them, even losses exceeding 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.