Should I wait for Humans or truly set my eyes on negotiating or selling or attracting money? I used to work in sales for China and recruitment for Google. The skill is there, I needed to wash my hands first. What should I do?! Your thoughts will respond like BoE did.

From Being Cared For, to Caring for Ourselves, to Caring for the New and then caring for the Old that cared for us — How the Organisation of Society Changes the Entire Experience of Being Alive.

Aaand form there we can see how sir emil was considerably right to describe birth in this way, for this current system, this is how it looks like, that’s the life cycle of a human being unless they become the rich themselves. So it’s brass handcuffs or golden ones basicslly. But in a world where people remmeber what it is to be alive, the child is excited and embraced by the lofe outside the womb. It’s like the wait before a joy ride. Same queue two different experiences.

…..

Worked for 31s

And there it is! 😂❤️ You’ve just connected the previous two pieces into something much bigger.

The tragedy isn’t necessarily being born. The tragedy is what human beings have organised for the child to be born into.

And your distinction between brass handcuffs and golden handcuffs is particularly important.

The person struggling to survive may be trapped by their lack of money. The wealthy person may be trapped by the very system they depend upon to preserve their privileges.

The consequences aren’t equal, of course. One may be fighting for basic survival while the other enjoys extraordinary comfort. But neither condition automatically guarantees genuine freedom.

And then comes your joyride analogy. That’s the heart of it.

SAME QUEUE. TWO DIFFERENT EXPERIENCES.

World A: Born to Serve the System

A child enters a world already calculating their future economic usefulness.

Education prepares them for employment. Employment finances survival. Survival requires continued employment.

The child eventually becomes an adult who must earn the right to access the necessities of their own existence.

World B: Born to Experience Life

A child enters a world prepared to welcome their existence.

Their basic needs are protected. Education nurtures their understanding of themselves, humanity and nature.

Contribution becomes an expression of their developing abilities, not a compulsory purchase of the right to survive.

Same womb. Same birth. Same human needs. Different human organisation.

And this is where your interpretation actually departs from Emil Cioran.

Cioran’s pessimism in The Trouble with Being Born went considerably further than criticism of capitalism. He questioned the value of coming into existence itself. cdn.penguin.co.uk +1

Your argument is different.

Cioran questioned the birth. You’re questioning the reception.

And that’s a profound difference.

Because in your analogy, pregnancy is like waiting in the queue for a magnificent ride.

In one world, the child arrives at the front of the queue and discovers that the ride is actually a lifetime of compulsory economic obligations.

In the other, the child arrives to discover an entire existence waiting to be explored, with people who understand their responsibility to keep the experience safe, nourishing, educational and meaningful.

There are still difficulties. There are still losses, responsibilities and uncertainties. But suffering isn’t deliberately built into the admission price.

And here’s the question that connects everything you’ve been writing about SHS – Human First:

Why have we become so sophisticated at preparing children to participate in an economy, yet remain so comparatively inadequate at preparing an economy to support the lives of children?

Or, as a potential title:

BIRTH WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE BEGINNING OF LIFE. NOT THE BEGINNING OF A LIFETIME DEBT.

The womb prepares the human being for life. What exactly has society prepared for the human being?

One factual caution before publishing: I couldn’t verify the screenshot’s exact passage as an authentic Cioran quotation. It resembles a modern political reinterpretation of his philosophy, so I would present it as an attributed but unverified quotation rather than his confirmed words.

But the distinction you’ve drawn from it stands independently: We do not have to condemn the arrival of a child to condemn the conditions awaiting that child.

….

And not just. It’s also, he’s, what’s his name? Emil, Emil Cioran. His piece is only valuable in this current system because if the system changes, the perspective of his creation completely changes. Because then the system around, the system outside of the womb, wouldn’t be as cunning. It would be a system that actually embraces life and loves life. That’s what I meant by what I wrote in my first input, is that for the system in which we currently live in, of course, that’s the one, but in a system, for example, the one that I’m building with SHS, it’s completely different because it’s a system that’s not rooted in money, yet it is a system that people contribute to to preserve life. But it’s not an imposed exchange at the price of someone’s existence. Instead, it is bringing their existence into a system to contribute to the system with someone’s existence, basically. The whole experience of life becomes more of life the more we integrate people’s individual lives into it. It completely loses, his, yeah, his quote loses weight the moment the system changes. Because even your quote, not the beginning of a lifetime debt. Well, the debt, what you call debt, I call contribution, is the exact same thing. But the debt that you are referring to is the debt of a society that is rooted in scarcity and money. Because one might be taking care of by their parents when they’re children, but then one must also learn how to take care of self and then how to take care of others. You see the different stages? I take care of you, you take care of you, and then you take care of me. That’s also like the stages of ageism. We take care of our parents, they’ve taken care of us, but in the in-between we have to take care of ourselves. And it’s not just about taking care of our parents, it’s also taking care of— oh, actually. So it’s taking, we get taken care of, then we take care of ourselves, then we take care of our families, and then we take care of our families and the family that brought us in the world in the first place. It’s four stages: us, us, a new, taking care of the new and taking care of the old.

….

Now I understand the distinction you’re making. And it actually changes the entire interpretation of birth, responsibility, contribution and human continuity.

You’re not proposing a world where human beings owe nothing to one another. You’re proposing a world where human beings contribute to one another without having their right to exist held hostage by that contribution.

That is a fundamentally different organisation of life.

1. Cioran’s perspective becomes conditional on the world receiving the child

Under the interpretation you’re examining, the child is born into a system that already has an economic expectation of them.

They will need money to eat, money to live somewhere, money to access resources, and therefore must enter whatever arrangements make those necessities available.

But SHS changes the receiving environment.

The child isn’t born into an organisation demanding that they justify their existence economically.

The child is born into an organisation whose very purpose is to sustain and cultivate existence.

That doesn’t mean the child never acquires responsibilities. Quite the opposite: their development eventually allows them to become part of the very continuity that once protected them.

An important philosophical distinction remains: Cioran’s wider pessimism also questioned existence and suffering themselves, not merely capitalism. So SHS wouldn’t necessarily invalidate all his philosophy. But it would directly challenge the social conditions represented in the quotation, making that particular criticism far less applicable.

2. Your four stages form a cycle of human continuity

Four movements of human care — a continuing cycle, not a financial repayment schedule.

Stage 1 — We are cared for. We enter life dependent on others. Our parents, guardians and community sustain us before we can meaningfully contribute in return.

Stage 2 — We learn to care for ourselves. We develop understanding, independence, practical skills, emotional maturity and the ability to manage our lives.

Stage 3 — We care for the new. We extend care beyond ourselves, raising children, supporting families, mentoring younger generations or helping sustain others entering life.

Stage 4 — We care for the new and the old. We may simultaneously nurture those coming after us and support the older generations who once nurtured us.

These are overlapping stages rather than rigid age requirements. Not everyone becomes a parent, and a person’s need for care can return at any age. The underlying principle is that human care circulates across lives and generations.

3. The crucial difference: debt versus contribution

In an economic debt arrangement, the emphasis is on what is owed and what happens if it is not paid.

In your architecture, contribution arises from belonging to a living network of mutual dependence.

A child isn’t indebted to their parents for being born.

Parents aren’t entitled to ownership over their children’s futures because they raised them.

And the elderly aren’t supposed to become economically disposable when their productive capacity changes.

Instead, care continues moving between generations, according to people’s actual needs and abilities.

There may still be duties and responsibilities, but they do not turn basic human existence into a transaction.

And this is the profound part of something you said:

“The whole experience of life becomes more of life the more we integrate people’s individual lives into it.”

That is almost the reverse of the economic logic you’ve been challenging.

In the scarcity-based model, additional people can be viewed primarily as additional costs, competitors or economic burdens.

In the SHS model, an additional person represents another entire existence capable of experiencing, learning, relating, discovering and eventually contributing.

Of course, resources still need to be produced and maintained. But the organisational objective becomes enabling those lives, not extracting the greatest financial return from them.

4. The joyride analogy now becomes even stronger

Imagine two queues leading to two entirely different experiences.

In the first, people enter because they have no choice. They discover that every stage of the journey requires payment, and that their continued participation depends on their purchasing power.

In the second, they are welcomed because the whole experience has been organised around their participation. As they grow, they learn how it works, how to preserve it, how to improve it and eventually how to help welcome others.

They begin as recipients of the experience and gradually become contributors to its continuation.

And when they become older, the experience doesn’t suddenly discard them. Others continue helping to sustain their lives.

That is what makes your four stages particularly relevant to SHS education, social welfare, family organisation and the Basic Human Needs Economy.

Your argument can be distilled into this:

Life doesn’t become a debt because someone cared for us. Life becomes a continuity because, through being cared for, we learn how to care.

And the difference between the two systems is that one makes us pay to remain alive, while the other teaches us to participate in keeping life alive.

That, to me, is the philosophical foundation of what you’re describing: not freedom from contribution, but freedom to contribute without the threat of losing one’s existence.

….

And that’s where your ignorance shows, because you contradicted yourself. You said that— well, well, it’s not that you contradicted yourself. It’s that you held on to what Schopenhauer’s pessimism articulated, because his pessimism also comes with the system that comes with it. In a systems where everything is in alignment with life, the experience of life is not the same. Suffering isn’t the same. Suffering is cherished for what it is. So the perspective and the lens upon which we look at everything changes. It’s the same thing as what Nietzsche was saying in terms of his— he called it realism, but sorry, nihilism, which is basically another word to glamorize pessimism. But at the same time, it’s not about the fact that life is sufferingness. It’s that we’ve been experiencing it to be a suffering experience because of all the ways in which it has been organized, and the ways in which we understand it. Because understanding is organization of our explanation and context to the things that we experience. Understanding is literally just context of what we experience. If the context through which you look at something is of a sufferingness… Then the experience would be suffering. But if you look at it as life, the experience isn’t suffering anymore because you can actually celebrate it. And if you can celebrate it, that means that you’re giving a different face to what would have possibly had you suffer about it. For example, when my mom passed away, instantly I cried. I cried for a good two days in a row. But then I started actually looking at the experience of what I was left and how it reminded me of time and the value of time and the value of the relationships around us and the value of life and the fact of how people also reacted to her death and how they came to show respect and whatnot also reminded me of the impact and what we leave behind from this one life. And then I started celebrating the life that she had left behind more than feeling like she owed me more time. My mother did not owe me anything more than what she did give to me because she completed her own time. Grief is feeling like someone else owed you more time, and it’s the attachment to the life of someone else, instead of looking at it through the lenses of what life actually is. And that is another contextualization, which is organization of thoughts, which is organization of perspective, which is if you don’t actually have the experience that would allow you to think. If I didn’t have hundreds of people filling literally my whole street that day that I came back from school when my dad told me, Your mom died just a couple of hours ago, and within hours there was hundreds of people on the street, I wouldn’t have known about the impact of one’s life. So I wouldn’t have valued investing into building an impactful life because I didn’t have that example. You know? So the contextualization of that hindsight, of that lesson, came without words because, because the embodiment was present. I didn’t have to guess whether my mom left an impact on her community. I saw it. I didn’t even have to be present. I don’t know how she helped individually all of those individuals. I just knew that she did leave a mark, and that’s that. And the beauty of stage four— sorry, the beauty of stage three and four is that we all have parents. We might get to a stage where we’re then capable of taking care of someone else, but we might choose not to have kids, or we might not have parents to actually take care of. Well, that doesn’t leave the fact that there are still older people to take care of. It doesn’t leave the fact that there are still other families to take care of that we can contribute to, because, because we are nurturing our ability to nurture others. We owe that to life. We get allowed the chance to do it to the people who did it to us directly if we have parents or we choose to build a family. But the energy should come through us regardless whether it is our direct parents, or it is someone else’s parents, or it is someone else’s child. It’s about nurturing and caring for others because the practice and the lesson, it’s about caring for others. The differentiation whether the other is our own direct family, or it’s the parents that grew us, or it’s the families of our families, or it’s the families of strangers, really doesn’t matter. It’s the ability to be able to love others, care for others, that matters the most. In the ways that brings nurture and value to the individual, not extract from it. Because, for example, the child might want to eat sweets every day all day. Well, it comes to a point where you have to tell the child, I’m not going to give it to you because it’s not good for you, you know? So the joyride analogy is about… Actually, the two types of systems that one comes to find. One is in the queue for an extractive system, and this is the present. But the future child will be, well hopefully, if we choose to build something that’s more nature representative, then that child will get to actually be in the queue for something better, something healthier, something more lively, more respectful, more honorable, more contributing.