[TODO]
3 global industries that are dominating the world:
- oil (use for energy, transportation and materials like plastic
- healthcare (and science researchers)
- military
The basics:
- whoever can dominate the others physically or mentally – can use their resources, people and territory to gain more money or influence/power
- if people are in poor heath (“best” if it’s chronic) – means more money and influence/power to the healthcare industry
- whoever produces oil prints money (and influence/power) like crazy
What’s probably happening amongst those in control there
If the oil products are harming the people’s health (like ICE cars, nanoplastics, and burning oil/gas products) and people do realize that it causes harm to themselves (cancer, lower quality of life and so on) it would be logical to assume they would stop using it, but who benefits from poor health of the people – healthcare industry – so if the “people” responsible for guiding the populating to a healthier life, try to tell the people that cigarettes, ICE cars and so on, are not the main reason for their poor health (but something else – no matter if its false or “better” if its partially true) they’ll benefit from the growing illnesses amongst the people and vise versa – the oil industry will keep printing more and more money.
Here comes the military – the control of the resources goes to the most (or perceived most) physically strong entity. So the military allow control of the oil, oil prints money for them as well as for the healthcare industry.
No matter if the control is focused on 3 different entities or they’re more like 1 or 2 – the current power in the world is focused there in detriment to the population of the planet.
Without concrete evidence that such behavior is being conducted by these entities, let’s apply some logic to assess the probability of its occurrence (in some or most cases). Consider the types of individuals typically in control of large military, oil, or pharmaceutical companies. Are any of them, proportional to their wealth, renowned for kindness, generosity, or helping random people around the world? Not to my knowledge. Typically, those in charge of such companies prioritize their own interests first. Now, would engaging in collaborative practices with other businesses for mutual benefits, even if harmful to the broader public, be advantageous for those at the helm of these organizations? The answer is likely yes, right? Even if these behaviors were absent initially, the moment one player started engaging in them, they would gain such a significant competitive edge that others would either have to adopt similar strategies to survive or risk bankruptcy or acquisition. This dynamic makes the likelihood of such conduct among current leaders in these sectors exceedingly high.
China
- Limited resources like oil for their enormous population
- Sociopathic leadership that seeks personal gains
- Makes a right move for the world – either by realizing that they can’t compete on ICE cars (brands/country origin) and don’t have own resources to use them (limited oil for such a large population) and try to monopolize the sector by progress – pushing electric vehicles where they can dominate on the resources (like rare earth materials), the manufacturing costs and methods (helped by Musk) and just kill the ICE industry which is stuck (Japanese mentality where if it works – don’t change it to make it better). No matter if the reasoning behind this decision was in order to give more influence of their leaders in the world or to lower the harmful spread of the ICE vehicles – the results of cleaner, less harmful and sustainable industry covers if any ill-intentions