AI President?

This is an incredible interview and I strongly, strongly encourage you to watch the whole thing. I don’t like the interviewer but Lucy Aharish will not be contained. She speaks honestly and openly and forcefully about her experiences growing up as an Arab Muslim in Israel, about her experiences with racism and with standing up to Netanyahu and the Israeli far right, about her relationship with her Jewish husband, and about October 7th, the movement to abolish Israel, and the path forward for Israeli society.

Watch it to the end. Her intelligence, nuance and humanity shine through as she gives a thoughtful and emotional perspective on issues that so often get appropriated by others or oversimplified.

A genuinely unhinged interaction i’ve had today on instagram. The post was a lovely video of Israeli and Palestinians from the West Bank communicating and expressing concern for one another’s safety. Then this thing came to the comments and started spilling bile antisemitism and transphobia of all things????? Then started boasting she gets paid to harass jews. Wtf???

Trump advisor warns nukes could be unleashed in Middle East – ‘Catastrophic’

What Happens in Israel if Netanyahu Could Not Serve - trendsfocus

Israeli Government Kills 12 Healthcare Workers in Southern Lebanon

The facility was attacked on Friday night, bringing the toll of medical staff to 31 killed in past 12 days.

Israel killed 12 medical workers in a strike on a medical centre in south Lebanon on Friday night, bringing the toll of healthcare staff killed in the country by Israel to 31 over the past 12 days.

A primary healthcare facility in the town of Burj Qalaouiyah was hit by an Israeli strike late on Friday, setting it ablaze and causing the structure to collapse on top of the staff inside. The strike killed doctors, paramedics and nurses on duty, according to the Lebanese ministry of health, which said it “violated all international humanitarian laws” in a statement.

Human rights groups have said that any attacks on medical workers are a war crime, regardless of their political affiliation….

Israel has carried out at least 37 attacks against healthcare workers and facilities in Lebanon, including against the state civil defence and Lebanese Red Cross, since [March 2nd], Lebanese authorities said….

At least 826 people have been killed in Lebanon by Israeli strikes, according to the ministry of health, and about 1 million have been displaced.

On Saturday morning, Israeli military spokesperson Avichay Adraee accused Hezbollah of using ambulances and medical facilities for military purposes, and said that Israeli forces would “act in accordance with international law” if Hezbollah did not stop. The spokesperson gave no credible evidence for his claim.

The Lebanese ministry of health denied the Israeli army’s claim that ambulances are being used for military purposes, calling it “nothing more than a justification for the crimes it is committing against humanity”, in a statement.

During the 13-month Israel-Hezbollah war in 2024, Israel also accused Hezbollah of using ambulances for military purposes, again without credible evidence. It also killed 408 healthcare workers.

Israel was accused of war crimes for its attacks on Gaza’s healthcare facilities during its two-year war on the strip by a UN commission of inquiry. A top prosecutor at the international criminal court said in 2024 that claims about the presence of Hamas fighters in hospitals in Gaza under siege by Israel’s military have been “grossly exaggerated”.

Continue reading at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/14/lebanon-israeli-rockets-kill-healthcare-workers

Professor Jiang claims Israelis were burning down their own homes in Tel Aviv during air strikes to collect insurance money

Insurance fraud during wartime. That’s a new low.

I hope not, but I don’t think anyone can possibly know that yet.

We can only consider the cost against the good accomplished…and neither of those variables is known. Neither will be truly be known for a good while yet.

“Pointless or Purposeful” is the wrong metric, though. Maybe “worth the cost” is better.

If the regime falls and gets on track to democratic self-rule at peace with its neighbors, focused on development and serving the Iranian people, that would be worth the cost. The whole world would benefit from a free Iran.

I doubt, however, that the regime will fall from airstrikes.

If the regime is prevented from obtaining/creating a nuclear weapon, that wouldn’t be pointless and may well be worth the cost.

But will we ever know for sure how close they were/are?

If the conflict ends with the regime in power, if it remains an aggressive, supremacist state, able to rapidly rebuild its military capacity and resume being the world’s greatest state sponsor of terror, this conflict will have been pointless.

But all of the above is more from a regional perspective of nations like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.

The calculus of the Trump administration is completely different.

While the media is shouting endlessly about the various and conflicting reasons the Trump administration has given for striking the regime, the same media has completely failed to ask why there are so many conflicting reasons given. Instead of asking that question, they’ve assumed that there really is no reason for the strikes.

I think the various conflicting reasons given by representatives of the administration are the product of q sloppy, undisciplined administration that doesn’t want to state explicitly and openly that, to the Trump administration, it’s about China - just like Venezuela.

Despite mining the Strait of Hormuz and essentially blockading all other traffic, Iran is still using it to ship oil to China.

Former US Ambassador Dennis Ross:

Iran is preventing others from exporting oil through the SoH; they have always said if they can’t export their oil no one can. Why aren’t we saying if no one else can export their oil, Iran won’t be allowed to do so. China would quickly pressure Iran to stop the threats to others

What would happen if the US interdicted those shipments? The tankers are escorted by Chinese naval forces.

If the US interdicted them, would that risk direct war with China?

The people telling you to fear a World War because Iran is launching missiles at neighbors are freaking out, I think, about the wrong thing. None of those are great powers.

But if China was directly involved in the conflict…?

Chip in to help the people of the Middle East - many of them displaced and struggling - to survive America and Israel’s war crimes and atrocities.

https://secured.oxfam.ca/page/187698/donate/1?ea.tracking.id=engagingnetworks-email&utm_medium=email&utm_source=engagingnetworks&utm_campaign=crisis-middle-east-march2026&utm_content=Emergency+-+Crisis+in+the+Middle+East+-+March+2026+-+Active+Email+-+Rolling+12+months&ea.url.id=9190680

America Is Walking Into Iran’s Trap — And It Can’t Turn Back | Prof Jiang Xueqin

“if the USA send ground troops, The war will last 5-10 years and no matter who ends of winning it will be a catastrophe”

What is USA doing? sending ground troops.

…“the United States and Israel are using drones that look like iranian drones to strike surrounding countries and blame it on Iran”……

…“the United States and Israel are using drones that look like iranian drones to strike surrounding countries and blame it on Iran”……

Trump asks for help to open the Strait of Hormuz! Pressure to end the war increases! Attack on the US?

Zionists spreading the “they’re going to replace americans” replacement theory, what else is new

Brother of Michigan synagogue attacker was Hezbollah commander, Israel alleges

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The brother of Ayman Muhammad Ghazali, the accused Michigan synagogue attacker, was a Hezbollah terrorist commander who was killed in an Israeli strike days before the attack, Israeli intelligence revealed Sunday.
“Hezbollah commander Ibrahim Muhammad Ghazali was responsible for managing weapons operations within a specialized branch of the Badr Unit,”…

View On WordPress

Even if USA and israel won this war, Geopoliticaly they would lose.

No One Wins from War. And especially in this war it seems the world is fully aware of who are the aggressors are.

No point in having some single geopolitical win if you turn the rest of countries against you, doubting your integrity and fearing your actions.

If you turn into a monster, it is bound people/countries will want to turn against you. USA and Israel may be powerful, but even the powerful fall, and although they are powerful, they don’t control the world.

And probably trying to control the world is where the problems are apearing.

And I believe that people/countries will naturally/instinctively want to destroy what they consider is “wicked.” I believe it is satisfying and meaningful to act as the hero against evil.

Trying to achieve objectives by fear and force against the rest does not seem like a good plan.

Both the USA and Israel are addicted to wars. It is highly provable that if they have issues with other countries and if other countries don’t capitulate, they turn to these tactics that may eventually lead to war.

And since it seems that both the USA and Israel want to dominate over others, issues are bound to rise.

Their industrial-military complexes, which are powerful, thrive from wars. I think they are the only ones that thrive from wars, and even they, in the grand picture, lose from wars.

So even if USA and Israel won this conflict, there will more wars and targets.

It is very dangerous to be seen as wrongdoer, even if the world or something would not turn against you. You hurt yourself by realizing that we are corrupted/evil and will be on a path of continuous corruption, destruction against yourself that is bound to destrroy your “hapiness”, which I believe cannot be good for anyone.

What do you think, GPT am i being naive?

Your reflection isn’t naïve. It actually touches on several ideas that many historians, philosophers, and geopolitical analysts discuss. But some parts of your reasoning are partly true, partly incomplete. Let’s break it down carefully.

1. The idea that “winning the war but losing geopolitically”

History shows this can happen.

Examples:

• Vietnam War – The United States had overwhelming military superiority but lost politically and strategically.
• Soviet–Afghan War – The Soviet Union won many battles but the war damaged its global position and economy.
• Iraq War – The U.S. removed Saddam Hussein quickly, but the long-term geopolitical cost was huge.

So the concept you’re describing is known in strategy as “tactical victory, strategic defeat.”

Your intuition here is not naïve; it’s historically grounded.

2. Reputation and legitimacy matter a lot in geopolitics

Power is not only military.

Political scientists often divide power into:

• Hard power – military force, economic pressure.
• Soft power – legitimacy, reputation, cultural influence.

The concept of soft power was popularized by Joseph Nye.

If a country is widely seen as unjust or aggressive, it can lose:

• alliances
• trade relationships
• diplomatic influence
• global public support

This has happened to many powers in history.

However, perception is rarely universal. Different regions interpret wars very differently.

3. The idea that powerful countries become “monsters”

History shows a recurring pattern called imperial overreach.

This concept was famously discussed by historian Paul Kennedy.

Examples often cited:

• Napoleonic Wars
• World War II (Nazi Germany expanding too far)
• Soviet invasion of Afghanistan

Large powers sometimes push expansion until the costs become unsustainable.

So your idea that domination attempts can generate global resistance has historical precedent.

4. But one important thing your view might simplify

Countries rarely see themselves as villains.

Most states believe they are acting for:

• security
• deterrence
• survival
• influence
• domestic political pressure

For example:

• United States often frames wars as defending global stability or allies.
• Israel frames many conflicts as existential self-defense.
• Iran frames its actions as resistance to Western domination.

Every side constructs its own moral narrative.

So the world rarely agrees on who the aggressor is.

5. The military-industrial complex argument

This idea comes from a warning by Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1961.

He warned about the influence of the military-industrial complex:

• defense contractors
• military institutions
• political lobbying

These groups can benefit from military spending and sometimes from prolonged conflict.

However, most economists would say:

• wars are usually economically destructive overall
• they are rarely profitable for entire nations
• they can benefit specific industries, not society as a whole

6. The psychological idea you mentioned (hero vs evil)

Humans naturally create moral narratives.

People want to believe they are:

• defending justice
• resisting tyranny
• protecting their community

This happens in every conflict.

For example, both sides during:

• Cold War
• Russia–Ukraine War
• War on Terror

framed themselves as fighting evil.

7. Where your thinking is strong

Your reflection highlights several real risks:

• war damages legitimacy
• domination creates backlash
• cycles of conflict can emerge
• military solutions rarely solve political problems

These are serious insights that many scholars share.

8. Where caution is needed

Your argument assumes:

• the world shares the same moral perception
• countries act mainly out of domination motives
• global opinion eventually unites against “evil”

In reality:

• geopolitics is fragmented
• alliances shift constantly
• morality and strategy mix together

The international system is often more chaotic than moral.

✅ My honest assessment:
You’re not naïve. Your thinking aligns with real geopolitical theories.

But the world is less moral and more strategic than your model assumes.

Countries often survive reputational damage if they still maintain:

• military strength
• economic power
• alliances
• technological leadership

Power still matters a lot.

💭 One question I’m curious about (because of your broader interest in economic systems and global change):

Do you think the current geopolitical conflicts are symptoms of a deeper crisis in the global system (capitalism, resource competition, power transition), or mainly the result of specific leaders and governments?

countries may not seen themselfs as evil, But don´t you think that people try to see things from the prespective of right and wrong?

Yes — very strongly. Humans almost automatically interpret events through a moral lens of right and wrong. Your intuition about that is supported by psychology, anthropology, and political science.

But there is an important nuance: people seek moral clarity, yet their sense of “right and wrong” is heavily shaped by identity, culture, and information sources.

Let’s break this down.

1. Humans naturally moralize events

Evolutionary psychologists like Jonathan Haidt argue that moral judgment is one of the core features of human cognition.

Humans evolved in small tribes where survival depended on:

• punishing cheaters
• defending the group
• rewarding cooperation

So our brains are wired to categorize actions as:

• good / bad
• hero / villain
• justice / injustice

War narratives almost always follow this structure.

2. The “hero vs evil” instinct you described is real

Throughout history, wars have been framed this way.

Examples:

• World War II – framed as democracy vs fascism.
• Cold War – framed as freedom vs communism.
• War on Terror – framed as civilization vs terrorism.

Every side constructs a moral story where they are defending something righteous.

Your idea that people find meaning in fighting perceived evil is deeply embedded in human psychology.

3. But humans also show strong “tribal morality”

This is where things become complicated.

People often judge morality based on group loyalty, not purely universal ethics.

For example:

• People may condemn violence by enemies.
• But justify similar violence by allies.

Psychologists call this motivated moral reasoning.

The philosopher Hannah Arendt described how political systems can normalize actions that would normally feel immoral by embedding them into national narratives.

4. Information environments shape moral perception

Today moral judgment is strongly influenced by:

• media ecosystems
• social media algorithms
• national narratives
• propaganda

Two people can watch the same conflict and reach completely opposite conclusions about who is right.

This is why global conflicts often produce parallel moral realities.

5. The deeper point in what you said

Your argument touches on something important:

Legitimacy matters because humans want to believe their society is morally justified.

When a population begins to feel that its actions are unjust, it can cause:

• protests
• internal political crises
• loss of morale
• loss of international support

History shows this happened in:

• Vietnam War (mass protests in the US)
• Soviet–Afghan War (loss of support in USSR)

So moral perception can eventually influence geopolitics.

6. Where your thinking is actually quite insightful

You’re pointing to something philosophers have debated for centuries:

Can power survive without legitimacy?

Some thinkers believe legitimacy is essential:

• John Locke
• Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Others believe power can dominate regardless of morality:

• Niccolò Machiavelli

Real-world politics usually sits somewhere between those two views.

✅ So your core idea is correct:
Humans instinctively try to interpret events in terms of right and wrong.

But the difficult reality is that different groups construct very different moral interpretations of the same events.

I’m curious about something deeper in your thinking.

Your view suggests you believe humans have a natural moral instinct toward justice and opposing what they see as evil.

Do you think that instinct is strong enough to eventually correct global systems, or do you think power and self-interest usually override it?

but don´t you think that eventualy people realise if their actions are wrongdoings or you think people would not much affected by it and continue their lifes?

This is a deep question, and the honest answer from history and psychology is: sometimes yes, sometimes no. Humans are capable of realizing wrongdoing, but it often happens slowly, unevenly, and sometimes never for many people.

Let’s look at the different patterns.

1. Sometimes societies do realize later that actions were wrong

History has many cases where a society later judged its own past actions as immoral.

Examples:

• Vietnam War – many Americans later came to see the war as a mistake or injustice.
• Iraq War – public opinion in many countries shifted strongly after the war.
• Apartheid – eventually widely recognized as morally wrong, including by many who once supported it.

In these cases, collective reflection happened, sometimes decades later.

What often triggers this realization:

• new information
• generational change
• visible human suffering
• political openness

2. But many people never feel personal guilt

Another pattern is psychological distance.

Most individuals think:

• “I was not responsible.”
• “I had no control.”
• “I was just living my life.”

This allows people to continue their normal lives without feeling deep moral conflict.

Philosopher Hannah Arendt described this phenomenon when analyzing authoritarian systems. She called it the “banality of evil” — ordinary people participating in systems without feeling like villains.

3. People often protect their identity

Admitting wrongdoing can threaten a person’s identity.

For example, if someone believes:

• their country is good
• their community is moral
• their leaders protect them

then admitting wrongdoing can feel like attacking their own identity.

So people sometimes:

• deny wrongdoing
• justify it
• minimize it

Psychologists call this cognitive dissonance.

4. Time and generations matter

Very often it is future generations that judge the past more critically.

For example:

• many Europeans today strongly condemn colonialism that earlier generations supported
• younger generations often re-evaluate past wars differently

Distance from the events allows people to think more objectively.

5. But many societies never fully confront their past

There are also cases where societies never reach a clear moral reckoning, or remain divided.

For example:

• interpretations of the Cold War still differ widely depending on country.
• interpretations of the Russia–Ukraine War differ drastically across regions.

So moral realization is not guaranteed.

6. Your deeper point about inner corruption

You mentioned something very philosophical: that doing wrong can corrupt the soul or happiness of a society.

This idea exists in philosophy going back to:

• Plato
• Aristotle

They believed injustice harms not only victims but also the moral character of the people committing it.

Modern psychology partly supports this: large-scale violence often leaves trauma, moral injury, and social distrust even inside the winning side.

7. So what really happens most of the time

History suggests a mixed outcome:

Some people:

• eventually reflect and feel moral responsibility.

Some people:

• justify or reinterpret the past.

Some people:

• simply move on and live their lives.

Human societies contain all three reactions simultaneously.

💭 Your question actually touches one of the oldest philosophical debates:

Are humans fundamentally moral beings who eventually recognize injustice, or are we mostly driven by survival and group loyalty?

Philosophers have disagreed on this for thousands of years.

I’m curious about your personal intuition here.

Do you think humanity is slowly becoming more morally aware over time, or do you think we are basically the same as humans were thousands of years ago — just with more technology?

i don´t think humans are moral beings, i think the reasons we have laws proves humans are capable of anything for their benefit. But i also think a better world, where everyone is more understanding, aware and in control of their primal nature resolves most crimes. i think acting the hero gives meaning and significance and and not many i believe have meaning in their lifes, And i think some things affect more people than others, if we are talking about money for exemple, most people don´t loses any sleep if they steal, But killing people, seeing and doing can have traumatic effects.

Your view is actually quite close to how many philosophers and psychologists understand human nature. It recognizes two things at the same time:

1. Humans are capable of selfish or harmful behavior.
2. Humans also search for meaning and moral purpose.

Both can exist together.

1. Laws exist partly because humans are capable of harm

Your observation about laws is very old in philosophy.

Thinkers like Thomas Hobbes argued that without rules and institutions, humans might fall into constant conflict because people pursue their own survival and advantage.

In his famous idea of the “state of nature,” people are not necessarily evil, but they are:

• competitive
• fearful
• self-interested

So societies create laws, governments, and norms to control destructive impulses.

In that sense, laws are not proof that humans are immoral — they are proof that humans know they need structure to live together.

2. Humans have both primal instincts and higher reasoning

Modern psychology generally sees humans as having two layers of behavior:

Primal drives

• survival
• status
• fear
• greed
• tribal loyalty

Higher capacities

• empathy
• reflection
• long-term thinking
• moral reasoning

These two parts often compete with each other.

What you described — learning to be “more aware and in control of our primal nature” — is actually one of the core goals of civilization.

Education, culture, philosophy, and law all try to strengthen the reflective side of humans.

3. Your point about meaning and the “hero instinct”

You made a very interesting psychological observation.

Many people feel their lives lack meaning, and acting as a defender of good against evil can give people a sense of purpose.

This idea appears in psychology and storytelling theory.

For example, the mythologist Joseph Campbell described the universal narrative of the “hero’s journey.”

Across cultures, humans admire stories where someone:

• confronts injustice
• protects others
• defeats evil

These stories resonate because they give life moral significance.

4. Why some wrong actions affect people more than others

You also made an important point about moral sensitivity.

Most people feel very different emotional reactions depending on the type of wrongdoing.

For example:

Weaker moral reactions

• small theft
• lying
• cheating systems

Strong moral reactions

• violence
• murder
• torture
• harming innocent people

Psychologists sometimes explain this through moral distance.

The closer the harm is to human suffering, the stronger the emotional reaction.

Money crimes feel abstract; physical harm feels immediate and visceral.

5. Direct violence changes people deeply

You stopped mid-sentence when talking about killing or seeing violence, but you were pointing toward something real.

People who experience or commit violence often suffer moral injury.

This has been studied especially among soldiers returning from wars like the Vietnam War or the War in Afghanistan.

Moral injury happens when someone feels they have violated their own moral beliefs.

It can cause:

• guilt
• shame
• loss of meaning
• psychological trauma

So even if humans can do terrible things, those actions often leave deep psychological consequences.

6. Your vision of a better world

Your idea of a world where people are:

• more aware
• more understanding
• more in control of their instincts

is actually close to many philosophical traditions.

For example:

• Aristotle believed ethics was about developing character and self-control.
• Immanuel Kant believed morality comes from rational awareness of duty.

Civilization itself can be seen as a long attempt to improve human behavior over time.

✅ Your perspective is interesting because it is neither naïve nor cynical.

You’re basically saying:

• Humans are capable of selfishness and harm.
• But humans also seek meaning and can strive to become better.

That tension is probably one of the most fundamental aspects of human nature.

I’m curious about something in your thinking.

Earlier you mentioned the possibility of a future society beyond capitalism, with more automation and fairness (which we discussed before).

Do you think humans would actually behave more ethically in such a system, or do you think our primal instincts would still create new forms of conflict and inequality?

I don’t think humans are moral beings; I think the reasons we have laws prove humans are capable of anything for their benefit. But i also think in a better world, if we had basic needs secure, if we lived in a good enviroments and everyone is more understanding,aware and in control of their primal nature i think we would comit a lot less crimes. I think acting the hero gives meaning and significance and not many i believe have meaning in their lifes, And i think some things affect more people than others, if we are talking about money for exemple, most people don´t lose any sleep if they steal, But killing people, especial if it is more “visceral/vicious” ussualy leads to post-traumatic stress and negativety.

Your reasoning touches on several ideas that psychologists, philosophers, and criminologists have studied for a long time. The view you’re forming — that environment and meaning strongly shape human behavior — is actually supported by a lot of research.

Let’s unpack the main points you raised.

1. Secure basic needs usually reduces crime

Many studies show that when people have stable access to:

• food
• housing
• healthcare
• education
• social stability

crime tends to decrease.

This aligns with the theory of basic human needs proposed by Abraham Maslow in his model of human motivation. His idea (often called Maslow’s hierarchy) suggests that when basic survival needs are insecure, people are more likely to act out of desperation or fear.

Countries with stronger social safety nets often show:

• lower violent crime rates
• higher social trust
• less survival-driven behavior

That doesn’t eliminate crime, but it reduces the pressures that push people toward it.

2. Environment strongly shapes behavior

Your point about living in a good environment with awareness and understanding is very important.

Social scientists have found that crime is influenced by:

• poverty and inequality
• unstable communities
• lack of opportunity
• social isolation

For example, the sociologist Robert K. Merton argued that crime can arise when societies promise success but block legitimate paths to achieve it.

When people feel the system is unfair or hopeless, some turn to illegal paths.

3. Meaning and purpose matter more than many people realize

Your idea that people want to feel like heroes or defenders of something meaningful is deeply connected to human psychology.

The psychiatrist Viktor Frankl argued that humans have a fundamental need for meaning, not just pleasure or survival.

When people lack meaning, they often experience:

• emptiness
• resentment
• nihilism
• destructive behavior

When people feel their lives have purpose — protecting others, building something, contributing to society — they tend to behave more constructively.

4. Moral distance: why money crimes feel different

You also noticed something psychologists call moral distance.

Stealing money often feels abstract because:

• the harm is indirect
• the victim is often unknown
• the suffering is not visible

But violence against another person is visceral and immediate.

Humans evolved to react strongly to visible harm.

This is why crimes involving direct violence trigger stronger emotional responses and moral condemnation.

5. Violence often damages the person committing it

Your point about killing or witnessing violence causing trauma is supported by research on moral injury and post-traumatic stress.

Even trained soldiers sometimes suffer deep psychological consequences after war.

Studies of veterans from conflicts like the Vietnam War and the War in Afghanistan show that people can experience:

• guilt
• shame
• loss of meaning
• depression

This suggests that many humans have deep psychological limits when it comes to harming others.

6. Your overall idea: better conditions → better behavior

Your argument resembles a view held by many reformers and thinkers: that crime is partly a social problem, not just a moral failure.

For example, futurist Jacque Fresco (creator of the Venus Project you mentioned before) argued that many antisocial behaviors arise from scarcity and dysfunctional environments.

If societies reduce:

• extreme inequality
• insecurity
• alienation

then destructive behaviors may decline.

However, most experts also believe human conflict would never disappear completely. Personality differences, competition, and emotions will always exist.

✅ So your perspective is actually quite balanced:

• Humans can behave selfishly and destructively.
• But environment, security, and meaning can significantly improve behavior.

That’s a view shared by many social scientists.

There’s one deeper question behind everything you said that I find interesting.

If a future society secured everyone’s basic needs through automation and technology, do you think people would mostly:

1. Become more creative, cooperative, and meaningful in their lives
   or
2. Become bored, competitive in new ways, and create new conflicts anyway?

This question is at the center of debates about the future of civilization.

Going back to legitimacy, if you lose it and other countries don´t trust anymore or see you negatively, nothing good can come from it, right? Or mostly negative things than any positive? that is why good relations and having legitmicy is very important right?

You’re touching on a very important principle in international relations: legitimacy and trust are major sources of power. But the reality is a bit more nuanced than “nothing good can come from losing it.”

Let’s look at how it works.

1. Legitimacy really does matter in global politics

When a country is seen as legitimate and trustworthy, it gains several advantages:

• easier alliances
• stronger trade relationships
• diplomatic support in international organizations
• willingness from others to cooperate

Political scientist Joseph Nye described this as soft power — the ability to influence others through attraction, credibility, and legitimacy rather than force.

Countries with strong soft power often achieve goals without needing coercion.

2. Losing legitimacy usually creates long-term problems

If a country becomes widely seen as aggressive, unreliable, or unjust, several negative consequences often appear:

Diplomatic isolation

• fewer allies
• more suspicion

Economic consequences

• sanctions
• reduced trade
• companies avoiding investment

Security consequences

• other countries forming coalitions against it

Historically, you can see this pattern with states after events like the Iraq War, where global trust in certain governments declined significantly.

3. But legitimacy is not the only form of power

In international politics, hard power still matters.

Hard power includes:

• military strength
• economic dominance
• technological leadership
• control of strategic resources

For example, powerful states can sometimes maintain influence even when their reputation suffers, simply because other countries still depend on them.

This is why international relations are often described as a mix of:

• power
• interests
• legitimacy

4. Perceptions of legitimacy are rarely universal

Another complication is that different regions often see legitimacy differently.

One country’s “defensive action” may be seen by another as aggression.

For example, interpretations of conflicts like the Russia–Ukraine War vary significantly depending on political perspective and national interest.

So legitimacy is fragmented, not global.

5. Long-term stability usually requires legitimacy

Even powerful states eventually need some level of trust and cooperation.

Empires or great powers that relied only on force often faced resistance or decline over time.

Historian Paul Kennedy discussed how overreliance on military power without sustainable political and economic legitimacy can lead to imperial overstretch.

6. Why your intuition is mostly correct

Your reasoning captures something real:

Countries generally benefit when they are seen as:

• reliable
• fair
• predictable
• cooperative

Those qualities reduce fear and conflict and make long-term relationships easier.

So yes — good relations and legitimacy are extremely valuable strategic assets.

✅ The balanced conclusion is:

• Losing legitimacy usually brings more negative consequences than positive ones.
• But powerful countries can sometimes offset that loss temporarily through economic or military strength.
• In the long run, power and legitimacy together create the most stable influence.

Your thinking also touches a deeper philosophical question about world politics.

Do you think the international system should eventually evolve toward something closer to global cooperation and shared rules, or do you think competition between powerful states is simply unavoidable in human civilization?

UN Finally Admits DARK Truth About Israel | The Kyle Kulinski Show