My thoughts, exactly. I’ve had the notice in my head that the only way to fix issue is by, first acknowledging they exist, second charting a course to Elysium.

Creating an ideal world has to come about when idealist are able to not only ponder of their good world, but given a chance to build it. Horace Mann believed in a world of public education and the abolition of slavery in a world which did not offer these liberties. His belief came to pass, thanks to him and the many others who idealized that world.

Definitely agree that climate change is a humanity wide issue and bad actors are actively blocking reforms to combat it. I wish this wasn’t the case; however, this is the reality of the conflict. I hope that most people, at least in The United States, are aware that climate change is an issue that we all are apart of, but we should focus on the large companies that are actively antagonizing reforms that would reduce their contribution markers in this crisis. The mega corporations are the main antagonist of climate change reform. Of course, the average consume took apart in the climate disaster but we shouldn’t forget the big ballers.

I have found myself doing this while reading dystopias. Dystopias, even though they represent “bad places,” do give me a sense of comfort knowing that the world I currently reside in isn’t horrid like the text or movies I’ve consumed. It isn’t the best rational for dystopias, because that idea is contingent on the fact that the world remains the habitable place it currently is without drastic change. The world could actually get as macabre as dystopias; it just hasn’t come to pass yet.

I fully disagree with referencing people who live in small clades as "savage or degenerate" because at least their bond is stronger than that of a larger government. They are tied with the bonds of family, community, respect, and admiration. Those qualities are lacked inherently in a big government but artificially brought about or preached about (ex: Fascism).

I agree initially that without a central power man acts extremely irrational, but it isn't perpetual. After the initial period of war, clades form amongst people with strong bonds. Enough clades form that they understand which territories they can occupy and where they can't occupy because another group lives there. This territory realization can either come about through a violent standoff or treaty. Humans aren't so irrational that we will kill our species off; I believe we're more rational, irrational creatures.

It would have been interesting what Hobbes thought about men and women relations. My personal belief is in nature men and women (heterosexual) get more along with each other; however, there's the tension that exist due to clear physical and sexual differences. At first, the female would fear the man because she is not aware of his intentions but as the man proves he isn't a treat a relationship can immerge to further strengthen their bond.

It's interesting how Hobbes' based our love of our own ego as a trait all humans share. I agree with his sentiment that it represents our equality. I do believe that people should let their egos be brushed though by interacting with people clearly better than them in respectable, admirable ways.

I like this definition of war because it digs deep to what war actually is. War isn't fighting but it's fighting when no guarantee of peace is possible. Once this time is over then peace is possible.