How long should industrialized countries continue to provide financial aid and/or transfer technology and skills to non-developed countries to accelerate their energy transition and fight climate change? These nations are prosperous today because they went through periods of repeated wars which, paradoxically, helped shape their infrastructure, their social organization, and their human capital — both emotional and intellectual. They also built their growth on polluting energy models, particularly fossil fuels, perhaps because it was an era when the consequences of climate change were little known or poorly taken into account.
If the institutions of “dependent” countries around the world truly supported their talent, these individuals would not leave their countries, and there would be no need for foreign aid. Why is it easier (or more “chic”) to let skilled people leave, and then request foreign assistance to compensate for their absence?
Talent is born from resistance to war; it does not fall from the sky.
Another fundamental question arises: why should those who earn more pay more taxes than those who earn no income? Higher incomes result from harder work or greater sacrifices. If some rural areas do not have access to water or education, this can also be explained by a lack of awareness and clarity. Yet there are also talented individuals from rural backgrounds who succeed and today earn a lot of money. Likewise, those from wealthy families are not necessarily privileged in a simplistic sense: graduates of the world’s top schools and universities often come from families where education and values play a central role. Moreover, just as there is juvenile delinquency, there are also temptations such as drugs, which affect different social backgrounds.
This brings us to a third, more specific but equally revealing issue: why do the best talents, especially independent researchers, sometimes become scapegoats in certain academic or professional systems? Why are they isolated and not properly included in university activities? And when they produce work independently, others attach themselves to each of their achievements. When they expose reality, they are subjected to another layer of injustice, under the pretext: “look, he/she (the instigator of the injustice) has physical or psychological problems or complexes.” And so what? And when they leave this toxic environment, they are not given what they deserve, until PhD students or postdocs publish and mention the name of these instigators of injustice (later recognized by the ignorant as “prestigious”); then they are named senior researchers and receive medals or awards. Yet independent researchers who work alone and with great effort should be given what they deserve — nothing more and nothing less. There should be no correlation between the productivity of an independent researcher and a “free reward” for the instigator of injustice, simply to soothe their complexes. Otherwise, the independent researcher is condemned for life to suffer from others’ weaknesses, despite the injustices they have endured; why should they have a lifetime contract to treat others’ complexes?
Why do industrialized countries, those that earn more money, and certain talents seem not to have problems? Do they have a perfect life? How long will those who endure life’s challenges continue to absorb the weaknesses of manipulators?
A more balanced sense of justice requires valuing real effort, correcting inequalities in access to opportunity, and recognizing individual contributions at their true measure.