OBS Chapter 2228
Chapter 2228
Chapter 2228
As for whether Ragnarok is really gone...actually neither Odin nor Thor knows!
That’s right, I don’t know.
Although Odin is asleep, his consciousness is not completely silent. Sometimes he even appears to chat with his wife and children. His body has aged. However, due to the treatment with dragon bone extract, Odin is expected to live for a long time.
However, he still hasn't woken up, mainly because of the injury to his soul. After all, it's not something that ordinary people can do to fight against Hela and Surtur.
You can only sleep to recuperate.
According to Odin's speculation, Ragnarok is Asgard's eternal curse.
When he was on Earth, the Ragnarok that Bully foresaw should have been true. After all, if the immortals had not suddenly erupted and stopped the purge of the Celestials, Asgard would have been completely finished.
Isn't it dusk now?
Bauer encountered the rise of the Dark Elves, which was also Ragnarok, because if Bauer lost, Asgard would definitely be completely destroyed by the Dark Elves.
Including what happened to Odin.
These are real dusks!
The only difference is whether you can get through it or not!
If we can get through it, it will be a great victory. If we can't get through it... it will be dusk.
So Odin guessed that the curse of Ragnarok was not far away.
Fate will always find them again.
After all, this is their destiny, but after they came into contact with Earth, everything changed. Asgard can overcome fate.
This is also the fundamental reason why Asgard must protect the Earth.
Because it is true that the lips and teeth are in danger. If the Earth is destroyed, Asgard will be completely trapped in the hands of fate. When Ragnarok comes, they will have no ability to resist! So for Asgard! The Earth must exist!
This is a real need!
It's not about responsibility, feelings or anything like that.
Indeed, Asgard would be obsessed with such sentimental things, but they are not really stupid. Would they really risk their lives to protect their so-called home from ten thousand years ago?
Perhaps this will be the case with Odin’s generation.
Because they were really born on Earth and even lived on Earth.
But how old is Odin?
He is already the oldest Asgardian in Asgard.
All the Asgardians older than him died thousands of years earlier!
How many people born in Asgard today have been to Earth? They know very little about Earth. Over the years, except for the great war with the Frost Giants thousands of years ago, when Asgardians went to Earth in large numbers, the rest of the time, Asgardians actually didn't care about Earth at all.
No one will suddenly care about the world that is who knows how many light years away!
Their attitude towards the earth in class was still what they saw and heard on the earth last time... At that time, the Vikings still existed in the form of tribes!
So they have very little knowledge about the Earth.
Their view of the earth is like the view of many third and fourth generations of immigrants on their original homeland.
They don’t have many special ideas. They may feel a little close to their original hometown, but that’s it!
There won't be much emotion at all.
The most typical example is the American immigrant group. Among the immigrants in the United States, there are not many people who really have deep feelings for their hometown. According to the data of Guancha.com, only about 10 out of 4 people still have a good impression of their hometown, and the more successful the elite, the lower this proportion. The same is true for Chinese people. Among the Chinese living in the United States, especially those successful people or professors with high education and working in large companies, their feelings for China seem to be getting weaker and weaker.
Therefore, emotional factors will never be the main reason for a political entity to consider things, interests are!
Henry Palmerston, the former British Prime Minister, once said a sentence that is the core of Britain's consistent diplomatic thinking. The original words are "A country does not have permanent friends, only permanent interests".
This sentence translates to: There are no eternal friends, only eternal interests.
Speaking of this person, I'm sure many Chinese are not familiar with him, but when it comes to the famous Opium War, everyone knows it. In 1833, Henry Palmerston, who had just succeeded as Prime Minister, personally issued an order to sell opium and build military bases in China. In 1839, when Lin Zexu launched the anti-smoking campaign, he publicly stated that "beat him (referring to China) first, and then explain." It can be said that Palmerston was the actual operator who pushed Britain to launch the Opium War in China. Nearly a hundred years later, this sentence was extended again by Prime Minister Churchill as "between countries, there are no eternal friends and enemies, only eternal interests." Decades later, in the current era, this sentence has been cited by many people as a personal motto. From describing the relationship between countries, it has become a principle of conduct for many ordinary people, and even many interesting "revised versions" have appeared. Personally, I think that from a practical point of view, it is still barely valid to regard it as part of workplace thinking. For ordinary people, this logic of life seems a bit cold-blooded, even chilling. We must admit that it seems a bit "inhumane". It is not difficult to understand that this sentence is in natural conflict with the traditional Chinese thinking. This is probably related to our civilization type (China is a representative of agricultural civilization, and Britain is a representative of predatory maritime civilization).
Confucius said in the Analects that "If you act only for the sake of profit, you will get a lot of resentment." The general meaning is that if you act only for the sake of profit, the final result will be a lot of resentment, so you will not go very far.
The words of our ancestors are naturally wise sayings.
It is impossible to truly unite everyone just by relying on interests.
The birth of this sentence itself is also based on the background of the times.
Although this view reveals the interest-driven nature of international relations to a certain extent, it also has obvious limitations. In today's world, it is an outdated concept of diplomatic relations that should be abandoned. First, Palmerston's view ignores the interdependence in international relations. In today's globalized world, the links between countries are becoming increasingly close, and exchanges and cooperation in the fields of economy, culture, science and technology are becoming increasingly frequent. This interdependence makes the relationship between countries not just based on simple calculations of interests, but more on common interests and long-term development. For example, in response to global challenges such as climate change and terrorism, countries need to work together to respond, which reflects the spirit of cooperation that transcends interest relations. Second, Palmerston's view ignores the cultural, historical and emotional factors in international relations. The exchanges between countries are not only the exchange of interests, but also the exchange of culture, history and emotions. These factors have a far-reaching impact on the relationship between countries. For example, China and France established a deep friendship during World War II. This friendship was not only based on considerations of interests, but also on the mutual support of the two peoples in jointly resisting fascist aggression. This friendship transcends the passage of time and becomes a precious asset in the relationship between the two countries.
Are there really only interests between countries? In an absolute sense, of course, there can't be only interests. For example, when a country is hit by a disaster, other countries donate more or less. I'm afraid the considerations are not just interests. Of course, international reputation can also be regarded as part of the interests. But we can only talk about more practical interests. Apart from these simple questions, we can say that it is almost impossible for a country, especially a democratic country, to continue to pay for another country when it suffers a significant loss of interests.
This sentence needs explanation.
If the country's actions on another country have a net benefit, this is obviously possible. If the country's actions on another country are a net loss, but the loss is not significant, such as disaster relief, this is also possible. If the country's actions on another country are a net loss (including the net loss calculated based on opportunity costs) and the loss is significant, this is impossible to sustain. The only one that violates the principle of interest is the middle one. However, if we examine soft benefits such as reputation, the middle one generally meets the principle of interest.
Well, some friends will say that people are not only concerned with interests, but also with morality, ideals, and humanity. Why do countries only talk about interests when dealing with foreign countries? Because a country is not a person. A country is composed of trillions of people. The behavior pattern reflected by this organization is completely different from that of individual people. Let's assume that country A has a democratic system, and the decisions of country A always represent the will of the majority of the people. Then, country A will only violate the principle of interests when the majority of the people are willing to significantly sacrifice their own interests to safeguard the interests of a distant country. Are the people willing to do this? We can say that there is no country in the world where the majority of citizens are willing to do this. This is because, for the vast majority of citizens in any country, their own interests are always more important than the interests of others in the long run. We cannot deny that there are some people with high morals or wealthy people who are willing to pay significant interests in the long run to improve the welfare of the entire society. But most citizens of any country cannot do this. If there is really a country whose citizens are interested in doing this, what will we see? We should be able to see that most citizens of this country will continue to pay significant property to provide for various charities in normal times. Unfortunately, we have never seen such a country. In this sense, human nature determines that country A must prioritize its interests in foreign affairs. It will not intentionally incur a significant net loss of interests for the sake of some kind of humanity, morality, or justice.
Of course, from this analysis we can also see that if we assume that the upper limit of the proportion of net loss of benefits that people can accept is the same, then the richer the country, the higher the absolute value of the net loss of benefits that it can accept. Therefore, the richer the country, the more noble it will appear. However, the overall rule has not changed. No country can accept a significant net loss of benefits.
Some people say that countries are ruled by people. Since people have human nature, why can countries be inhumane? This is because if the politician in power makes a "human" choice that goes against the interests of the country, then he will inevitably step down. Ironically, it is precisely because of this reason that authoritarian countries are more likely to ignore the interests of the people and act according to morality and human nature. Of course, even in the most authoritarian countries, the rulers need to rely on a ruling group, and there has never been an authoritarian country whose ruling group is so noble. They may sacrifice the interests of the people, but it is difficult for them to sacrifice their own interests. In a democratic system, of course, there may be problems of interest groups hijacking political decisions, just like the ruling groups in authoritarian countries hijacking citizens. But in this case, state behavior still follows the principle of interests (although the interests have become narrower), rather than the principles of morality, humanity or idealism.
Will there be a country in the future where the majority of citizens are willing to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of others at a significant cost?
I am not optimistic, but I dare not make a conclusion either.
At least in the foreseeable future, there will be no such country. Therefore, when analyzing international issues, the principle of interests first must be used. Any country that claims humanity, morality, and universal values to the outside world cannot accept a significant net loss of interests (considering opportunity costs).
No matter how some theorists think about it, even if they even bring universal values into the picture, in the end everything comes down to how the people think. No matter how much they talk, I'm afraid the majority of people in any country will not buy it. Some friends can even claim that people in all countries consider morality, humanity, and ideals more than interests, and this is a kind of "ought". It is obviously inappropriate to use an ought as a basis to analyze existing problems. Ought is to be pursued, and since it is not reality now, it cannot be used to analyze real problems.
In short, simply looking at benefits will not last long.
Simply looking at feelings is too one-sided and still cannot last long.
On the contrary, the current situation where interests and emotions are entangled can last for a long time!
Earth and Asgard are in your state.
At the top, Odin and his men did not hide the fact that the Earth and Asgard were in a relationship of mutual dependence. To them, their own survival was above all else. They understood the importance of the Earth to Asgard, so everything was easy to say.
Without the Earth, Asgard is doomed!
As for the lower classes, they don’t really need to know that much detail… just using emotions is enough.
Although it is a bit incorrect to say this, public opinion can indeed be manipulated, especially in groups.
In this way, the relationship between the Earth and Asgard can be very healthy.
In the past, Asgard had always been obsessed with self-salvation in Ragnarok, and had not paid much attention to the Earth... After all, the Earth had been doing pretty well for 10,000 years. But this time, the Asgardians were really shocked.