Cloudscape

On two levels on which people show most who they really are: that of the very small and the very great; the normal level is social and therefore self-consciously adapted according to the impressions it would make. Details, few ever worry about; and in case of dramatic events, few worry about what impression they will make, either.
If you want to understand people, study them on these nonsocial levels; since dramatic events rarely happen, if you want to understand people, study the subtleties in their behavior, for those come by themselves, without reflection.
Highly sensitive people do this spontaneously, and because of this may find themselves strangely affected by small details. They will often be thought of as overdramatic; but those small details can tell a keen intuition a great deal.

Many scientists attribute our every quality, be it directly or indirectly, to genetic evolution. Art becomes a means to show off to attract partners, love becomes a means to keep them and others with them.
However, this narrow view of evolution is incomplete; it has already been shown that evolution works through at least two mechanism of selection: natural selection and sexual selection. However, a third mechanism of selection is so absurdly obvious that it it easily overlooked; the third mechanism of selection is our own: choice. "Intelligent selection," as it might be called. The first is unconscious; the second is conscious; the third is self-conscious. The first created the second, the second the third, though the three transition into one another gradually.
Natural selection is the first and most basic mechanism, which depends on survival of the fittest; this mechanism is partly genetic in that it applies to genetics, but also of importance before and beside genetics, as it applies just as well on chemical, atomic and even lower levels, beginning from the very birth of the universe.
Sexual selection is the second mechanism, depending on sexual attraction; this is, arguably, the only of the three mechanisms which is purely genetic, depending on how one interprets "selection." A bacterium does not feel sexual attraction during conjugation, or a virus during insertion, or an oxygen atom during combustion, or a neutron when it collides with a fissile atom, yet these are all examples of reproduction. However, unless matter is conscious, this is not "selection."
Finally, neurological selection is the third and as yet the last we know. One might say that this mechanism is barely genetic at all, but it may be that it is partly epigenetic, though more research would be required. It is known that the activity of certain genes in our brain cells can change over time. It is also known that we may increase certain chemicals in our brain by desiring their effects; what, then, if the latter partly involves the former, and we may change the activity of our genes indirectly by desiring to do so? And what if these epigenetic changes affect the epigenetics of our gametes? This remains speculation.
Be it in part genetic or entirely memetic, neurological selection has dominated our evolution over the past thirty thousand years. For a large part, our sense of beauty is for a large part a mere side effect of our genetic evolution, but this side effect has started to lead a life of its own, and grew more and more sophisticated without any further genetic influence.
The collective unconscious was programmed, mostly genetically, to appreciate certain environments more than others by instinct because they were more favorable, and to appreciate all their aspects: birdsong for instance as a sign of life, flowing streams to lead to fruiting plants, distant views to detect approaching danger, physical appearance to find a successful partner or friend, aromas to find food that is healthy, taste to examine its contents. These are all things that increase likelihood of survival.
But flowing from these simpler perceptions grew something far more complex; the brain took over, and used these perceptions for itself. It improved its enjoyment of beauty not with the purpose to ensure chances of survival, but because it found it pleasurable, and to seek pleasure is simply how the brain is meant to work. The brain started to evolve by itself without much regard of evolution. It is because of this that among humans we see phenomena such as asceticism, celibacy, even masochism, phenomena which from an evolutionary viewpoint are contradictory. This is because the brain has acquired a will of its own, detached from genetic evolution; genetic evolution plays part in neurological evolution as neurological evolution stems from genetic evolution, but it no longer depends entirely on it, just as genetic evolution no longer depends entirely on chemical evolution. The brain has become so complex that it has become like an ecosystem of itself, with its own species.
Thus, aside from viability there came a second selector, and it was enjoyability; today, the latter has become far more prominent in our world than the former, and it no longer has very much to do with viability. Think of the things you do in your free time for enjoyment: how great will their effect be on your chances of survival or those of your offspring? The answer is, very little.
Of course, everything may indirectly alter our chances of survival, but relative to other things you might be doing instead, most leisurely activities will not do so to any significant extent. From a purely evolutionary standpoint, we are wasting the majority of our time, with a things ranging from smalltalk to art. All of these activities have an effect on our chances of survival, but it is so small that relative to those of other species, our activities are utterly irrelevant. If we were to survive rather than live, we would behave as animals. Our average pastimes score extremely low on the evolutionary ladder, though even in an environment as we have, we could do far better.
The memetics of neurological selection may be both collective (through the collective unconscious), but also individual, since the brain, especially in humans, is so complex that it may perhaps undergo such a rapid evolution throughout life that one's sense of beauty is developed through one's own life. How their sense of beauty would develop would depend on their genetics, environment, and a third factor of how the brain would interact with itself, since, as said, the brain has become as complex as an ecosystem.

Do not always look at the positive side, for you might then overlook facts that are in effect negative, that is to say, destructive. Instead, always look at the most positive state you may achieve, taking both positive and negative facts into account. Do not always be optimistic, but always be constructive. Do not see everything as positive, but seek whatever is most positive.

To achieve the balance of neither repressing negative emotions nor surrendering to them, acknowledge them first of all and afterwards do something about them if needed, be it either by changing one's way of thinking, or the situation that causes it; when it comes to this, do this both through thought and through action in balance. Remember how you feel, but also remember how you could feel instead of how you feel.

A war should be fought only if it would save more lives than it would kill; otherwise, other means should suffice. Such wars, however, are very rare, as most only cause even more suffering than they resolve; because of this, war should be avoided as much as possible.
However, we must nuance this attitude. In all things there are exceptions, and so too there are in war: if none had fought Nazi Germany but all had yielded to them, then there would have been far more deaths than there had fallen in the Second World War. Sixty million people fell in the Second World War: however, in about the same time, eleven million people fell in the holocaust.
Suppose that all had surrendered to Nazi Germany in the hope, likely correct, that its despotism would disintegrate before long, as despotisms tend to do, then it would still likely have lasted long enough to kill more than sixty million people, so that even to endure its oppression would not have been worthwhile at all.
Thus, in some cases aggression may be better than passivity; but it is very flawed, and people who rule over an entire country should at least have the competence to find other means. These are people who claim to be proficient to lead millions of people, and, should it come to war, possibly to bring them to an end: if they really are, then they should be able to avoid war and find other ways of dealing with despots. Sanctions, psychological warfare, conspiracies, assassinations if needed — these can all be ways to avoid war and yet deal with tyranny in a way that could save lives.
Unfortunately, many leaders yearn to play part in a war, as it thrills them. Churcill, for instance, cancelled an assassination plot on Hitler as he thought that war should be fought on the field.
This goes to show that in all things we need both yin and yang in balance, and in our own wars as well; but in politics, for most of history we have had too much yang and too little yin. In all likelihood, this was because territory was originally a means for the male to reproduce, and so involved mostly masculinity, but little femininity. It is mostly over the past century that this has started to change, although we still see leaders who see war as a game. But when dealing with other lives, one has to be careful. The least mistake can make the difference between a hero and a murderer.

A war should be fought only if genocide is already taking place, in order to stop the genocide, when all other approaches to stop it have failed, including assassination and coups. A nation who commits genocide must be seen as an offender of international law. When a war does have to take place, the entire world should take part of it against the offender. A war stops only when either party is either defeated or surrenders; both will be more likely to happen, or happen quicker, if either of the parties is vastly outnumbered, so that many lives may be spared.

The United Nations of the world should see any nation in the world as part of their own world, as though it were their own nation; an offense against any nation must be seen as an offense against the entire world. The military of the world should be seen as a political police; like the police, the military of different countries should cooperate. Once it has recognized a criminal, it must put an end to their crimes.

When I say that all nations of the entire world should partake in the war, I mean that it should do so as though it were their own, and as though the people who were dying in of the war were as the people own nations. That is to say, every nation should send all troops that are readily available as fast as possible to the attacked nation or ethnic group. Long before they have fully done so, the offender will be so swarmed that it will be sure to surrender. Moreover, if the entire world reacts in response to genocide, genocide is far less likely to happen.

Some people say technology takes away all challenges in life; yet we have never had more challenges than we have today. We have more to strive for simply because we have more possibilities. Many goals have been achieved, but for every goal we achieved many others became unlocked. So it will continue.
There is always something to fight for; even when he have achieved what we've fought for, there is something else, something beyond even that. In the end, there are no limits, thus we can push our own limits further and further forever. Even when we have achieved everything we could achieve today, with those things we will have achieved then, we will be able to achieve far greater things, and many of these will take far more effort than we are willing to sustain today.