The safer place

17/01/2025 Nilson Lattari

We aren’t protected anywhere. We could go to an unknown place to live in isolation, away from everyone, yet we wouldn’t be secure. We could stay in a protected house under extreme surveillance but that wouldn’t guarantee our safety. Even if we locked ourselves in a room, we might still feel insecure and vulnerable. However, these safe spaces may give us an impression of protection, but they are still vulnerable. Why do we feel fragile and weak, while the world moves on and seemingly indifferent to us?
When we go outside and look around, a sense of insecurity seems to surround and suffocates us. This feeling makes us fearful, and our sense of security disappears like smoke.
Is our lifestyle responsible for our insecurity? Is this insecurity only a creation of our imagination? Are we here, in this world, just to live, enjoy life, and celebrate our achievements? On the other hand, if we reveal our achievements do we risk attracting positive and negative vibes?
Finally, where is the safest place to live?
As the saying goes “the closest door is often the most open one” or “the best hideout is living under the sun”. For example, the open door of social media is not necessarily safe because we are connected all the time, and it is difficult to close it. The solution lies in controlling this door and limiting our exposures. By sharing too much, we make ourselves vulnerable. In the virtual world, that saying doesn’t work and takes on a new meaning. Now, there is no closed door to hide us, because the door of the Internet exposes us all the time, even if we are connected or not. Our lives go on there.
In fact, our exposures are not hidden from the world, even when we are behind a computer screen. We expose our lives ourselves, and this behaviour is perfect for satisfying our ego. The question is: Is there an appropriate way to reveal ourselves according to the opinions of others?
This is an interesting debate. There are people who enjoy showing their successes in life without acknowledging their failures. Maybe this group of people considers themselves on a higher level on a scale of values. As well as, there are people who experience a good life but avoid exposing it to others.
Everyone wishes for a secure life, but our behaviours often turn us into troubled individuals. We ask for more surveillance, and at the same time, our freedom is kidnapped by the internet. True freedom would be going outside with security and peace, where only our “enemies” would be envious of people and their negative looks. We know how to deal with them because they are predictable and can be avoided.
As society evolves, we lock ourselves within private spaces or protected vehicles, hesitant to go outside without worry. It is a paradox: we are free and sell our freedom in exchange for greater security.
There is little sense in asking for security, if we create insecurity for others,, including food insecurity, social, and lack of opportunities. The irony is that homeless and poor people are often safer because they have no goods to protect, and they can live without these worries. When we close the doors of opportunity to others, we preserve our own spaces but prevent others from evolving to measure and test their skills. In reality, we are building our own prisons or dark rooms. This “apartheid” turns our lives into lives without meaning.
If we open the doors of opportunity to all, we could establish equality from the opportunities – true open doors. This point of view presents a dilemma to the “owners” of the “doors”: How can they offer opportunities without losing social control? This decision is important for creating safer and more protected lives. The answer lies in providing more opportunities and visibility. The consequences would be true freedom and security.