LOVE: THE MOST OVERUSED WORD IN HUMANITY?

 

They say they had a child because they loved each other. I say they had sex.

There are certain words that human beings use so often that they eventually stop asking themselves what those words actually mean.

Love may be the greatest example.

We say I love you.
We say I love my children.
We say I love my parents.
We say I love my country.
We say I love my friends.
We say I love chocolate.

One word.

Apparently, an extraordinary number of meanings.

And perhaps that should make us suspicious.

Recently, I found myself thinking about something that sounds almost cynical:

When two people say they had a child “out of love”, did they really? Or did they simply have sex and happen to conceive a child?

At first glance, the question sounds ridiculous.

Biologically, however, it is perfectly reasonable.

A child is not created by love.

A child is created through reproduction — traditionally through sexual intercourse, although modern medicine has obviously introduced other possibilities.

So why do human beings insist on putting the word love in the middle of the biological process?

Perhaps because humans rarely accept biology on its own.

They need a story.

And love is probably the most powerful story they have invented.

---

Where does the word “love” come from?

The English word love has a very old history, while the Romance-language equivalents come from Latin.

Portuguese amor, French amour, Spanish amor and Italian amore derive from the Latin amor, amōris, related to amāre, “to love”.

But etymology does not tell us what love actually is.

It only tells us where the word came from.

And perhaps that distinction is important.

Words are containers.

Human beings fill them with meaning.

And they have been filling the container called love for thousands of years.

---

Sex is not love. Love is not reproduction.

This seems obvious, yet humans constantly mix these three things together.

Sex is not love.

Love is not sex.

Reproduction is not love.

They can exist together, of course.

But they are not the same thing.

Two people can have sex without loving each other.

Two people can love each other without having sex.

Two people can have a child without loving each other.

Two people can deeply love a child who was not conceived through their relationship.

So when someone says:

“We had our child because we loved each other.”

perhaps what they really mean is:

“Our love was one of the reasons we wanted to create a family.”

That is a very different statement.

And much more precise.

---

So… what exactly is love?

This is where things become complicated.

Perhaps love is not one thing at all.

Maybe human beings simply placed several different experiences inside the same word.

There is desire:

I want you.

There is passion:

I cannot stop thinking about you.

There is attachment:

I don't want to lose you.

There is affection:

I want you to be well.

There is romantic love:

I want to build my life with you.

There is parental love:

I want to protect you.

There is friendship:

Your existence matters to me.

And perhaps there is something deeper:

The existence of another person stops being indifferent to us.

That, perhaps, comes closer to the heart of love.

---

But love has a dangerous side

Human beings often say:

“I did it because I love you.”

And sometimes what follows is precisely what a loving person should never do.

Jealousy.

Possession.

Control.

Manipulation.

Violence.

Love can make people generous.

But it can also make them selfish.

It can make people sacrifice themselves for someone else.

But it can also make them believe they have the right to possess that person.

And perhaps this is one of the great contradictions of human love.

We sometimes confuse loving someone with owning them.

But if I truly love another person, can I really claim to own them?

Perhaps not.

Maybe love begins precisely where possession ends.

---

Passion says: “I need you.”

Love may eventually say:

“I want you to be well.”

The difference is enormous.

Passion can be about satisfying something inside ourselves.

Love, at its most mature, begins to recognise the other person as an independent human being.

Someone with their own desires.

Their own fears.

Their own freedom.

And, most importantly, the right to say no.

That may be one of the most difficult things about loving another human being:

allowing them to remain free.

---

And what about children?

Here the question becomes even more interesting.

Parents often say:

“We had this child because of our love.”

But love for whom?

For each other?

For the child?

For the idea of having a family?

For the desire to become parents?

For the biological instinct to reproduce?

Perhaps all of these things can coexist.

But there is a fascinating contradiction:

When the child is conceived, the child does not yet exist as a person known to the parents.

They cannot love the individual they have not yet met.

They can love the idea of having a child.

They can love the person they hope that child will become.

But that is different from loving the actual human being who will eventually stand in front of them.

Perhaps this distinction matters more than we realise.

---

And then there is religion

There is another place where the word love becomes particularly powerful: religion.

Across centuries, religions have spoken extensively about love — love of God, love of one's neighbour, love of humanity, love of creation, love of the poor and even love of one's enemies.

At first glance, this seems beautiful.

But perhaps we should also ask an uncomfortable question:

Has religion sometimes abused the word “love”?

The word love carries an extraordinary moral authority. When someone says “I love you”, we instinctively associate the statement with kindness, protection and goodwill. When a religious institution says “God loves you”, the statement can become even more powerful because it is no longer presented merely as a human emotion, but as a divine truth.

And this is where I become suspicious.

Throughout history, religious institutions have sometimes used the language of love alongside obedience, fear, guilt and punishment.

God loves you — but you must obey.

God loves you — but only if you follow these rules.

God loves you — but those who do not believe may be condemned.

At that point, what exactly does love mean?

Can love coexist with fear?

Can unconditional love have conditions?

Can someone genuinely say “I love you” while threatening punishment if you refuse to obey?

These are not necessarily arguments against religion. They are questions about language and power.

Religion did not invent the word love, nor does it have a monopoly on it. But religious traditions have certainly given the word an enormous spiritual and moral importance.

Perhaps this is why we should be particularly careful when someone uses the word.

Because “love” is one of the easiest words with which to make an idea sound morally good.

And perhaps that is precisely why it has been used so often.

---

Love does not necessarily mean forever

There is another human obsession I find fascinating.

People often believe that if love ends, then it must never have been real.

Why?

A relationship can last ten years and end.

Does that mean those ten years were a lie?

Of course not.

Something can be real without being eternal.

A sunset is not less beautiful because it lasts only a few minutes.

A friendship does not become meaningless because life eventually separates two people.

And perhaps love is the same.

Something does not have to last forever to have been true.

Humans often confuse “it was real” with “it must last forever.”

They are not the same thing.

---

So what is love?

I am not sure there is a definitive answer.

Perhaps there shouldn't be.

But if I had to propose one, I would say:

Love begins when another person's existence stops being indifferent to us and starts influencing the way we live, choose and act.

But I would go one step further.

Perhaps genuine love begins when we stop wanting to possess someone and start wanting them to be happy and free — even when their freedom does not necessarily benefit us.

That is a much harder form of love.

And perhaps a much rarer one.

---

And here is the uncomfortable question

Maybe humans use the word love because reality is sometimes too complicated to describe honestly.

Sex becomes making love.

Attachment becomes love.

Desire becomes love.

Possession becomes love.

Dependency becomes love.

Parenthood becomes love.

Sacrifice becomes love.

Even chocolate becomes love.

Perhaps the word has become so powerful precisely because it can explain almost anything.

And when a word can explain everything…

perhaps it explains nothing.

So I will leave you with a question.

When you say “I love you”, what exactly are you saying?

Do you mean:

I want you?

I need you?

I desire you?

I am attached to you?

I want to protect you?

Your existence matters to me?

Or perhaps something else entirely?

Because maybe the most honest definition of love is not found in the word itself.

Maybe it is found in what we actually do after we say it.

---

And yes… I still maintain my original provocation:

They say they made a child because they were in love.
I say they had sex.

Now you tell me which one of us is wrong. 😏

SAISI

Does Humanity Really Control Earth… or Is Earth Simply Following Its Own Evolution?

 

For many years, I have chosen to write differently. I have never written to comfort people or to repeat what they already hear every day. I write because I believe that asking uncomfortable questions is one of the last forms of intellectual freedom still available.

Over the years, I have become convinced that my blog, SaisiNews, has attracted attention far beyond what one would normally expect from an independent publication. I believe it has been examined twice by the CIA. I also believe that, for years, Google has displayed warnings or limitations affecting the visibility of some of my articles, discouraging readers by suggesting that the content is undesirable. These are my own conclusions based on my personal observations, and I alone assume full responsibility for making these statements.

Whether readers agree with me or not is not my concern.

What matters is that they ask themselves one simple question:

Who decides what deserves to be read?

The Planet Never Asked for Our Permission

Politically or not, our planet Earth has never stopped evolving.

Long before the first human walked across Africa, long before the dinosaurs ruled the planet, long before trees even existed, Earth was already changing.

About 4.54 billion years ago, our planet was nothing more than a gigantic sphere of molten rock. During hundreds of millions of years, meteorites bombarded its surface relentlessly. Oceans appeared, disappeared and reappeared. Entire continents collided before breaking apart again. Volcanoes transformed the atmosphere countless times.

Earth never remained the same.

It never will.

The idea that humanity somehow controls this extraordinary planetary machine may be one of the greatest illusions ever created.

We Believe We Are the Most Intelligent Species

Human beings often define intelligence according to their own standards.

We build cities.

We create computers.

We develop artificial intelligence.

We travel into space.

We split atoms.

We decode DNA.

Therefore, we conclude that we must be the most intelligent species ever to exist.

But what if intelligence has been misunderstood from the beginning?

What if intelligence is not measured by domination...

...but by balance?

The oldest forests have survived for millions of years without governments.

Coral reefs created entire ecosystems without universities.

Fungi communicate beneath our feet through underground networks that scientists only recently began to understand.

Whales navigate entire oceans without satellites.

Birds migrate thousands of kilometres with astonishing precision.

Perhaps intelligence is not simply the ability to create.

Perhaps it is the ability to survive without destroying the very system that allows life to exist.

Is Humanity Really Responsible for Everything?

Today, every political discussion eventually leads to climate change.

The narrative appears simple.

Humanity is responsible.

Case closed.

I disagree with such simplicity.

This does not mean I deny human responsibility.

On the contrary.

Industrialisation has transformed the planet.

Oil changed civilization forever.

The discovery of petroleum created modern transportation, modern medicine, synthetic materials, plastics, fertilizers and global commerce.

It also created dependence.

Plastic now exists in our oceans.

Microplastics have been detected in human blood, lungs, placentas and even unborn babies.

Forests disappear.

Species vanish.

Rivers become polluted.

Wars poison entire regions.

Cities consume more energy than entire countries did only one century ago.

All this is real.

Yet another reality also exists.

Earth's climate has never been stable.

Millions of years before humans existed, our planet experienced dramatic climate transformations.

Entire oceans disappeared.

Ice covered continents.

Sea levels rose hundreds of metres.

Supervolcanoes darkened the skies.

Asteroids erased nearly 75% of all living species.

Five major mass extinctions reshaped life itself.

Nature did not ask humanity for permission.

Earth Is Not a Machine

Many people speak about "saving the planet."

Perhaps we should choose our words more carefully.

Earth does not need us.

We need Earth.

If humanity disappeared tomorrow...

Forests would grow again.

Rivers would slowly recover.

Cities would collapse.

Concrete would crack.

Steel would rust.

Animals would return.

Nature would continue.

Life would evolve.

Earth has already survived events far more catastrophic than modern civilization.

The real question is therefore not:

Can humanity save Earth?

The real question is:

Can humanity save itself?

Politics: The Theatre of Contradictions

Politics claims to protect humanity.

History often demonstrates the opposite.

Every generation promises peace.

Every generation prepares for war.

The twentieth century witnessed two World Wars.

It also produced the Holocaust, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Rwanda and countless forgotten conflicts.

The twenty-first century promised a new era.

Instead, wars continue.

Ukraine.

Gaza.

Sudan.

Myanmar.

The Middle East.

The list keeps growing.

Each conflict is justified differently.

Freedom.

Security.

Religion.

Democracy.

National interest.

Energy.

History.

Revenge.

Yet ordinary people continue paying the price.

Children lose parents.

Parents lose children.

Entire generations inherit destruction they never created.

Donald Trump and Political Reality

Donald Trump has become one of the most polarising political figures of modern history.

Some see him as a patriot.

Others see him as a danger.

He once declared that he could end the war between Russia and Ukraine within twenty-four hours.

Reality proved far more complicated.

Later, military action involving Iran was presented by his administration as necessary to weaken a hostile regime and promote greater regional security.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with those decisions, one fact remains undeniable:

Every military escalation creates consequences extending far beyond the battlefield.

Oil prices fluctuate.

Financial markets react.

Governments increase military spending.

Public debt rises.

Inflation returns.

The poorest families always pay first.

Political leaders rarely suffer the immediate consequences of war.

Ordinary citizens almost always do.

Every Nation Speaks About Peace

Yet almost every nation continues investing billions in weapons.

Governments organise climate conferences.

At the same time, military industries expand.

Leaders promise environmental responsibility.

Meanwhile, forests continue disappearing.

Countries negotiate carbon emissions.

At the same time, bombs release enormous quantities of greenhouse gases that rarely appear in public climate discussions.

War itself remains one of humanity's greatest environmental disasters.

Destroyed cities generate millions of tons of debris.

Oil facilities burn.

Chemical plants explode.

Agricultural land becomes contaminated.

Wildlife disappears.

Yet these environmental costs are rarely discussed with the same intensity as individual carbon footprints.

Ancient Books... Ancient Questions

Throughout history, human beings have searched for answers.

Religious texts.

Ancient manuscripts.

Sacred books.

Philosophical writings.

Scientific revolutions.

Each generation believed it had finally discovered the truth.

Yet humanity still cannot answer the simplest questions.

Why do we exist?

What is consciousness?

What came before the Universe?

Is intelligence unique to Earth?

Is life merely biological...

...or something much larger?

Perhaps the greatest mistake of civilization has been confusing belief with certainty.

Is Earth Alive?

This question may sound absurd.

Yet perhaps it deserves serious thought.

Earth regulates temperatures.

It recycles water.

It renews ecosystems.

It transforms carbon.

It creates new crust.

It destroys old crust.

Volcanoes build land.

Oceans absorb heat.

Forests regulate atmospheric gases.

Everything interacts.

Nothing exists independently.

Scientists call this Earth System Science.

Others refer to the Gaia Hypothesis.

Whatever name we choose, one observation remains fascinating.

Earth behaves less like an object...

...and more like an immense self-regulating system.

Not conscious in the human sense.

But extraordinarily dynamic.

Perhaps We Are Not the Masters

Human civilization often behaves as though ownership equals control.

We own land.

We own companies.

We own technology.

We own governments.

But ownership has never meant permanence.

Empires believed they would last forever.

Rome disappeared.

The Mongol Empire disappeared.

Colonial empires disappeared.

Economic powers rise.

Economic powers fall.

Perhaps humanity itself represents only one chapter in Earth's extraordinarily long history.

The Final Question

Perhaps climate change is not simply humanity versus nature.

Perhaps it is humanity confronting the reality that it never truly controlled the planet.

Earth has always evolved.

Continents moved before us.

Volcanoes erupted before us.

Ice ages came before us.

They will continue after us.

Our responsibility is therefore immense—not because we command Earth, but because we possess something unique among known species: the ability to understand the consequences of our own actions.

Whether we choose wisdom or arrogance may determine the future of our civilization.

But it will not determine the future of Earth.

The planet existed long before humanity.

It will almost certainly exist long after us.

Perhaps the most important question is not whether Earth will survive humanity.

Perhaps the real question is whether humanity deserves to survive on Earth.

"The greatest danger facing civilization is not ignorance.

It is the certainty that we already know enough."

SAISI