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

Police Violence, Judicial Failure, Wars, Politics and the Persecution of a People for Centuries

 

Chapter One: What Happened After the Cameras Left

A Night in Faro – 11 July 2020

The question may appear simple, yet it touches one of the greatest dilemmas of our century.

Humanity has entered an era characterised not only by technological progress but also by profound moral, political and social uncertainty.

The Covid-19 pandemic exposed the fragility of institutions that many believed to be solid and reliable. Governments struggled, health systems were overwhelmed, and entire populations found themselves living under restrictions that would have seemed unimaginable only months before.

At the same time, the war in Ukraine demonstrated that large-scale armed conflict had not disappeared from Europe. Cities were destroyed, millions were displaced, and the world once again witnessed the devastating consequences of geopolitical confrontation.

In the Middle East, the attacks carried out by Hamas and the subsequent military response by Israel generated immense human suffering, reigniting historical wounds that continue to divide international opinion and challenge diplomatic solutions.

Across Africa, numerous conflicts continue to devastate communities. Civil wars, terrorism, ethnic tensions, political instability and humanitarian crises have become part of the daily reality of millions of people whose suffering rarely receives sustained international attention.

Meanwhile, confidence in public institutions continues to erode.

In Portugal, debates surrounding allegations of police violence, including the events that occurred in Faro in July 2020, have raised broader questions concerning police accountability, transparency and public trust.

Beyond Portugal, many countries continue to face accusations regarding excessive use of force, failures in protecting vulnerable individuals, violence against women, abuse of minors and shortcomings in judicial systems that are often perceived as slow, overwhelmed or disconnected from the realities faced by ordinary citizens.

In France, public debate surrounding the justice system intensified during the tenure of Justice Minister Éric Dupond-Moretti. His legal proceedings, although ending in acquittal, fuelled wider discussions regarding institutional independence, political influence and public confidence in the judiciary.

The Patrick Bruel affair also became emblematic of broader societal concerns. Regardless of the final legal outcome, the case highlighted difficult questions concerning allegations of sexual violence, delayed reporting, celebrity influence and the challenges faced by judicial systems when dealing with accusations spanning several decades.

These events do not exist in isolation.

Together they form part of a wider atmosphere of uncertainty, doubt and growing social tension.

Many citizens no longer trust political leaders.

Many no longer trust the media.

Many no longer trust the justice system.

Many no longer trust the police.

And increasingly, many no longer trust each other.

This climate of distrust has created fertile ground for conspiracy theories, ideological radicalisation and social hostility.

The result is a society that often appears exhausted, angry and divided.

A society connected by technology yet separated by suspicion.

A society flooded with information yet struggling to distinguish truth from manipulation.

A society capable of extraordinary scientific achievements yet unable to eradicate war, violence, injustice and hatred.

History teaches that periods of uncertainty often precede profound transformations.

The twentieth century witnessed dictatorships, propaganda, persecution, world wars and unprecedented human suffering.

Today, the warning signs are different, but the underlying questions remain remarkably similar.

How much power should institutions possess?

How much freedom should citizens sacrifice in the name of security?

How can justice remain independent from politics?

How can truth survive in an age dominated by algorithms, information overload and artificial intelligence?

And perhaps most importantly:

Can a civilisation survive when doubt becomes stronger than trust?

The answer to that question may well determine the future of humanity itself.

It also coincided with the rapid rise of artificial intelligence technologies, which have increasingly influenced political communication, information flow, and public perception, sometimes amplifying disagreement, confusion, and institutional mistrust.

In France, discussions around judicial reform and institutional balance were also highly visible during this period. The role of Minister of Justice Éric Dupond-Moretti became particularly symbolic, as he himself was subject to legal proceedings related to allegations of conflicts of interest involving magistrates. Although he was ultimately acquitted, the case contributed to wider public debate about the relationship between political power and the judiciary, and the level of trust between institutions and citizens.

Taken together, these developments reflect a broader shift: a period in which health crisis, political tension, technological acceleration, and institutional controversy converged, reshaping public perception of authority, justice, and social stability.

The return of beliefs and interpretations shaped by ideology is not a recent phenomenon. Its origins are deeply rooted in human history itself.

The reasons for this, in my view, go far beyond religion alone. They are linked to the broader nature of human ambition and the recurring desire for control over societies, resources, and ultimately the Earth itself.

Throughout centuries, different systems of belief — religious, political, or ideological — have often been used as instruments of influence, justification, or power.

Whether this dynamic is an unavoidable part of human nature or a long-standing historical pattern is still open to interpretation. Some may see it as a form of fiction repeated across centuries; others may see it as a constant structure of human civilisation.

Si les êtres humains ont été capables de créer des guerres, des dictatures, des propagandes et des injustices, seront-ils capables d'utiliser une intelligence artificielle avec suffisamment de sagesse pour qu'elle serve l'humanité plutôt que le pouvoir ?

SAISI

Marriage Among Siblings and Close Relatives: Biblical Faith and Historical Reality

 

Throughout history, marriage between close relatives, including siblings and half-siblings, has been a complex and controversial subject. To fully understand this phenomenon, it is necessary to consider both biblical faith and historical reality.

Biblical Faith Perspective

In the Bible, early human societies, according to traditional interpretations, were limited to small family groups. Figures such as Adam and Eve, and their descendants, are described as having established the initial human population. Within this context, marriages among close relatives were a practical necessity for the survival of humanity. The early laws regarding consanguinity—relationships by blood—appeared later, particularly in the Mosaic Law, which prohibited marriages between certain close relatives to uphold religious commandments and moral order.

Historical Reality

Historically, before the formalization of religious laws, marriage among close relatives was not uncommon, especially in noble or royal families. Such unions were often motivated by social, political, or economic reasons: to preserve wealth, consolidate power, or maintain bloodlines. Ancient civilizations did not have the same understanding of genetics or hereditary diseases, so the focus was primarily on strategic alliances rather than health concerns.

📜 Relations Between Siblings and Half-Siblings — Biblical and Historical Context

		Period / Figure Source Situation How It Was Seen / Consequence Adam, Eve and their children Genesis 4–5 Children had to marry sisters/nieces (implied). Necessity to populate humanity. Abraham and Sarah Genesis 20:12 Marriage between half-siblings. Accepted before the Law. Lot and his daughters Genesis 19:30–38 Daughters intoxicated Lot to conceive. Implicitly condemned; Moabites and Ammonites born. Amnon and Tamar (David’s children) 2 Samuel 13 Amnon forced his half-sister Tamar. Scandal and tragedy in royal house. Mosaic Law Leviticus 18; 20 Prohibition of relations between close relatives. From then on, completely forbidden in Israel. Ancient Egypt (Pharaohs) History Royal sibling marriages (e.g., Cleopatra VII married two brothers). Normal practice to preserve “divine purity” of the bloodline. Mesopotamia (Sumerian/Babylonian kings) History Records of consanguineous unions among rulers. Seen as consolidating power and inheritance. Ancient Greece (mythology & some royals) Mythology/History Gods and kings with incestuous unions (e.g., Zeus with Hera, his sister). Accepted in myth, socially taboo. Ancient Rome (imperial families) History Some noble/imperial families with consanguineous marriages. Rare, but tolerated in circles of power.

👉 Clear takeaway:

• In the Bible → initially tolerated, later prohibited under Mosaic Law.
• In History → practiced especially among royal/noble families for political or dynastic reasons, even when socially questionable.

 Modern Understanding and Law

Today, laws prohibiting marriage between siblings, half-siblings, or other close relatives serve two main purposes. First, from a health perspective, these laws aim to prevent genetic diseases that are more likely to occur when individuals with closely related DNA have children. Second, they reflect ethical and religious principles derived from biblical teachings and societal norms. The prohibition aligns both with modern scientific understanding and with historical faith-based moral codes.

Conclusion

Marriage among siblings and close relatives is a subject that bridges faith, history, and science. In the biblical context, it was initially a practical necessity, later restricted by laws to align with divine command and societal ethics. Historically, such marriages occurred for strategic purposes, but today, they are prohibited mainly to prevent health risks and to respect religious and moral traditions. By considering both biblical faith and real historical practices, we gain a fuller understanding of why these prohibitions exist and how they have evolved over time.

SAISI