South Africa is already racially polarised...

A part of me wishes the Cape Republic to secede because while they say they want a non-racial independent Western Cape, we all know they'll be a centre for white South African culture & all it's associated traits. We'd finally see how stark the comparisons between a white South Africa & a black South Africa are. If for reflection alone. We all know that in time, the more Eurocentric Cape Republic would attain more investments & funds from the developed world but there is no reason the eastern half of South Africa couldn't work to alleviate poverty itself.

Personally, I'm not fond of nomadic life. Maybe it's due to just not needing to know foreign places but I've never felt the urge to leave home to a city for whatever reason. I've only considered it due to peer pressure but it's not a "Plan A" for me. It's not because I hate other ethnicities or races more than disliking being away from a familiar base. 

But some seem to thrive on that existence. Only coming home for Easter or Christmas.  

And some of these are the white opportunists & nomads that Cape Independence would serve because east of South Africa is the more populated indigenous black "Bantu" lands. While in the west of South Africa, is the depopulated former KhoiSan lands. If you don't see how this all fits - you need to go back to primary school & do some simple puzzles. There really is no genuine connection between the races of South Africa & living in two separate new federal/autonomous regions could be a great solution. In fact, it's a long overdue solution for South Africa in some respects. Not to say racial unity can never exist in the world but it can only exist peacefully in certain circumstances. It would not be a mass migration initially but it would be more allowing certain cultures room to express themselves on their own terms in their own lands.

Sports injuries (Artificial Intelligence research)

Question: Which sport has more broken bones per game between rugby & football? 

Rugby has a significantly higher rate of broken bones and injuries compared to soccer. Here's a breakdown of the injury rates and types:

Injury Rates:

- Rugby: 91 injuries per 1000 player-hours, with 2 major injuries per game

- Soccer: 8,1 injuries per 1000 player-hours

Common Injuries in Rugby:

- *Fractures*: Collarbone fractures (clavicle fractures) are common due to tackles or falls onto the shoulder

- *Arm and Wrist Fractures*: High-speed collisions increase the risk of fractures, particularly in the arms, collarbones, and legs

- *Concussions and Head Injuries*: Rugby's full-contact nature leads to a higher risk of concussions and head injuries

Common Injuries in Soccer:

- *ACL Tears*: Sudden changes in direction, awkward landings, or direct blows to the knee can cause ACL injuries

- *Hamstring Strains*: Explosive sprints and quick accelerations can lead to hamstring strains

- *Concussions*: High-impact collisions can cause concussions in soccer, although less common than in rugby

Comparison:

- Rugby players experience more traumatic injuries, such as fractures and concussions, due to the sport's contact-heavy nature

- Soccer players are more prone to overuse injuries, such as hamstring strains and ACL tears, due to the sport's continuous movement

- Rugby has a higher rate of injuries overall, with a greater severity of injuries, including broken bones. 

Question: Which sport has more injuries between basketball & baseball? 

Basketball has a higher injury rate compared to baseball. Here's a breakdown ¹ ²:

- *Basketball Injuries:*

    - *Common injuries:* Ankle sprains, ACL tears, Achilles tendon problems, patellofemoral pain syndrome, and hand/wrist injuries

    - *Injury rate:* 2,64 per 1000 hours, with 34,47 injuries in games and 1,51 in practices

    - *Most affected areas:* Lower limbs (78%), ankle (48%), knee (15%), and joint or ligaments (67%)

- *Baseball Injuries:*

    - *Common injuries:* While baseball is considered relatively safe, serious and catastrophic injuries can occur, often due to high-speed impacts

    - *Injury comparison:* Research suggests basketball injuries are twice as high as baseball injuries

Some key statistics to note:

- *Basketball injury statistics:*

    - 22% of male basketball players sustain at least one time-loss injury per year

    - 42% of injuries affect the ankle/foot, 11% affect the hip and thigh, and 9% affect the knee

- *Prevention:* Warming up, stretching, building strength, and proper equipment can help prevent injuries in both sports ³.

Sports injuries averages: 

Rugby: 91 injuries per 1000 hours played (2 major injuries per game). 

Association football: 8,1 injuries per 1000 hours played. 

Basketball: 2,64 injuries per 1000 hours played (mostly knee & ankle injuries). 

Cricket: 6,5 injuries per 1000 hours played. 

MMA: An injury every four matches (approx. 24 injuries every 1000 hours).

The global order & Africa.

In our world there are developed lands which are mainly in the northern hemisphere who set the tone for how the world lives their lives & then there's the "Global South" i. e. Latin American, south Asia & Africa. No one takes us in the global south seriously. We're expected to live in disfunctional lands & be victims of the elements & environments we live in. And, I think, something tickles the West about keeping us this way & pretending to play saviour. They understand that a developed Africa & global south would mean Africans staying in Africa,& not fleeing to Europe but maybe a perverse narcissism comes in knowing the poor are kept poor. When, in truth, it is bad for the world & it's economy in general. 

Should Africa develop to the level of Europe twenty years ago, it would only banish the wild-African-man-roaming-in-the-wilderness-for-food stereotype & replace it with a people, black people, that are capable of governing their lands. Since the West seems to be less interested in this, the only group outside of Africa that Africans can depend on is BRICS. USA & Europe are not interested in equal partnerships with Africa, they want puppets & raw materials. 

If we're being honest about BRICS, it's an alliance but how effective it is has not really been tested. BRICS countries don't have a common political ideology, just a common disdain for the current unipolar world. BRICS has been mocked as a "dictators alliance" & a "poor man's alliance". They're not being harsh because what if Belgium or Canada, for example, wants to join BRICS? Could they join? The best BRICS could be is a trading alliance, if BRICS becomes a military alliance - NATO will definitely feel threatened & act on that fear. 

A less centralised or multipolar world could bring unexpected consequences. In a post-US dollar multipolar world - which currency are the people of the world expected to trade with? Any African currency is virtually gambling with your money & the Russian ruble & Chinese yuan will always be targets if the West feels threatened. We're left with just the Euro & cryptocurrencies. And I don't think any serious world powers would relegate themselves to using cryptocurrencies. Unless BRICS can create a new currency or use some sort of bartering system, they'll be forced to use the Euro or perhaps gold. 

I think the leaders of Brazil, Russia, Indian & South Africa are under seige by a multitude of problems both in their countries & on a global scale. So while BRICS may be a great alliance to be part of for developing countries, I do not believe it can reach the level of more developed alliances in the world; especially since the USA sees BRICS as directly opposed to the USA. Lula, Putin & Modi need to know that they are the David in a David vs. Goliath (BRICS vs. the West) stare down. And outside the Bible, the weaker alliances are often crushed. South Africa can only watch being the smallest economy & the weakest military of the original BRICS member countries. The USA alone could mess South Africa up, without needing to call their European allies. So our membership in BRICS as South Africa requires us to be doubly cautious because by joining BRICS, we may have made some enemies in the West. 

I don't know what vision the leaders of Africa & the African Union have for Africa but what I know for certain is that the West needs to worry less about Africa developing because I've seen some European legistature. Europe is so advanced & ahead of Africa in it's institutions that I don't think Africa would ever reach Europe's level even after Africa sorts out it's colonial borders.

Could monarchy still work in Africa today?

Most of us in the world today descend from a history of monarchy or a version of it. Even the birthplace of democracy, Greece, had a king & Rome started of with a dictator - then in time, Rome's empire was governed by an emperor (i. e. a king of many nations). Monarchy is the most natural form of leadership because it is what we are naturally used to as human beings. A king rules until death or until he abdicates - or is forced to abdicate & his son takes after him. A simple order. 

While the idea of democratically electing a president is less than one hundred years old in most of Africa, it has gained rapid popularity because of influence from Europe. So between monarchy & democratically elected national leaders, which is better? 

The original stance of a monarch was that a monarch's word was the law, divine rule as it were. But today, in the age of global human rights, most monarchies have moved towards a constitutional monarchy where the king may not always be above the law. This benefits a nation in the case there is a self-destructive monarch, the nation could protect itself from destruction through the law. While democratically elected national leaders are through people's votes, many elections are rigged when there is a secret ballot. The main objective of a politician is to get public votes so often politicians will make promises they will never keep. While the monarch has no obligation to keep any grand promises, he is already the head of state. In fact, many constitutional monarchies in the world today who have employed democracy when electing ministers are considered more democratic than countries who have "democratic" in their name. The monarch only has to keep the land stable, ensure it's economic prosperity & defend it from external threats for his rule to be considered a success. Monarchy also provides continuity & political stability in that monarchs often rule for decades while elected heads of state often rule for a period of five years before campaigning again trying to get votes from the people. Most election campaigns are an inconvenient waste of money disguised as the people's power while a monarch simply appoints a minister & could call for a referendum to consider the people's approval on a matter.

Ideally, elections in a democratic land should be done in a way that even bystanders can see exactly which political party an individual voted for in real time. But since elections are often a secret ballot, a lot can happen in the shadows including double-voting, lost ballot boxes & other forms of election rigging. 

An elected monarch: 

Since many countries in Africa have people who want to have the lifetime reign of a king, an elected monarch may be a solution. A list of the strongest, fastest, most intelligent & wealthiest people in the land could be compiled. The one who the people is the strongest, fastest, most intelligent & wealthiest in comparison to the rest could then be elected as king & establish his dynasty in the country to rule for eternity. 

Monarchy is still the most enduring form of governance worldwide & maybe we should accept it as the default setting of humanity.

The real problem with renewables.

The problem with renewable energy is not always energy production because the wind always blows & the sun will always shine. Renewables are also scalable depending on the amount of energy you need. The problem with renewables is storing the energy. On a cloudy day, photovoltaics still work & need that energy to be stored. There have been lots of breakthroughs in making industrial scale batteries for power production. Many battery manufacturering methods involve child labour & polluting the environment for indigenous communities while some batteries can be manufactured with simple salt. Also, with renewables, I'm of the belief that batteries are used more frequently than with coal, hydrogen & nuclear. This causes batteries to lose efficiency over time. Some batteries are created in consideration of this problem & can be easily recycled without much pollutants. For industrial needs, a battery for renewable energy needs; 1) to be resilient for long term use, 2) made with abundant, easily found materials [e. g. iron, carbon, sodium] & 3) should be easily recyclable for future use.