Is the General Population in Poverty? A Closer Look at Global and Local Economic Divides

    Poverty isn't just an issue confined to developing nations or small communities; it's a growing reality for the majority of the global population. While statistics vary by country and region, the overarching truth is this: the wealth gap is widening, and the divide between the rich and the poor is becoming increasingly stark. Many people, even those classified as middle class, are living paycheck to paycheck, teetering on the brink of poverty.

Understanding Poverty in Context

Poverty is often viewed through the lens of extreme deprivation, but its scope extends much further:

1. Global Poverty:

   • According to the World Bank, over 700 million people live on less than $2.15 per day.
   • Many more are classified as "working poor," unable to meet basic needs despite having employment.
   • The wealthiest 1% of the global population controls more wealth than the bottom 50% combined.

2. National and Urban Divides:

   • In developed countries, rising inflation and stagnant wages mean even those with full-time jobs struggle to afford housing, healthcare, and education.
   • Cities, often seen as hubs of opportunity, also concentrate poverty. Urban areas house the most affluent individuals and some of the most impoverished, living side by side.

3. The Middle-Class Mirage:

   • Many individuals considered middle class are burdened by debt, making them financially vulnerable to sudden economic shocks.
   • The cost of living is outpacing wage growth, pushing more people toward poverty.

Is the Majority in Poverty?

Economic data paints a grim picture of the overall financial health of populations across the globe:

• Wealth Inequality:
  A staggering 45% of the world’s wealth is owned by just 1% of the population. This leaves the majority scrambling for the remaining resources.
• Economic Mobility:
  In many countries, it’s harder than ever to climb out of poverty due to systemic barriers such as education costs, lack of access to affordable housing, and healthcare expenses.
• Generational Poverty:
  The cycle of poverty perpetuates itself as education and healthcare—essential tools for upward mobility—are priced out of reach for many families.

Key Indicators of a Poverty-Stricken Majority

• Housing:
  In major cities worldwide, affordable housing is scarce. Entire generations are unable to buy homes, forced to rent indefinitely.
• Healthcare:
  Medical expenses are the leading cause of bankruptcy in many developed nations. Millions face the impossible choice between health and financial stability.
• Food Insecurity:
  Rising food prices mean that even in wealthy nations, food banks are seeing unprecedented demand.

Why the Stats Look This Way

The widening gap between the rich and the poor stems from systemic flaws:

1. Corporate Control:
   • The monopolization of industries consolidates wealth among a few, leaving workers underpaid and overworked.
2. Globalization:
   • Jobs are outsourced to exploit cheaper labor, leaving domestic workers unemployed or underemployed.
3. Policy Failures:
   • Tax breaks for the wealthy and cuts to social services exacerbate inequality.

What Needs to Change?

To address systemic poverty, we need bold and innovative solutions:

• Universal Basic Needs: Providing guaranteed housing, food, and healthcare to eliminate the fear of falling into poverty.
• Resource Redistribution: Policies to ensure the wealthiest pay a fair share in taxes and contribute to societal welfare.
• Alternative Economic Systems: Experimenting with models like resource-based economies to reduce reliance on currency and promote equality.
• Public Awareness: Media and education campaigns to highlight the realities of poverty and inspire collective action.

Conclusion

The stats don't lie: the majority of the world’s population is either living in poverty or precariously close to it. The economic divide continues to grow, and the systems designed to support people are increasingly inadequate.

Addressing this requires systemic change, a reevaluation of wealth distribution, and a shift in societal priorities. Without action, the future will see an even greater divide, with prosperity remaining a distant dream for most. The question isn’t just whether poverty can be solved, but whether society has the will to make it happen.

Working Your Lifetime vs. Not Working Your Life Away

     Modern society treats lifetime labor as virtue. But when we step back, the comparison reveals two very different outcomes for individuals and civilization.

The Promised Benefits of Working Your Whole Life

Working a lifetime is often framed as stability. A job provides income, access to housing, food, healthcare, and social legitimacy. It offers structure, routine, and a sense of identity—“What do you do?” becomes who you are.

For some, work brings mastery, pride, and contribution. Teachers, builders, caregivers, creators—many find meaning in what they do. In theory, long-term work also promises security in old age through pensions or savings, and social order through predictable participation.

But this promise assumes fair wages, stable economies, and systems that actually return value for decades of labor. Increasingly, those conditions no longer exist.

The Hidden Costs of Lifetime Work

The largest cost is time. A lifetime of work consumes the healthiest, most energetic years of a person’s life. Time that could be spent with family, exploring the world, developing creativity, or simply resting is redirected into productivity for others.

There is also physical and mental decline. Chronic stress, burnout, repetitive labor, and loss of autonomy are normalized. Many people work not because the work is meaningful, but because survival demands it.

In this model, freedom is postponed until retirement—if retirement is still possible at all.

The Benefits of Not Working Your Life Away

When survival is not tied to labor, people regain agency over time. This does not mean doing nothing—it means choosing what is worth doing.

People naturally gravitate toward learning, building, caregiving, art, community, and exploration when pressure is removed. Work becomes voluntary, creative, and aligned with interest rather than coercion.

Health improves when life is not structured around exhaustion. Relationships deepen when time is available. Innovation increases when people are not trapped in survival loops.

Historically, when humans were freed from constant labor—through technology or abundance—culture, science, and philosophy flourished.

The Fear Myth: “People Would Do Nothing”

A common argument is that without forced work, society would collapse. Yet most people already dream of quitting jobs—not to rot, but to live.

People want to raise children, travel, learn, create, build small projects, help others, and enjoy existence. What they reject is meaningless labor for systems that do not serve them.

The issue is not laziness. It is misaligned incentives.

What This Comparison Reveals About the System

If a system requires people to surrender most of their lives just to survive, it is not efficient—it is extractive.

A healthy system would ask:

• How much work is actually necessary?

• Who benefits from excess labor?

• Why is time treated as expendable?

Fighting for time is not anti-work—it is anti-exploitation.

Conclusion

Working a lifetime may sustain the system.
Not working your life away sustains the human.

A future worth building is one where labor supports life—
not where life is sacrificed for labor.

The Engineered Divide: How Modern Systems Separate Men and Women for Profit

    For generations, society has accepted that certain jobs are “for men” and others are “for women.” Blue-collar workforces are overwhelmingly male. Care-oriented fields are overwhelmingly female. Most people think this is simply “preference,” “biology,” or “tradition.” But in a system known for its corruption and hidden agendas, we have to question whether this separation is natural—or engineered.

Below is a deeper analysis behind gender-based job segregation and how it may serve larger systemic interests.

---

Gender Separation at Work: Coincidence or Systemic Design?

Men mostly work with men. Women mostly work with women. That alone raises a question:
Is the system designed to keep genders apart during the bulk of their waking hours?

If people spend:

• 8–12 hours working

• 1–2 hours commuting

• Several hours recovering from work

Then most human connection happens inside the workplace. By splitting genders into different job categories, the system may be:

• Fragmenting social bonds

• Reducing relationships

• Weakening solidarity between men and women

• Making it harder to form stable families

• Encouraging loneliness

A divided population is easier to control—and easier to profit from.

---

Historical Precedent: School as an Indoctrination Pipeline

School was not created to maximize creativity or free thought. Historically, it was built to:

• Teach obedience

• Train punctuality

• Rehearse 9-5 behaviors

• Condition the mind for repetitive tasks

Wake up early → travel → clock in → do assigned work → clock out → repeat.

If schooling itself was engineered to fit the needs of an industrial-profit system, then job segregation may also be part of long-standing system mechanics we’ve never questioned.

---

Does Gender Separation Fuel Economic Systems?

This is where it gets deeper.

When men and women are heavily separated at work, three things happen:

1. Loneliness Increases—Especially Among Men

Men working only with men reduces:

• Daily contact with women

• Opportunities to form real relationships

• Male–female cooperation

Loneliness becomes a market.
A lonely population spends more on:

• Dating apps

• Parasocial relationships

• Adult entertainment

• Online influencers

Loneliness = profit.

2. Women in Low-Paid Work Are Funneled Toward Survival Side-Industries

Women dominate care roles that are:

• Underpaid

• Overworked

• Financially unstable

This increases the number of women in poverty—who then become prime recruits for:

• Adult content

• Modeling

• Influencer economies

• OnlyFans

• Sugar dating

• Gig-based appearance work

Poverty = recruitment pressure.

3. The Adult Entertainment Economy Thrives — The Top U.S. Digital Industry

The adult entertainment industry isn’t just big.
It isn’t just profitable.

It is the single most dominant digital industry in the United States—outperforming every major tech category, even surpassing companies like NVIDIA in online revenue and consumer traffic.

This matters because it reveals something deeper:

An economy profits the most when human relationships fail.

To maintain that success, the system needs two key ingredients:

Lonely Men → High Demand

Men who lack connection are:

• more likely to consume adult content

• more willing to pay for parasocial intimacy

• more vulnerable to digital addiction cycles

• more likely to depend on online stimulation instead of real relationships

When the system separates genders at work and accelerates dating instability, loneliness becomes a predictable outcome—and a profitable one.

Financially Strained Women → High Supply

Women dominate low-wage or underpaid fields such as:

• childcare

• teaching

• service work

• hospitality

• elder care

These fields pay so little that many women turn to:

• OnlyFans

• cam platforms

• subscription-based adult content

• “virtual girlfriend” services

• sugar-dating economy

• influencer-style sexualized branding

This isn’t about morality—it’s about economic pressure.

When women can't survive on traditional "female-dominated" jobs, the adult industry becomes the most accessible escape route.

Gender-Separated Labor Helps Maintain the Cycle

The system benefits when:

• Men are isolated from women → demand increases

• Women earn low wages → supply increases

This cycle keeps the adult industry at the top of the U.S. digital economy—beating out AI hardware (like NVIDIA), gaming, film, and many tech sectors.

---

Is This the Purpose? A System Dividing Genders for Profit

This isn’t saying every institution consciously plans this. But systems don’t need consciousness to preserve profitable structures.
A few key questions:

• Why do gendered job patterns persist across different cultures and economies?

• Why don’t governments push harder for mixed-gender collaboration?

• Why does the economy profit so much from loneliness and gender division?

• Why are modern men and women increasingly hostile toward each other online?

• Why is adult entertainment one of the only industries with guaranteed exponential growth?

The patterns align too neatly to ignore.

Media Resistance vs Media Assimilation: Psychology of Trust and Distrust in Modern Systems

1. Media Resistance Psychology (MRP)

(or: Media Skepticism Orientation)

Definition

A psychological orientation marked by distrust of mass media due to its role in propaganda, system protection, racial framing, distraction, and future‑programming.

Core Traits

People with Media Resistance Psychology tend to:

• Distrust mainstream narratives

• Question who benefits from media messaging

• Notice patterns of propaganda, omission, and distraction

• Feel fatigue or irritation toward constant content cycles

• Separate information from entertainment

Why Someone Develops This Psychology

1. Lack of Accountability

   • Media faces fewer consequences than governments or corporations

   • Can mislead, stereotype, or distort without real penalties

2. System Protection

   • Media often defends:

     • capitalism-as-normal

     • survival-based work systems

     • political stagnation

   • Criticism of the system is reframed as:

     • extremism

     • conspiracy

     • negativity

3. Future Programming

   • Dystopias dominate storytelling

   • Corporate-controlled futures are normalized

   • Alternatives (post-scarcity, system reinvention) are absent or mocked

4. Racial Framing & Algorithmic Bias

   • Certain races are:

     • overrepresented in crime, poverty, instability

     • underrepresented in intelligence, leadership, success

   • The race owning platforms or dominant states appears:

     • competent

     • civilized

     • desirable

5. Distraction as Control

   • Serious issues (housing, health, labor) are buried

   • Replaced with:

     • celebrity drama

     • culture wars

     • outrage cycles

   • Once one distraction fades, another replaces it

6. Propaganda Saturation

   • Repetition normalizes lies

   • Emotion overrides logic

   • Viewers are trained to feel rather than analyze

Internal Conflict
Many media‑resistant people still use media because:

• social life moved online

• third places were eliminated

• digital participation became mandatory for survival

This creates cognitive dissonance:

“I don’t trust this system, but I’m forced to exist inside it.”

---

2. Media Assimilation Psychology (MAP)

(or: Media Trust Orientation)

Definition
A psychological orientation characterized by comfort with mainstream media narratives, authority framing, and cultural normalization.

Core Traits
People with Media Assimilation Psychology often:

• Trust major outlets by default

• See media as neutral or necessary

• Confuse popularity with truth

• Accept futures shown in media as “realistic”

• View dissent as negativity or instability

Why Someone Develops This Psychology

1. Cognitive Comfort

   • Media simplifies reality

   • Reduces uncertainty and anxiety

   • Provides ready-made opinions

2. Social Belonging

   • Shared narratives = social safety

   • Questioning media risks isolation

3. Delegated Thinking

   • Media decides:

     • what matters

     • who’s right

     • what’s possible

4. Normalization of Power

   • Corporate control looks inevitable

   • Inequality looks natural

   • Corruption looks complex and untouchable

---

Key Contrast (Short)

Media Resistance	Media Assimilation
Sees manipulation	Sees neutrality
Questions framing	Accepts framing
Notices omission	Focuses on headlines
Wants system change	Wants system stability
Feels media fatigue	Feels media comfort

---

Important Clarification

Disliking media is not anti-information.
It is often pro‑truth, pro‑context, and pro‑agency.

Many people with Media Resistance Psychology:

• seek independent research

• value lived experience over headlines

• distrust spectacle, not knowledge

---

Closing Insight

In a system where:

• media is profit-driven

• algorithms reward outrage

• and power avoids accountability

Disliking the media is not abnormal.

It is a rational psychological response to prolonged manipulation, erasure, and future programming.

You’re not rejecting reality.
You’re rejecting a curated version of it.

Government Infiltration and the Global Collapse of Trust

      Across the world, more people are questioning whether their governments truly work for them. From Venezuela to parts of the Middle East, Africa, and even Western nations, a common belief is spreading: governments are increasingly captured by interests that do not represent the population.

This perception—whether fully accurate in every case or not—has real consequences. Trust is eroding, stability is weakening, and people are asking what comes next.

---

When Power Targets Governments, Not Populations

Modern takeovers rarely look like traditional invasions.

Instead of occupying land, power is consolidated by:

• influencing or replacing leadership

• controlling economic policy

• shaping elections or legitimacy narratives

• pressuring institutions through sanctions or aid

• aligning military and security forces with the state, not the people

In Venezuela, for example, much of the global focus is not on daily life of citizens, but on who controls the government, who recognizes it, and whose interests it serves. For many observers, the government appears disconnected from public needs—regardless of political alignment.

This pattern is not isolated.

---

Countries Where People Question Whether Government Serves Them

Public distrust has grown in many regions, including:

• Venezuela – questions over legitimacy, sanctions, and external pressure

• Haiti – near-total collapse of public trust and governance

• Peru – repeated leadership crises and institutional instability

• Lebanon – economic collapse paired with elite political control

• Sudan – military power overriding civilian governance

• Ukraine – heavy foreign influence shaping state direction

• United States – growing belief that lobbying and foreign alliances outweigh public will

Each case is different, but the shared concern is the same: who is the government really working for?

Countries Most Often Accused of Government Infiltration

When people talk about government infiltration, they are usually referring to patterns of influence, not secret takeovers. These are countries most frequently accused—by journalists, scholars, and the public—of exerting outsized influence over other governments through political, economic, or military means.

United States

Often cited for:

• regime-change operations during the Cold War and after

• sanctions used to pressure leadership outcomes

• political lobbying, aid conditions, and military partnerships

• intelligence-backed influence in Latin America and the Middle East

Supporters call this “foreign policy.” Critics call it government capture.

---

Russia

Frequently accused of:

• election interference

• backing favorable political factions

• military influence through security agreements

• exploiting instability to gain leverage

Especially cited in Eastern Europe and parts of Africa.

---

China

Commonly mentioned for:

• debt leverage through infrastructure loans

• economic dependency via trade and investment

• political pressure tied to economic access

• influencing elites rather than populations

Often framed as “development aid,” but questioned for long-term control effects.

---

European Powers (France, UK)

Particularly noted in:

• former African colonies

• economic and military agreements tied to governance

• control over monetary systems or resources

France, for example, is frequently criticized for influence in West Africa through defense and financial structures.

---

Regional Powers (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey)

Accused of:

• funding political or religious factions

• shaping leadership outcomes aligned with ideology

• extending influence beyond borders through proxy power

These actions often destabilize internal governance.

---

Israel

Frequently cited—especially in public discourse and investigative journalism—for:

• strong lobbying influence in allied governments

• intelligence cooperation shaping foreign policy decisions

• military technology exports tied to security agreements

• close alignment with certain political factions abroad

Israel is often discussed not as acting alone, but as exerting influence through strategic partnerships, particularly with powerful Western states. Supporters describe this as national security cooperation; critics argue it creates policy capture, where foreign governments prioritize Israeli state interests over their own populations’ concerns.

These accusations are especially prominent in conversations about:

• Middle Eastern geopolitics

• U.S. foreign policy alignment

• surveillance and security infrastructure abroad

As with other countries listed, debates focus on state-level power and institutions, not individuals or ethnic or religious groups.

---

Why Israel Is Included in These Discussions

Israel appears in infiltration debates because modern power is no longer just territorial—it is:

• diplomatic

• military-technological

• intelligence-based

• embedded within allied systems

This makes influence difficult to see, yet deeply felt by populations who believe their governments are no longer acting independently.

Why These Accusations Matter

Whether fully accurate or not, perception itself is destabilizing.

When populations believe:

• governments answer to foreign interests

• elections do not change power

• leaders serve external agendas

trust collapses—and instability follows.

This is why government infiltration is so damaging: it erodes legitimacy even before policies fail.

---

A Critical Distinction

It’s important to separate:

• individual citizens from

• state power, institutions, and foreign policy

Critiquing government influence is not hostility toward people—it is a demand for transparency and sovereignty.

---

The Core Issue: Influence Without Accountability

The modern crisis is not that countries interact.

It is that influence operates without consent, visibility, or accountability—leaving populations powerless while outsiders shape their future.

Until that imbalance is addressed, claims of infiltration will continue—because people feel the effects, even when the mechanisms are hidden.

---

Why Military Control Becomes Central

When governments lose legitimacy, one institution becomes critical: the military.

Those who capture governments often attempt to:

• secure loyalty of armed forces

• criminalize dissent

• expand surveillance

• frame opposition as destabilizing or dangerous

Once military power is aligned upward instead of outward, civilian voices weaken. At that point, elections alone often fail to restore trust.

This is why populations feel powerless even when unrest is widespread.

---

The Psychological Impact on Populations

When people believe their government no longer represents them, several things happen:

• political disengagement

• radicalization at the margins

• conspiracy thinking

• emigration

• social fragmentation

Even when some claims are exaggerated, the belief itself destabilizes society.

A system that people no longer trust cannot govern effectively.

---

Why the Government System Feels Increasingly Unstable

The modern state is under strain because it was not designed for:

• globalized capital

• digital influence operations

• algorithmic narrative control

• transnational power networks

• permanent crisis politics

Governments are expected to appear sovereign while being economically and militarily dependent. That contradiction produces instability.

---

Why the System Needs Reinvention

Stability will not return by pretending nothing is wrong.

Reinvention may require:

• stronger transparency and limits on foreign influence

• civilian oversight of military and security institutions

• decentralized governance closer to communities

• economic systems less dependent on external control

• digital accountability and narrative sovereignty

Without reform, distrust will continue to grow—regardless of ideology.

---

What Populations Can Do When Governments Fail Them

When governments stop serving people, responses that preserve stability include:

• building local and community institutions

• strengthening independent journalism

• documenting abuses and inconsistencies

• economic self-organization and cooperatives

• lawful civic pressure rather than chaos

History shows that collapsed trust is harder to rebuild than collapsed infrastructure.

---

Conclusion: A Crisis of Legitimacy, Not Just Leadership

The global crisis is not only about bad leaders—it is about systems that allow capture without accountability.

As more countries experience government infiltration or perceived takeover, trust erodes everywhere. Until governance is rebuilt around legitimacy, transparency, and public accountability, instability will remain the norm.

The question many people are now asking is not:
“Who is in power?”

But:
“Who does power actually serve?”

Platform Mistreatment, Digital Control, and National Sovereignty

 China is often cited as an example of extreme digital control. While controversial, one thing is clear: this level of control is not accidental. Governments understand that platforms are not neutral tools—they shape culture, perception, history, and national reputation.

When foreign-owned platforms operate inside a country, they don’t just host content. They curate narratives.

If a platform repeatedly:

• mocks a country’s people

• distorts or rewrites its history

• frames its culture as backward or inferior

• amplifies harmful stereotypes

• allows coordinated ridicule or disinformation

then the issue isn’t just “users being mean.”
The issue is who owns the platform, where it is headquartered, and whose interests it serves.

Platforms Are Political Actors

Algorithms decide what goes viral, what disappears, and what becomes “normal.” This means:

• Platforms shape global perception

• Platforms influence domestic morale

• Platforms can destabilize or undermine trust

• Platforms can quietly wage cultural warfare

Just as governments regulate foreign corporations during trade wars for economic harm, digital platforms should be treated the same way when they cause cultural or political damage.

Economic warfare isn’t only about prices—it’s about narratives.

Why People Prefer National Platforms

Many people increasingly support country-based platforms because:

• They pay local citizens

• They reflect local values and cultural nuance

• They reduce foreign narrative control

• They prevent history and identity from being rewritten externally

• They keep influence and revenue inside the country

If a foreign platform profits from a population while:

• refusing to pay creators

• misrepresenting the country

• amplifying hostility toward its people

then it is extracting value without responsibility.

Digital Borders Are the New Trade Borders

Just as foreign companies can be removed for:

• price manipulation

• political interference

• economic destabilization

Platforms should face consequences for:

• reputational harm

• historical distortion

• algorithmic bias against a nation’s people

• unpaid digital labor

Control over digital space is now as important as control over land, trade, or resources.

The Core Issue

People often blame “the internet” or “the population” for online hostility.

But a better question is:
Who designed the system that rewards this behavior?

Algorithms don’t emerge naturally.
They are built.
They are funded.
They are governed.

When platforms cause harm, responsibility lies with:

• platform owners

• corporate incentives

• regulatory failures

• and governments that allow unchecked influence

Conclusion

Digital sovereignty isn’t about censorship—it’s about self-determination.

In a world where perception shapes power, countries that do not control their digital ecosystems risk having their identity, history, and reputation shaped by foreign interests.

Just as nations defend their economies, they will increasingly defend their algorithms.

And many people no longer see that as extreme—
they see it as inevitable.

Why Activism is the Ultimate Hobby: Going Beyond Fun

    Hobbies are often thought of as ways to relax, enjoy life, or pass the time. People listen to music, play with Legos, read, workout, or binge-watch shows. These hobbies can be fun, relaxing, and mentally stimulating—but they rarely change the world you live in. That’s where activism stands out. Activism isn’t just a pastime—it’s a hobby that can make your life better, protect your future, and even help you live longer.

The Benefits of Traditional Hobbies:

Traditional hobbies are great for personal growth:

• Listening to music can reduce stress and improve mood.

• Reading expands knowledge and sharpens critical thinking.

• Workout routines improve physical health and mental resilience.

• Creative hobbies like painting or building Legos provide satisfaction and a sense of accomplishment.

These hobbies are valuable, but they mostly benefit you as an individual. They rarely create real change in the world around you.

Why Activism is A-tier (or S-tier) as a Hobby:

Activism takes hobbies to another level. Unlike passive hobbies, it combines personal growth with meaningful impact. Here’s why activism is a top-tier hobby:

1. Protect your life and future – Corruption, inequality, and systemic injustice can directly harm you. Activism fights back against policies and systems that make life harder—or even dangerous.

2. Empowerment and purpose – Activism gives you a sense of control in a chaotic world. You’re not just passing time; you’re actively shaping the society you live in.

3. Social connection – Activists often form networks of like-minded people, providing meaningful relationships beyond casual socializing.

4. Tangible results – Unlike finishing a book or building a Lego set, activism can change laws, protect communities, or expose corruption. Your hobby can literally alter reality.

Comparing Hobbies by Real-World Impact:

• Listening to Music: Great for stress relief and mood, but its benefits stay mostly personal.

• Reading: Expands knowledge and sharpens thinking. Can help you navigate life and spot injustices—but only if you act on that knowledge.

• Building with Legos / Creative Hobbies: Boosts creativity and problem-solving skills. Excellent for personal satisfaction, but rarely drives societal change.

• Working Out / Physical Hobbies: Improves health, discipline, and confidence. Can help you survive tough situations but doesn’t directly fight systemic issues.

• Activism: Combines personal growth with societal impact. Teaches strategy, resilience, and communication. Protects your life and community from harm. Can change policies, expose corruption, and create safer environments—benefiting both you and others.

Conclusion:

All hobbies can improve your life in some way—but activism uniquely improves your life while also improving the world around you. It’s a hobby that gives back in multiple dimensions: knowledge, skill, social connection, and real-world protection. If you want a hobby that’s fulfilling, meaningful, and potentially life-saving, activism isn’t just A-tier—it’s S-tier.