The West still believes it is the center of the world, a study conducted in the West itself points out. In yet another episode of the series the world revolves around me, countries of the so called West remain firm in the conviction that they are the central axis of human civilization. The conclusion comes from a broad empirical observation carried out, curiously, by newspapers, universities, commentators and influencers, all of them located in the West.

        According to analysts, the perception of Western superiority is not exactly a scientific discovery, but an old cultural habit, reinforced daily by strategically centered world maps, international news broadcasts that begin and end in Washington, Paris or London, and Hollywood films in which the entire planet patiently waits to be saved by an American wearing a leather jacket.

        The report found that, for a large portion of the Western population, the East appears as an abstract and distant concept, often reduced to stereotypes. It is either exotic, backward or a threat. Rarely is it simply a place where billions of people live without any concern for the opinions of European columnists. It is far removed from Western reality to grasp that its pop idol is completely unknown in India.

       Meanwhile, on the other side of the planet, Eastern countries continue to function normally, producing technology, philosophy, economy and culture, in many cases more deeply developed, without showing much anxiety for Western approval. The phenomenon is explained by a simple principle. Everyone tends to think their own backyard is the center of the universe. The difference is that the West has turned this impression into doctrine, school curricula and foreign policy.

         When asked to comment, representatives of the East did not respond. Sources say they were too busy with local matters to take part in yet another debate about the importance of the West to the rest of the world.

        Experts warn that recognizing one’s own cultural bubble can cause side effects such as the relativization of certainties, identity crises and, in severe cases, the discovery that the world does not ask for permission to keep spinning. This becomes very strange when a North American arrives in the East and realizes that he is just another ill mannered person. The expectation is that the West will continue to see itself as essential, indispensable and central, at least until it remembers that this is only the view from the window where it lives.

          The replacement of natural teeth with prostheses, crowns, or dental veneers has ceased to be a procedure restricted to cases of clinical necessity and has come to occupy a central place in aesthetic dentistry. The growth of this type of intervention follows the popularization of visual standards spread by digital influencers, celebrities, and advertising campaigns that associate extremely white and aligned teeth with success, health, and self esteem. Specialists warn, however, that behind the aesthetic discourse there are clinical risks, psychological impacts, and irreversible consequences that are not always presented to the patient.

           Originally, dental prostheses had the main objective of restoring chewing function, speech, and quality of life to people who lost teeth due to trauma, disease, or aging. With the advancement of materials and techniques, the aesthetic focus gained prominence. Ultrafine dental veneers, for example, began to be promoted as a quick solution for darkened teeth, misalignment, or small imperfections.

         The problem, according to dental surgeons and researchers in the field, is that the indication does not always respect conservative criteria. In many cases, healthy teeth undergo wear for the placement of pieces that would not be clinically necessary. Dental enamel, once removed, does not regenerate. This turns an aesthetic procedure into a permanent commitment to maintenance, replacements, and possible complications throughout life.

          Among the most common effects of inadequate replacement of natural teeth are persistent sensitivity, chronic pain, gingival inflammation, and changes in the bite. Small adaptation errors can generate overload in facial muscles and joints, causing headaches, clicking in the temporomandibular joint, and chewing difficulties. Another critical point is periodontal health. Poorly fitted prostheses and veneers favor the accumulation of bacterial plaque in areas that are difficult to clean. Over time, this can lead to gingivitis, periodontitis, and even the loss of neighboring teeth that were originally healthy. In more severe situations, recurrent infections require invasive retreatments.

          Contrary to the idea of a definitive solution, veneers and prostheses have a limited lifespan. Fractures, detachment, material wear, and changes in the gums require periodic replacements. The cost, often high, does not end with the first intervention. Patients who begin this type of treatment at a young age may face decades of accumulated maintenance expenses. In addition to the financial impact, there is the psychological aspect. Some patients develop aesthetic dependence, feeling a constant need for adjustments and replacements to maintain an artificial smile standard. When failures arise or financial limitations appear, frustration can be significant.

          Dental aesthetics has become a highly media driven product. Before and after images circulate widely, but rarely explain the diagnosis, the risks involved, or less invasive alternatives. The discourse of rapid results tends to minimize the biological complexity of the tooth, treating it as a replaceable object. Professional associations and universities have warned of the need for clear information and truly informed consent. The patient has the right to know whether the procedure is reversible, how much tissue will be removed, what the risks are, and whether there are conservative options, such as whitening, orthodontics, minimally invasive restorations, or progressive aesthetic follow up.

          Despite technological advances, the natural tooth remains the best structure for the human body. It responds better to chewing forces, has its own biological defense, and integrates more efficiently into the oral system. For specialists, modern dentistry must balance aesthetics and biology, always prioritizing preservation. The search for a harmonious smile is legitimate. The warning lies in the hasty replacement of the natural with the artificial without real clinical necessity. In a scenario where aesthetics gains increasing space, the responsibility of professionals and patients also grows to understand that oral health is not limited to appearance, but to the maintenance of structures that, once lost, cannot be recovered.

      Accessibility is recognized in international treaties as a fundamental human right. Documents such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities establish that governments must ensure full participation and equal opportunities. However, in practice, millions of people around the world continue to face barriers that limit their mobility, autonomy, and social inclusion.

In cities considered developed, urban infrastructure frequently fails to meet minimum standards of inclusion. Narrow or uneven sidewalks, transportation systems with inadequate maintenance, public buildings without complete adaptations, and the absence of accessible signage are recurring obstacles. In low income countries, where basic services are already insufficient, accessibility rarely appears among budget priorities.

The same pattern is repeated in the digital environment. As essential services have migrated to online platforms, exclusion has taken new forms. Websites without compatibility with screen readers, videos without captions, and applications without adapted commands distance people with disabilities from everyday activities such as studying, working, or accessing social benefits. Technology, which could serve as an instrument of democratization, often reproduces structural inequalities.

In this context, there is growing visibility of private initiatives that promise disruptive technological solutions to expand human capacities or treat physical and neurological limitations. Among them are projects led by Elon Musk, entrepreneur at the head of companies such as Tesla, SpaceX, and Neuralink. The latter aims to develop brain computer interfaces capable of interacting directly with the human nervous system.

Neuralink announces that its research may, in the future, assist people with paralysis, spinal cord injuries, or neurological diseases in recovering lost functions. The proposal is ambitious and involves brain implants connected to external devices. The company states that it follows regulatory protocols and obtains authorization for clinical trials in humans. Even so, the project has been the target of criticism and intense debate within the scientific community and human rights organizations.

Bioethics specialists question the transparency of the research, the criteria for selecting volunteers, and the risks associated with invasive procedures still in the experimental stage. There is concern about the possibility that individuals in vulnerable situations may become participants in trials whose long term effects remain uncertain. The debate also involves the history of animal testing and reports of methods considered controversial.

Beyond medical and ethical issues, there is a structural debate about priorities. Critics argue that the high technology industry tends to concentrate investments on projects with strong media impact and significant financial return potential. The promise of expanding human cognitive capacities and integrating brains with digital systems opens a multibillion dollar market with strong futuristic appeal. Meanwhile, basic accessibility demands such as adapted transportation, inclusive housing, and accessible education remain underfunded in many parts of the world, often being set aside by governments that finance technology projects with empty promises while, in reality, people in need continue to have their lives made more difficult by choices in which they have no voice.

The contrast highlights a central tension in the contemporary debate on inclusion. On one side, technological advances that project scenarios of integration between humans and machines. On the other, the persistence of physical and social barriers that prevent people with disabilities from exercising basic rights. Innovation, in this context, raises an uncomfortable question: is it being directed primarily toward improving the quality of life of the majority or toward consolidating new highly profitable markets?

Elon Musk, a central figure in this business ecosystem, is often associated with narratives of radical transformation of humanity, whether through space colonization, electric mobility, or neural integration. However, critics point out that such projects also reinforce the logic of concentrating capital and technological power in the hands of a few private conglomerates. Structural accessibility, in turn, requires broad public policies, continuous investment, and strict oversight, elements that depend not only on innovation but also on social commitment.

The discussion of accessibility on a global scale cannot be reduced to a choice between technological progress and basic policies. However, the imbalance of investments reveals priorities. While billions are directed toward high risk and highly visible experimental projects, millions of people continue to face difficulties accessing transportation, education, work, and essential services.

Ensuring effective accessibility means rethinking urban planning, product design, digital architecture, and the distribution of resources. It also means questioning development models that privilege futuristic solutions without resolving present structural deficiencies. Real inclusion does not depend only on advanced devices or promises of cognitive expansion. Above all, it depends on ensuring that no one is left behind in the most basic conditions of everyday life. It shows that the choice of where to invest reveals much more than business strategies; it reveals the kind of society that is being built.

          On social media and in motivational speeches, the figure of the reader who goes beyond ordinary human limits has become common. He wakes up before sunrise, meditates for fifteen minutes, runs ten kilometers and, between one meeting and another, devours 20 books. The narrative is seductive. It mixes discipline, genius and an implicit promise of intellectual superiority, which can be contradictory when the same people criticize entering academic life. The problem is simple: this does not exist.

From a physical and cognitive point of view, the idea of reading 20 complete books within an average month alongside daily practices is impractical. Even if they are short works, the time required for attentive reading easily exceeds the 24 hours available in a day. If we consider books of 200 to 300 pages, the math becomes even more obvious. There is no focus technique or miraculous method capable of overcoming the basic limitations of the human body.

Often, when confronted, these claims rely on justifications such as extreme speed reading, summaries or strategic reading. Even so, there is a crucial difference between skimming pages and truly reading. Reading involves decoding, interpretation, connection with prior knowledge and memory formation. It is a complex cognitive process that requires time for consolidation.

Studies in cognitive psychology indicate that long term memory depends on repetition, association and intervals of rest. Consuming large volumes of information in sequence significantly reduces the capacity for retention and deep understanding. In other words, even if someone managed to go through dozens of books in a short period of days, the likelihood of absorbing and meaningfully remembering the content would be minimal.

The popularization of mass reading is also associated with a culture of performative productivity. The symbolic value of the number surpasses the value of the experience. Reading stops being a practice of reflection or leisure and becomes a status indicator. Quantity replaces quality. The goal is not to understand, enjoy or discuss, but to impress. 

This logic connects to a broader model of accelerated information consumption. Short videos, instant summaries and condensed learning lists promise to transform complex works into quick points. Knowledge starts to be treated as something to accumulate rather than as a process. However, literary, philosophical or scientific works require time for intellectual maturation. Often, a single book may demand rereading and prolonged reflection.

There is also a relevant psychological component. By promoting almost superhuman routines, an unreachable standard is created that generates comparison and frustration. Young readers may feel behind or intellectually insufficient for not keeping up with such numbers. Reading, which could be a source of pleasure and critical development, turns into a competitive race.

This does not mean devaluing discipline or consistent study habits. It is entirely possible to maintain an intense reading routine and expand one’s repertoire over the years. However, there is a difference between consistency and performative exaggeration. Reading one book per week already represents a significant effort for most people. Building a solid repertoire is the result of continuity and reflection, not improbable daily marathons.

The fantasy of 20 books per month reveals more about contemporary culture than about reading itself. We live in an era that transforms even the act of reading, which in other times was understood as something slow and complex, often requiring rereading for full understanding, with conversations to discuss the theme and the enjoyment of slowness so that the leisure activity would not end, since no one wanted the story to finish. The logic of acceleration invades a space that traditionally belongs to contemplation.

Saying that one is reading a book because one watched a video about it reduces the experience of the work to egocentrism, something that has become evident in the society we live in, where knowing almost nothing about many things is considered more valuable than knowing a great deal about something specific. But it is worth remembering that even across many lifetimes it would not be possible to know all the materials produced throughout human history, not to mention lost works, untranslated materials, analyses of periods before human life or projections for the future. So there is no need to rush. Consume the content you genuinely enjoy and appreciate it, because even that will never be possible to reach in its entirety.

        The scenario is becoming increasingly common. Bedrooms decorated with children’s characters share space with recording equipment, improvised scripts, and speeches about financial independence. In front of cameras, children repeat phrases that have gone viral on social media. They say they started from nothing, became rich early, discovered that studying is unnecessary and that playing leads nowhere. What might sound like fantasy reveals a growing and concerning trend: the transformation of childhood into a product within the digital marketplace.

In recent years, video platforms and social networks have come to play a central role in shaping the values and expectations of children and adolescents. The virtual environment, which could serve creativity and learning, has also become a stage for narratives that exalt early financial success as the ultimate goal. The logic is simple and seductive. If someone apparently very young claims to have become a millionaire by their own efforts, anyone could repeat the achievement, as long as they abandon distractions and dedicate themselves entirely to work.

However, this narrative ignores structural factors. Many stories of rapid enrichment lack transparency. Initial investments, family support, business contracts, or marketing strategies that sustain account growth are not detailed. Instead, the idea prevails that willpower alone is enough. Formal education is portrayed as a delay. Childhood is treated as a waste of time.

The digital industry operates through algorithms that reward visibility and engagement. The more controversial or aspirational the content, the greater its circulation. In this context, the image of a child claiming to have overcome poverty and achieved wealth before adulthood becomes highly profitable. The discourse of individual achievement turns into merchandise. Followers, likes, and views are converted into advertising contracts, online courses, and products associated with the promise of success.

Child development experts warn that constant exposure to productivity logic may compromise essential stages of emotional formation. Childhood is a period marked by experimentation, mistakes, symbolic play, and social interaction. When daily routines begin to be organized around financial goals and digital metrics, there is a risk of replacing fundamental experiences with calculated performances, generating psychological problems that may accompany the child throughout life.

There are also psychological impacts related to constant comparison. Children who consume this type of content may feel inadequate for not achieving similar results. Performance pressure, typical but not normal in the adult world, is anticipated at stages when development should prioritize gradual autonomy and identity formation. The notion of personal worth becomes linked to the ability to generate profit or audience.

The discourse that encourages abandoning studies in favor of digital entrepreneurship also deserves attention. Although the online environment can offer legitimate opportunities for learning and creation, the systematic devaluation of formal education weakens one of the main instruments of social mobility. By presenting success as the exclusive result of individual effort and charisma, it conceals the importance of structured knowledge, critical thinking, and professional qualification.

From a legal standpoint, children’s participation in profit oriented activities requires specific care. Brazilian legislation establishes limits and protections regarding child labor, including in artistic and advertising fields. However, the boundary between play and commercial activity becomes blurred when content is produced at home and distributed on global platforms. Indirect monetization makes oversight more difficult and expands gray areas.

Beyond legal issues, there is an ethical dimension. Childhood is recognized as a phase that demands full protection, as provided by the Federal Constitution and the Statute of the Child and Adolescent. Turning boys and girls into showcases for lifestyles based on consumption and early wealth places fundamental rights such as education, leisure, and healthy development in the background.

The romanticization of relentless work also contributes to normalizing exhausting routines. By repeating that success depends on total dedication and continuous sacrifice, a culture is built that views rest and play as weakness. When applied to children, this logic reverses basic priorities of care and development.

Public debate on the topic is still incipient. Parents and guardians, often attracted by the possibility of financial gain or misinformed, do not always measure the long term impacts of constant exposure. The digital platforms themselves face questions about their responsibility in promoting content that stimulates unrealistic expectations and behavior that is not appropriate for their age. If it is profitable for the platform, why would it change?

Amid the accelerated expansion of the digital market, collective reflection becomes necessary. Technology is not, in itself, an enemy of childhood. It can broaden horizons, facilitate access to information, and stimulate creativity. The problem lies in the logic that transforms every experience into an opportunity for profit and every child into a potential brand.

Rescuing the value of free time, gradual learning, and imagination is essential to child development. It means recognizing that childhood should not be rushed or converted into a business strategy. Among filters, promises of wealth, and discourses of instant achievement, one essential question remains. What kind of society is being built when play is seen as a delay and financial success as the only measure of fulfillment? The answer involves shared responsibility. Families, schools, platforms, and public authorities all play a central role in protecting a stage of life that, by definition, should not be monetized.

     The accelerated growth of internet access over the past two decades has transformed habits, relationships, and patterns of consumption. Among the most sensitive effects of this expansion is the rise in online pornography consumption and, in parallel, the increase in cases of sexual crimes against children and adolescents in the digital environment. Experts point out that the combination of easy access, anonymity, and the massive circulation of content has created a scenario of constant risk for minors.

Data from cybercrime monitoring organizations indicate a rise in reports related to the circulation of child sexual abuse material. Social media platforms, messaging apps, and online forums have become spaces used both for the illegal sharing of images and for the grooming of victims. Criminal activity occurs strategically, exploiting emotional vulnerabilities and the lack of supervision.

Pornography consumption, in turn, has also shown an upward trend, including among adolescents. The ease of access through mobile devices and the absence of effective filters in many households contribute to explicit content being accessed at increasingly younger ages. Researchers warn that early exposure may affect the development of sexuality, create distorted perceptions of consent, and encourage inappropriate behaviors.

Although pornography and pedophilia are distinct phenomena, specialists emphasize that a culture of sexual hyperexposure and the normalization of increasingly extreme content create an environment that may facilitate criminal activity. The market logic of digital platforms, based on clicks and attention retention, often prioritizes sensationalist or provocative content, expanding the circulation of inappropriate material.

In cases involving pedophilia, the digital environment offers resources that make identifying those responsible more difficult. Fake profiles, private networks, and encryption systems allow organized groups to operate transnationally. Cooperation between police forces and international agencies has intensified, yet the volume of incidents represents an ongoing challenge for authorities.

Another concerning factor is the phenomenon of online grooming. Criminals establish contact with children and adolescents through games, social media, or messaging applications, building relationships of trust that may evolve into blackmail, exploitation, or the production of intimate images. In many cases, victims do not initially recognize the risk, believing they are interacting with someone in the same age group.

Legislation provides severe penalties for the production, storage, and sharing of child sexual abuse material, in addition to criminalizing online grooming. Brazil’s Child and Adolescent Statute and the Penal Code have been updated to address crimes committed in the digital environment. Even so, specialists advocate greater investment in prevention, digital education, and accessible reporting mechanisms.

Beyond the legal sphere, the debate also involves platform responsibility. Technology companies have been pressured to improve automatic detection systems for illegal images and to strengthen moderation policies. Civil society organizations argue that self regulation is not sufficient and call for stricter oversight and transparency rules.

Within families, guidance and dialogue are identified as central protective tools. The active presence of guardians in the digital lives of children and adolescents can reduce risks, identify warning signs, and strengthen the trust necessary for potential threats to be reported.

Technological progress has brought undeniable benefits, but it has also opened space for criminal practices that quickly adapt to new tools. Addressing the rise in pornography consumption among minors and the increase in cases of child sexual exploitation in digital media requires coordinated action. Investigations into child sexual exploitation crimes in the digital environment have brought to light, in recent years, an uncomfortable realization: abuse networks do not operate only on the margins of society or within isolated circles. In some cases, they approach spheres of economic and political power. The case of American financier Jeffrey Epstein became one of the most emblematic examples of this intersection between sexual crimes against minors and global elites.

Epstein was charged by United States authorities with sex trafficking and sexual abuse of minors. Investigations revealed a scheme in which young girls were groomed under promises of opportunities and financial compensation. The case gained international attention not only because of the severity of the accusations, but also because of the financier’s contact list, which included business leaders, academics, politicians, and figures associated with British royalty.

Court documents and flight records made public during legal proceedings showed that Epstein maintained social relationships with influential names in the financial market and other prestigious spheres. The mere presence of individuals in those records did not, in many cases, imply formal criminal charges. Nevertheless, the scandal exposed the proximity between circles of power and a man who would later be accused of orchestrating an exploitation scheme.

Among the most notable developments was the involvement of Prince Andrew, a member of the British royal family, who faced civil allegations related to the case. The lawsuit was settled out of court without an admission of guilt, but the episode caused institutional repercussions and significant public damage. In the financial sector, executives and investors who had maintained ties with Epstein were also subjected to scrutiny, pressuring companies and institutions to review past relationships.

Epstein’s death in 2019, while awaiting trial in custody, intensified debates about accountability, transparency, and possible institutional failures, including theories and investigations regarding the possibility that his death may have been staged. Parallel investigations continued examining networks of contacts, financial flows, and potential accomplices. The case also fueled questions about how influential figures may, for long periods, avoid full accountability.

In the broader context of child sexual exploitation and the increase of crimes in the digital environment, the episode highlighted a crucial aspect: such practices are not limited to isolated individuals or clandestine spaces on the deep web. They may involve structures of influence, informal protection, and, above all, the silencing of victims. The imbalance of power between high status defendants and young, vulnerable victims became central to public debate.

International human rights organizations note that cases involving elites tend to receive greater visibility but represent only a fraction of a global problem. The circulation of illegal material, online grooming, and transnational networks continue to challenge authorities. At the same time, the Epstein scandal reinforced the importance of independent investigative mechanisms and international cooperation to prevent social prestige from functioning as a shield against the law.

Experts state that the symbolic impact of the case was profound. By revealing connections between an individual accused of child sexual exploitation and influential sectors of the financial market and royalty, the episode challenged narratives that such crimes would be restricted to “marginalized” environments. It brought to the forefront the need for institutional transparency and reinforced protection for victims, regardless of the social position of those involved.

The debate remains open. Holding powerful individuals accountable, revising child protection protocols, and strengthening global policies against sexual exploitation continue to be central issues. The Epstein case, although unique in its media dimension, became a symbol of a broader issue: the urgency of confronting crimes against children without distinction of class, influence, or prestige. We all know who is being referenced. What is most outrageous is that seemingly nothing is happening to these people. Could it be because they are figures of importance within society, such as presidents, leaders of billion dollar companies, bankers, influencers, and monopoly owners?