There comes a point in one’s life, when age beckons a highly probable death in the near future. At that point, one’s view of the world may change, because the viewer will no longer participate in the current and near future world actions and inactions. A person could “die” while still alive, or “live” after death, even when the person knows that whatever the person says or does will have no effect on the person himself. The effect of the dead person will be on others, and live after him or her. There are a number of effects that could follow such knowledge.

1. Effect
   1. One driving effect of humans’ behavior is a desire to create or provide something that would last after one’s death. For example, children and grandchildren offer the older person a sense of longevity after death.
   2. A second effect is to provide money for a long-term, monument, such as having one’s name on an important institution. This has a similar effect of longevity or even eternal existence.
   3. A third effect is to provide a feeling to be shared and followed by many, that is, a people’s movement. A people’s movement is triggered by peoples’ feelings, upbringing and experiences. The feelings can be positive—hope, enjoyment of music, written and theatrical performances that are shared, a medical solution to other humans’ suffering, an idea which raises enjoyment, hope, and other positive feelings in others. Yet, these life-long effects can produce good or bad results, and could benefit other humans and their societies or destroy the quality of their lives and their societies. These catastrophic results cannot be controlled or affected by the person who planted them.
2. Choices of the “something” after death of the Haters
   1. Targets of blame. Pick as a target of blame those who are both:
      1. Very different from the haters
      2. Weaker than the haters.
   2. This movement may have started eons ago in cannibalism, that is, literally human eating each other’s flesh. Cannibalism aimed at meeting humans’ physical health need. To be able to kill other humans required distinguishing between humans: “Those that are members of my family, and those who are strangers.” In fact, the strangers looked usually a bit different, so that there was a weaker identification of the killers and the human food.
   3. Difference makes killing easier; identity makes killing harder.
      1. Therefore, it is not surprising that haters, who need a target to vent their anger, frustration, hunger, envy, and other reasons for hatred, yet worry about a backlash, choose to hate and kill those, who are physically different from them.
      2. Weak parties may include not only children, but also women, old people, sick people, ignorant people, and anyone, who could safely be an object against whom one could vent one’s frustration and anger.
3. Fear of death and promise of good life thereafter
   1. Like every unknown, death is scary. Humans have many versions of what happens after death. For centuries, humans believed (and millions still do), in a master–God–that rewards or punishes humans, depending on how they lived, and follow the human who speak for, and claim to represent the Gods.
   2. There are haters who believe that their God protects them and will reward them after death. Haters are promised by some God’s messengers of rewards for hurting non-believers. Beliefs of this sort are calming and relieving the fear of the unknown, and of one’s own current pain and anxieties.
   3. Thus, unknowns may create and offer humans a justification for hating other human-beings. Hate may lead to cruelty and death in the name of their Gods.
   4. However, there are haters who fear retribution after their own death. After all, the unknown may present unpleasant surprises as well. The result of this concern may provide incentives to be simultaneously cruel and charitable. Charity can be a safety key, like the money put aside in the safe for unexpected losses or needs.
4. The Impact of the leaders
   1. Leaders who are trained to lead from an early age may not aim or be aware of their capacity and desire to lead. They may end up as actors and musicians on stage, or teachers and politicians or innovators and writers. These abilities combine in different ways through various channels to affect more than a few people. Leaders need:a desire to lead, purpose of the leadership, which can be benefiting others or one-self or both, and an ability to influence and communicate with others to serve them and the objectives called by the leaders to follow.
   2. In sum, the road to leadership starts early in life and follows certain models. The models to the young may be the familiar people or continuous stories about leaders, and the encouragement and praise of attempting to lead.
5. The Role of the followers.
   1. Is it possible to be a follower and simultaneously play a role as a leader? These seem to be conflicting positions. One either leads or follows! The answer, however, may depend on the context of the grouping.
   2. A player in an orchestra must play his or her role with no diversion. That is because one player’s diversion will affect the entire product–the music which the orchestra aims to offer. Even the silence of the main violinist at the wrong time may mar the entire musical performance, whereas the silence of one singer in a choir might not, unless the singer is the soloist.
   3. To be sure, the power of the followers consists of their number and commitment to the leader and his or her mission. The larger the number of followers is, the stronger the leader is. The fewer are the number and impact the followers, the weaker the leader is. This conclusion is true not only in a democracy but in any group, including a family. Thus, the counter–pressure of a group of followers may affect the leader’s behavior and sometimes undermine the leader’s power entirely.
6. Conclusion: The role of leadership
   1. The drive to lead does not necessarily lead to creating value for others. Leaders can destroy, as well as build, depending, among other things on
      1.  The purpose, to which they lead;
      2.  The means, which they use to achieve the purpose;
      3.  The time-span involved in achieving the purpose; and
      4. The opposition to their purpose, both internal and external. All these issues are changeable and may be altered with changed circumstances and the results of the leaders’ own decisions and actions. Like almost everything else, including food and rest, leadership can add or destroy the very purpose and structure of its own power base. Rarely can leadership maintain the status quo without responding to the followers’ needs and the values that its followers seek. A leader, like a physician, must follow and respond to changes of its followers’ circumstances and views.
      5. However, leaders leave their mark, especially on the young generation that is most affected by the leaders’ values, actions and inactions. The values, and resulting actions of followers and oppositions, do not disappear with the leaders. Both producing and destructive, these values and practices stay with the generation of supporters and most importantly, with the younger generation that was inculcated with these values.
      6. Consequently, both destructive and constructive values and their implementation are likely to stay until they might be adjusted to the changing values and circumstances.
   2. In some respects, humans and viruses are similar. Both react to change and adjust by the strongest incentive: survival. However, unlike the virus, humans are more able to make choices. They are not locked to the genes. Therefore, their survival depends not only on instinct and ability but mainly in their values, judgment and care for other humans.

In sum: The fate of humanity depends on humans’ leadership. That is–on the humans themselves.