A border is also a limit. Crossing the limit entails a hypothetical forbidden fruit. A desirable entity with embargo has a heightened dark allure. Humankind can only be so good at resisting temptation. Think of the rainbow myth. The border between land and the end of the rainbow supposedly boasts a generous pot of gold and a dressed-in-green dwarf. As a child, would it be strange for someone to have even the slightest ponder at the rumoured riches? Most likely not. But an adult believing the very same thing would be frowned upon, it’s clearly probable, arguably certain. There have been many times when adults wish to return to their youthful days, they receive a nostalgic desire to enjoy the fewer restraints of childhood. There must have been a few adults who went to look for this pot of gold. Some may even believe this myth all of their life. This is the border between what we like to call innocence and maturity. Again we come across a restricting limit, a societal border one may call it. And again we witness temptation.
So does a border automatically indicate temptation?
When we consider man-made political borders, surely temptation is out of reach for people affected ? That’s right, most likely not. But the temptation of land encroachment, invading and ownership is a highly prized asset for powers; powers such as governments, local authorities and political figures. Even an extra 20 km squared of land is worth displacing people and ordering trained military workers to physically dispute over. Here we meet a furtherance of temptation: greed.
Was greed not also the start of the very idea of crossing a border? Maybe the causations and effects of borders occur multiple times in a cyclic manner. To summarise: borders cause temptation, further temptation causes greed, greed is what leads to new borders being made or further protection of existing borders.
Putting this in a diagram would look something like this:
