Who Will Ask the Questions Latin America Has Not Yet Asked?

We Are Also Shaped by the Choices We Never Had

They called the Americas:

The New World.

New to whom?

Before Europeans arrived, there were already peoples, languages, knowledge systems, forms of government, and different ways of living with rivers, forests, animals, and territory.

Colonization did not find an America without questions.

Perhaps many questions simply stopped entering the places where we later decided what counted as:

Science.
Law.
Economics.
Politics.

So we can begin together with a BrainLatam phrase:

We are also shaped by the choices we never had.

If only A and B are placed before us, we may feel that we chose freely.

But who decided that C would never appear?

Perhaps this is also a Latin American problem.

Not only finding new answers.

But being able to formulate questions that our previous model did not even know it needed to ask.

What if Brazil is still “a thing for the rich”?

BrainLatam has used the expression “things for the rich” to observe structures that are mainly available to those who possess a great deal of capital:

large law firms;

investment funds;

holding companies;

sophisticated financial planning;

multiple corporate entities;

institutional access;

the ability to litigate for years.

The idea is not that being wealthy is a crime.

Nor that owning funds or companies means hiding something.

Funds and corporate entities are legal instruments.

The problem begins when so many layers accumulate that we start to lose a simple question:

Who actually controls what?

BrainLatam has already used “things for the rich” to describe structures in which major consequences can become less visible because there are more legal, economic, and institutional layers between those who make decisions and those who experience the effects.

Perhaps Brazil is still very good at seeing what is small.

One person.

One taxpayer ID.

One simple crime.

One signature.

But it may struggle more when it needs to see:

one company inside another;
one fund inside another;
one company controlling another;
capital moving through several structures.

The Master case gives us a window

We do not need to decide today who is guilty.

The case is still under investigation.

We can simply observe its complexity.

In February 2026, Brazil’s Securities and Exchange Commission reported that it had administrative proceedings involving institutions linked to the Master and REAG groups and other connected entities, including investors, administrators, and investment-fund managers.

The Central Bank also had to deal with different companies within the Master conglomerate separately, each with its own corporate registration and legal status.

In public CVM data, one Master fund appeared with assets of roughly R$847 million, with almost all of its assets invested in shares of another fund.

None of this, by itself, proves illegality.

But it shows us the question:

When money moves through many legal entities and funds, how much harder does it become to reconstruct its history?

Perhaps this is where “a thing for the rich” stops meaning only luxury.

It may also mean:

the ability to create layers.

Before the banker, there was a Body-Territory

Daniel Vorcaro was not born a banker.

Before that there were:

family;

education;

relationships;

real estate;

capital;

opportunities.

Then came:

Banco Máxima;

Banco Master;

funds;

companies;

political relationships;

regulators;

investigations;

the Supreme Federal Court.

Our ascending spiral becomes simple:

Body-Territory
→ family
→ company
→ capital
→ bank
→ politics
→ State
→ Supreme Court.

This does not mean that one stage necessarily caused the next.

The spiral exists precisely so that we can ask:

Which arrow can we actually demonstrate?

Before the justice, there was also a Body-Territory

The same applies to those who judge.

André Mendonça was not born a Supreme Court justice.

His trajectory passed through public advocacy, the Bolsonaro administration, the Ministry of Justice, the Attorney General’s Office, and the Presbyterian Church. His nomination was also politically presented within Bolsonaro’s earlier promise to appoint an evangelical justice. Mendonça, in turn, publicly affirmed his commitment to a secular State.

Flávio Dino arrived through another path:

the judiciary;

university;

politics;

the government of Maranhão;

the Ministry of Justice;

Lula’s nomination to the Supreme Court.

Different trajectories.

But in 2024 something interesting happened.

When judging whether crucifixes and other religious symbols could remain in public buildings, Dino, Mendonça, and the entire Supreme Court reached the same conclusion: those symbols could remain when understood as part of Brazil’s historical and cultural tradition.

So we can ask:

What if the model that comes before the judge is, in some cases, more important than the differences between the judges themselves?

A Republic founded within a long European and Christian tradition may present some categories as natural.

Others appear less clearly.

And where is the Biome in this Republic?

Our Constitution protects the environment.

It protects Indigenous rights.

That matters.

But the Biome often enters the legal system as:

resource;
property;
protected area;
license;
environmental damage.

The Body-Territory may appear as:

victim;
owner;
defendant;
creditor;
voter.

The BrainLatam question is:

What if Body-Territory and Biome were not only things protected by the Republic, but also units used to evaluate its decisions?

Because the spiral also descends.

Supreme Court
→ interpretation
→ State
→ rules
→ companies
→ territory
→ Biome
→ Body-Territory.

A decision made in Brasília may end years later in:

water;

air;

forest;

work;

movement;

health;

or death.

Who is able to repeat more?

There is another problem.

In the BrainLatam hypothesis of 5D Consciousness, what returns repeatedly to our perceptual field may remain more available to participate in what we feel and judge.

This does not mean repetition automatically controls someone.

It means:

what returns many times competes for more space in our perceptual temporality.

And money can buy repetition.

Advertising.

Lawyers.

Influencers.

Public relations.

Events.

Content.

Presence in the media.

So perhaps there is another “thing for the rich”:

the power to repeat one’s own version more often.

Meanwhile:

a river has no press office.

A forest cannot buy advertising.

A murdered Body-Territory cannot return tomorrow to repeat its own story.

Perhaps a democratic Constitution also needs to protect what cannot compete for the agenda.

And what happens when the case ends?

Here a possible Latin American question appears.

When a major case reaches limitation periods, is archived, or has evidence excluded, legal safeguards must be respected.

But does the Republic need to forget everything it learned about the relationships that appeared during the investigation?

Imagine high-impact cases involving more than R$1 million, public funds, Biomes, or serious violations against Body-Territories.

Lawfully obtained evidence could feed a large, protected public memory.

Not to automatically convict someone in the future.

But to allow an auditable government AI to identify relations such as:

this company appeared again;
this fund appeared again;
this corporate entity connects to another;
this property emerged in another case fifteen years later.

Brazil already has part of this infrastructure.

DataJud centralizes Judiciary data.

SireneJud can already connect court cases to Indigenous lands, Quilombola territories, deforestation, mining, and other geographic information.

So perhaps we can ask:

If we can already make a court case reconnect with a territory, why could we not make a case today reconnect with another case from twenty years ago?

The AI would not decide guilt.

It would only show where there are new arrows worth investigating.

Who will ask these questions?

Perhaps this brings us back to the beginning.

Yásnaya Elena Aguilar Gil, in Mexico, shows how languages and cultural differences can disappear when a dominant structure decides what deserves to remain.

Danilo Silva Guimarães, in Brazil, proposes that the encounter with Indigenous knowledge should be able to transform Psychology’s own categories, rather than simply adding new participants to old categories.

Latin American researchers have also shown that our Neuroscience faces an opportunity gap: less infrastructure, funding, and access means less ability to choose which questions get investigated.

Therefore:

it is not enough to invite Latin Americans to answer questions produced elsewhere.

We need to create conditions for them to formulate different ones.

This is the sense in which BrainLatam sponsors, but does not organize or direct, NeuroDesafio LATAM.

The goal should not be to produce young people who agree with us.

It should be to increase the number of young people capable of asking:

Why did you start at this point?

Who disappeared behind these funds?

Who actually controls these corporate entities?

Why does the Biome only appear after the damage?

Why did the process forget?

Which choice was never made available to us?

Perhaps they will discover that some BrainLatam hypotheses were wrong.

Good.

A question does not need to protect the person who formulated it.

It needs to help us see more clearly.

BrainLatam Question

If we are also shaped by the choices we never had, how many structures do we continue to call “normal” only because we never had the opportunity to formulate another question about them?

Perhaps Brazil still remains, in many ways, a thing for the rich.

Not simply because very wealthy people exist.

But because those with greater resources may also have more ways to:

fragment;
represent;
appeal;
repeat;
and remain difficult to see.

Perhaps the most important contribution of a Latin American Science is exactly this:

to make visible what our previous models learned not to ask.

References — Post-2021

Aguilar Gil, Y. E. (2022). Ää: manifiestos sobre la diversidad lingüística. Almadía, Mexico.

Guimarães, D. S. (2022). A Tarefa Histórica da Psicologia Indígena diante dos 60 anos da Regulamentação da Psicologia no Brasil. Psicologia: Ciência e Profissão, 42.

Silva, A. et al. (2022). Addressing the opportunity gap in the Latin American neuroscience community. Nature Neuroscience, 25, 1115–1118.

Báez, S.; Alladi, S.; Ibáñez, A. (2023). Global South research is critical for understanding brain health, ageing and dementia. Clinical and Translational Medicine, 13, e1486.

BrainLatam (2026). Estado Psicópata e Coisas de Rico and related texts on the idea that complex economic structures can produce asymmetries of visibility and power.

CVM (2026). Administrative proceedings involving Grupo Master, REAG, and connected entities.

Central Bank of Brazil (2026). Proceedings involving institutions within the Master conglomerate and the separate legal entities involved.

Supreme Federal Court of Brazil (2024). Theme 1,086 — religious symbols in public buildings.

“We are also shaped by the choices we never had. Perhaps the most radical contribution Latin America can make is not another answer, but a way of making visible what our previous models learned not to ask.”