This is a comment on criticism on the fight against religious extremists that has lasted for 30 years. The critique was about it lasting for 30 years without any conclusive result. My comment about that is:
tl;dr: The success being that there still is someone left to fight the war, so there can be a person that can criticize it lasting so long. = your standard of living is what necessitates the war. There's is no supply without demand. Wars aren't fought just for giggles, you know, it's expensive.
There is always an opposition, and defending your own stance, your own existence is a never ending battle. So 30 years is very little.
I mean I myself have fought against mosquitoes and horseflies for [at least] 30 years too, so they wouldn't eat me alive (I know it's a shitty analogy, but they are in a way negating my existence to benefit theirs) and that war against those entities hasn't ended, so have I failed? Should I have eradicated them all to "claim victory"? Negotiated with them? Or just killed the ones that attacked me and the ones which were about to, like I have done to this day.. With great success to my continuity, I might add.
But I must point out that nuking the extremists from the face of the earth will spawn sympathizers, those whom romanticize the defeated. Thus continuing the existence of the opposition.
But then again, that bridge should be crossed when arrived to. There is no light without the darkness, so you can never get rid of the opposition, the other; you will never be able to end the resistance, so to say. There will always be trouble in some form, something that tries to negate you. That's what life is about: fighting adversities to justify one's own existence.
If you try to "unite us all" and all that world peace stuff, then the infighting starts. It's natural, the organism starts attacking itself. You can see this right now: suicides due to existential crises, inventing non-existent problems, overreacting. The westerners are attacking themselves, because things are too good. There are no real adversities.
Anyway, on a sidenote: civilizations are bubbles like anything else. The growth of it will cause the individual molecules to be pulled apart to the point they can't no longer hold onto each other; they can't keep it together. A bubble is essentially a sphere so each molecule has inherently a different vector, an individual path so to say, that will eventually separate the connection to the molecule next to it (to the fellow-molecule;), if the bubble were to inflate, expand and grow. To put it melodramatically: the direction of their life is pulling them apart.
Adjacent bubbles can share a wall and support each other, if the other directions offer less resistance. If there are no other directions to expand to, then the bubbles are fighting each other for expansion, like different strains bacteria on a petri dish fighting over the growth medium (analogous to the land, living space, resources etc).
The stronger bubble will win, the weaker will either be absorbed, or burst and possibly causing a shock wave that can burst the dominant bubble too. In some cases a smaller bubble may pass through the wall of the stronger one, leaving them both intact but with the smaller one being able to grow within the larger one. (this is somewhat analogous to a cancer cell, maybe to an viral infection or ahem.. to certain ideologies in a society)
No comments:
Post a Comment