2010-2020 saw more mass protests around the world than at any other point in human history, but the societal changes that resulted were often the opposite of what protesters demanded. Author Vincent Bevins explains why.
Because why add to the unnecessary suffering in the world if we don’t want it for ourselves and we don’t need to create it at all?
For example, I have a chronic pain medical condition. It blows chunks and I wouldn’t wish its effects on anyone - even the people who would kill me for not being as able-bodied as most others. If the people who cause misery experiencing my pain wouldn’t cure me, what would be the purpose? At best they would be more miserable and then inflict that additional misery on others who don’t deserve the extra misery either.
It seems like a futile and painful self-perpetuating cycle.
Ultimately, the ideal (but incredibly unrealistic) solution would be a global, coordinated effort to immediately remove from power everyone who abuses their power along with a dedication to continuing to do so whenever another pops up, regardless of the personal cost. Bringing them down with us is only slightly less unrealistic.
I ultimately have no desire to see them suffer, I simply want them out of power, and I think that for the sake of the future, it’s worth any cost that they might pay.
As John Brown said: “I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood. I had, as I now think, vainly flattered myself that without very much bloodshed it might be done.” And he was right about that. If we cannot achieve a better future with little bloodshed, then we owe it to the future to achieve it with any amount of bloodshed necessary.
No amount of suffering that those in power experience could ever match the amount of suffering that forever failing to remedy the problem will cause to the quadrillions of humans that could exist in the future or even just the billions that exist now. If we humans unable to band together to eliminate threats, even those from within, then we will suffer like this forever. It’s better to try and fail than to passively allow it to continue for the rest of history.
No amount of suffering that those in power experience could ever match the amount of suffering that forever failing to remedy the problem will cause to the quadrillions of humans that could exist in the future or even just the billions that exist now. If we humans unable to band together to eliminate threats, even those from within, then we will suffer like this forever. It’s better to try and fail than to passively allow it to continue for the rest of history.
I think that this argument has merit, and I’m not ruling anything out. I just want to make sure we truly test the theory that less-damaging options are not effective enough before assuming John Brown’s conclusion applies to more than his situation. Especially in a world that has changed a lot in nearly 200 years. We have new tools worth trying.
Because why add to the unnecessary suffering in the world if we don’t want it for ourselves and we don’t need to create it at all?
For example, I have a chronic pain medical condition. It blows chunks and I wouldn’t wish its effects on anyone - even the people who would kill me for not being as able-bodied as most others. If the people who cause misery experiencing my pain wouldn’t cure me, what would be the purpose? At best they would be more miserable and then inflict that additional misery on others who don’t deserve the extra misery either.
It seems like a futile and painful self-perpetuating cycle.
Ultimately, the ideal (but incredibly unrealistic) solution would be a global, coordinated effort to immediately remove from power everyone who abuses their power along with a dedication to continuing to do so whenever another pops up, regardless of the personal cost. Bringing them down with us is only slightly less unrealistic.
I ultimately have no desire to see them suffer, I simply want them out of power, and I think that for the sake of the future, it’s worth any cost that they might pay.
As John Brown said: “I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood. I had, as I now think, vainly flattered myself that without very much bloodshed it might be done.” And he was right about that. If we cannot achieve a better future with little bloodshed, then we owe it to the future to achieve it with any amount of bloodshed necessary.
No amount of suffering that those in power experience could ever match the amount of suffering that forever failing to remedy the problem will cause to the quadrillions of humans that could exist in the future or even just the billions that exist now. If we humans unable to band together to eliminate threats, even those from within, then we will suffer like this forever. It’s better to try and fail than to passively allow it to continue for the rest of history.
I think that this argument has merit, and I’m not ruling anything out. I just want to make sure we truly test the theory that less-damaging options are not effective enough before assuming John Brown’s conclusion applies to more than his situation. Especially in a world that has changed a lot in nearly 200 years. We have new tools worth trying.