It’s easy to say you’re not calling for violence, but I don’t see any way you could adopt this without violence, even if you had the technology to allow for it.
Ok, I accept your report that YOU don’t see this. That’s completely normal. There’s a lot of it I don’t see either. But once we TRY to see, some possibilities can emerge.
I agree that within the current group consensus, a “world without men” proposal will be widely, if not universally, rejected. I’ve been writing about this for years now, and that is what the evidence does show. But the current group consensus is not locked in concrete, and I propose that it will be edited by large real world events which are probably coming.
The problem is that the potential collapse of civilization is currently an abstraction, and most people are unable to engage abstractions emotionally. Real world events are likely to transform such an abstraction in to a form that large numbers of people can engage emotionally.
To pick an example randomly out of the hat, imagine even a limited nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India. More people will die in a few minutes than died in all of WWII. Global media will ABSOLUTELY OBSESS over this event for months or longer. Graphic scenes of mass destruction and vast suffering will be pumped in to every home across the civilized world, day after day after day after day. And then...
Large numbers of people across the world will finally grasp that this could happen to them too. They’ll grasp it where it matters, emotionally, not just intellectually.
What happens next is anybody’s guess, but it seems fair to claim the group consensus will then be up for grabs.
Human beings don’t learn things this large through reason alone. We learn primarily through pain. And lots of pain is most likely coming.
Ok, I accept your report that YOU don’t see this. That’s completely normal. There’s a lot of it I don’t see either. But once we TRY to see, some possibilities can emerge.
I agree that within the current group consensus, a “world without men” proposal will be widely, if not universally, rejected. I’ve been writing about this for years now, and that is what the evidence does show. But the current group consensus is not locked in concrete, and I propose that it will be edited by large real world events which are probably coming.
The problem is that the potential collapse of civilization is currently an abstraction, and most people are unable to engage abstractions emotionally. Real world events are likely to transform such an abstraction in to a form that large numbers of people can engage emotionally.
To pick an example randomly out of the hat, imagine even a limited nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India. More people will die in a few minutes than died in all of WWII. Global media will ABSOLUTELY OBSESS over this event for months or longer. Graphic scenes of mass destruction and vast suffering will be pumped in to every home across the civilized world, day after day after day after day. And then...
Large numbers of people across the world will finally grasp that this could happen to them too. They’ll grasp it where it matters, emotionally, not just intellectually.
What happens next is anybody’s guess, but it seems fair to claim the group consensus will then be up for grabs.
Human beings don’t learn things this large through reason alone. We learn primarily through pain. And lots of pain is most likely coming.