|
Prolog - Part 3: A dialog from a novelThe brief scenario below is an expert from the story "Perfidious Albion," from my novel, "Winning without Victory." The story is a dialog between an imperial recruiter and a protagonist, his reluctant victim. It took me a long time before I could respond to the man. I was too stunned by his arrogance and his brutality, and his total lack of humanity. Still, I needed this dialog. I needed it to continue. I had a golden opportunity presented to me to talk some sense into someone in high places, to reason with him about truth, about the value of humanity and about the dignity of human life. I had no idea if this would be possible. I felt that if I could get one idea across to him, one single aspect of a single universal principle by way of a constructive dialog, I might win a great victory, greater than anything that has been achieved at the entire conference. I told him that I perceived that he wanted to create global poverty by which he expects humanity to become corrupted into becoming his empire's slaves as it had been during the darkest ages of unbridled feudalism. I told him that this would drive humanity back to a life of misery and starvation by which half of humanity would die. I suggested that this is what the world would be like without technological progress and cultural development. He asked me with some obvious surprise why I must always insist on defending humanity. Didn't I realize that humanity is only a tiny part of the living system of the Earth, and that we cannot sacrifice the Earth for humanity, that it must be the other way around? He said that humanity must be kept in chains, be divided, conquered, and be ruled over, or else it will make the world its playground, as it has already done to some extent, and will take from the Earth whatever it wants to in order to support its prosperous living. God, what could I say to counter this argument of insanity in a way that would make sense to him? I suggested to him that he was a hypocrite and for good reasons, because when humanity were to achieve its prosperous living, then it would not have to take its living from the Earth at all, but would create with the resources of its intelligence as human beings what the Earth itself can never provide. I suggested to him that if this were prevented, as he aims to do, then the Earth would indeed be too small. By itself the Earth could support no more than 10% of the present population. The rest is supported by technologies derived from scientific and technological development. I suddenly stopped and laughed. I finally figured him out. I told him that if scientific and technological progress were to be fully allowed and actively promoted, it would create a richer world for humanity than we can yet imagine, with vastly larger populations all around the world. It suggested to him that the Earth would indeed become too small for them then, as he keeps saying. Except it wouldn't be too small for mankind. It would be too small for the fondi. It would leave no room for the fondi to have an empire. I pointed out that mankind would find its world infinitely richer and more spacious, and more beautiful, so much so that the imperials wouldn't find the smallest niche to exist and have the slightest chance for their empires to continue looting society as they do today. "Is this what you really mean with the world becoming too small? Is that what you are terrified of?" I asked. "That's what you really mean when you say that the world is becoming too small, isn't it? Human progress would leave you no room for your looting insanity to flourish. That's what you are afraid of. That's why human progress terrifies you so much that you try to stomp it into the ground at every opportunity you get. Isn't that so? Your fondi and all the world's would-be imperials would become an extinct species." || - page index - || - chapter index - || - Exit - ||
|
