There will still be crime and criminal activities: some as old as civilization (e.g., prostitution and human trafficking), some new in form if not essence (e.g., cybercrime). There will still natural disasters, social upheaval, family breakups, poverty and assassinations. There will even still be a need for a limited military action in one hapless part of the world or another.
Indeed, a world without mass slaughter and genocide will still be highly imperfect and deeply flawed, and we will still find many causes for misery and sadness in it. So, why is it being portrayed as an impossible achievement, as an unrealistic, utopic and idealistic expectation?
“A world without genocide and mass slaughter is a goal worth pursuing, and it’s about time we put some serious effort into it.”
But no, you have nothing to worry about, o realists of the world. A future without mass killing will still provide you with plenty of opportunities for cold and rational calculations that can allow you to remain indifferent to many other aspects of our individual and collective suffering as you pursue your various agendas: ideological, geopolitical, parochial, criminal.
Bringing an end to one aspect of our suffering, one that is increasingly robbing us of any serious justification for our very existence, will not make us perfect and ideal. As such, it is quite a possible undertaking, and not only a necessary one, and can indeed be embraced in the name of the very cold, rational and calculating realism with which killing itself is often pursued.
In short, there is nothing unrealistic about this expectation, even if its achievement will prove to be a difficult and complicated undertaking. A world without genocide and mass slaughter is a goal worth pursuing, and it’s about time we put some serious effort into it.
The Ammar Abdulhamid Archive 