At the age of 7, I first learned about the millions of people facing starvation worldwide. The revelation shocked me, prompting questions about why everyone was aware of this issue, yet the world didn’t seem to come to a halt to address it immediately. It deeply broke my heart, leaving me pondering how such an atrocity could exist.
I learned about poverty and money, and it struck me as deeply ironic and confusing that despite money being a human invention, it has both caused starvation and made solving the issue seemingly impossible.
I was told about poor infrastructure and unequal distribution of resources, lack of innovation. Not to mention the contentious notion of overpopulation, which seemingly implies a callous indifference to strangers’ lives. This information left me perplexed because if we are aware of these specific problems, why are we not collectively prioritizing solutions for them?
The common explanation for the intense suffering caused by global hunger often boils down to a dismissive sentiment: “That’s just how things are,” or “It has always been this way.” This attitude fails to acknowledge the gravity of the issue.
As I got older, I wondered whether there was a general lack of concern and empathy about starvation. Could it be that people only express concern when they personally encounter it? Why do we allow millions to starve? Out-of-sight, out-of-mind, I suppose? Is it because it’s easier to ignore when it’s not directly in front of us? By turning a blind eye, are we shirking our responsibility to address the pervasive agony of starvation? It seems as though our focus is solely on self-preservation.
I didn’t have the answers, but the responses I received didn’t seem to address the depth of my concerns. My heart was hurting, and the simplistic ideas presented as “answers” didn’t align with the gravity of the situation.
In my younger years, I also encountered the harsh reality of war, and it profoundly shook me. The disbelief and the continued heartbreak it stirred within me rendered me hopeless and helpless. While addressing world starvation seems intricate due to numerous factors and a lack of collective efforts to innovate solutions. However, choosing war is a deliberate decision. We have the power to consciously avoid war and seek solutions that prevent feelings of hatred, revenge, and persistent ongoing back-and-forth violence. By doing so, we also alleviate the profound wounds of trauma, suffering, sorrow, grief, and irreplaceable loss that war inflicts.
I found it hard to comprehend how easily people decide to go to war without giving it much thought, simply because “you have to eliminate the bad guys before they start killing more of us.” The logic behind it is astonishing: the idea that “we must resort to murder to establish peace.” Is that truly how peace is achieved?
I once came across the analogy that going to war for the sake of peace is akin to “engaging in sex with virgins to preserve virginity.” It’s a thought-provoking comparison.
Doesn’t murder go against the concept of peace? The cycle of war seems poised to perpetuate itself, spawning additional conflicts and wars rather than ushering in peace. Those whom we have targeted are prone to retaliate, fueled by a desire for vengeance against the harm inflicted upon them and their loved ones. Consider this: if everyone you cherished were either murdered or their lives shattered into devastation, wouldn’t the urge for revenge be irresistible? Imagine standing in their shoes, with nothing left to lose—what other recourse remains? You don’t have to advocate for it to understand and relate to it; you can grasp and connect with something without actively promoting it, and it doesn’t require advocacy; it only demands empathy.
In essence, we are creating a timeline where we’re perpetuating the cycle of war. How can we not foresee that obvious future outcome? It’s no wonder that the relentless cycle of war, torture, and the utter loss of everything often breeds the seeds of terrorism. Terrorizing people with war will inevitably reveal the profound repercussions of them engaging in acts of terrorism. When powerful nations trample upon the fundamental right of individuals to simply live as human beings, it’s not surprising that terrorists emerge from the ashes of such terror. Despite our profound intelligence, why do we consistently overlook such glaringly evident connections?
The events of 9/11 unfolded in America, bringing back the familiar sense of heartbreak I experienced when I first learned about wars at the age of 7. It was a recurrence of the same questions, and with similar answers:
“We must kill these terrorists because they do not want peace. There’s no communicating with them because they are insane. They are just insane for no reason at all.”
Me: Surely there’s a reason why? Is there a specific reason for them behaving insane?
“No, it’s just a general hatred for Americans.”
Me: But what’s the root cause?
“They envy what Americans have.”
Me: Isn’t there more to the story? If they desire the same privileges, why not just become American instead of hating Americans?
“Well, they’re insane, and we don’t negotiate with terrorists. So, the only solution is murdering them. Wartime!”
Yet, human behavior is not random; there is a discernible reason behind our actions. We observe that our actions tend to adhere to predictable patterns with specific outcomes. This phenomenon is known as the discovery of human psychology, which is characterized by cause-and-effect relationships and the consequences of our reactions.
Cultural, social, individual, and situational factors all play a role in shaping behavior, and we know this through our discoveries in human psychology. Additionally, human behavior is also influenced by unconscious processes or external stimuli that individuals may not be consciously aware of but can be observed and addressed.
Unfortunately, however, our society grapples with a profound misunderstanding of basic human psychology. This misapprehension fosters a mistaken belief that individuals can inexplicably exhibit irrational behavior, transforming into terrorists solely due to some vague conditioning, devoid of any other underlying motivations or repercussions.
Our approach to resolving conflicts through war is highly lacking in intelligence on many fronts when considering predictable human psychology, emotional intelligence, and a comprehension of historical conflicts that have shaped back-and-forth wars. War is considered the only acceptable solution to our human society due to a deficiency in educating our society on the essential foundations needed to address conflicts without resorting to war.
What I’m saying here is not as complex as rocket science or brain surgery. The comparison is odd, considering that even those intelligent individuals involved in advanced fields like rocket science and brain surgery can endorse primitive and barbaric “solutions” like wars.
And if you’re opposed to wars, there’s a false perception that you’re considered unreasonable for not supporting the soldiers who fought to secure the rights you enjoy today in your country. It seems that you’re expected to endorse the act of murder in order to appreciate the privileges of your country, and if you don’t then somehow you’re against your own country.
In America, when men turn 18, they are required to sign the Selective Service System registration form. I chose not to sign it, even though my mom warned me that not signing could lead to jail time. Despite the consequences, I’d rather go to jail than endorse and engage in war. The notion of war being an honorable pursuit is nothing but folly; it is sheer stupidity. I steadfastly advocate for peace as the ultimate resolution and vehemently reject any involvement in warfare, as it inherently contradicts the essence of peace.
If you seek alternative solutions beyond the conventional narrative, the majority will brand you as a troublemaker, implying that your dissenting views on American wars strip you of the right to be considered a true American. Embracing blind dogmatic patriotism for wars and blind loyalty is the only path; any deviation renders one dead to society because they hold no chance of adding anything valuable.
But I don’t support ANY war.
This includes the current war and the next war. Certainly, the specter of future wars looms ominously as long as war remains the default resolution. The perpetuation of warfare spawns a vicious cycle, making it clear that I unequivocally don’t support the next war.
I refrain from taking sides in war. Instead, my focus lies on the profound human suffering that prevails during times of war. My fervent desire is for an immediate cessation of hostilities, putting an end to the anguish caused by war.
I refuse to talk to anyone about anything else but the ending of the war, while war is happening. Regardless of the parties involved or the reasons for the war, engaging in any other topic seems trivial, to divert to other subjects feels shallow, deeply insignificant, pulls attention from what truly matters, intellectually distracting, a betrayal of what’s truly pivotal, and devoid of genuine empathy.
Yet, it appears that most conversations veer away from the pressing issue. Therefore, I choose to disengage entirely from such discussions. My exclusive interest lies in advocating for the end of the war, and I have no further inclination to engage in dialogue on any other subject until a solution to that imperative is found. While many seem entranced by peripheral topics, my heart screams with one urgent cry: “End the war now!”
Wars are not just innocent defense. Let’s not pretend that there isn’t substantial financial gain in wars, along with opportunities to seize property and resources.
In the midst of war’s chaos, my heart bleeds with profound grief. To witness war and remain indifferent implies that the heart is detached and cold. To truly understand, one must transcend the confines of biased thought patterns and embrace raw unfiltered empathy. By transcending rigid intellectual stances and shedding unconscious biases, you open the door to a profound empathy that resides deep within our hearts. This, in turn, unveils a cascade of heartbreak when confronted with the harrowing realities of war. Only then can one truly feel the crushing weight of such devastating human tragedies.
While some may engage in virtue signaling, dismissing all expressions of war-induced heartbreak as mere posturing of “virtue signaling” reveals more about your character and the thick crusty cold mold around your desensitized heart than it does about the genuine anguish of another’s empathetic pain. It’s a mirror reflecting not their pretense, but your own hardened detachment from true empathy. Those who frequently accuse others of “virtue signaling” often expose themselves and reveal a deficiency in their own emotional capacity, highlighting a notable inability to empathize with others.
My compassion extends beyond national, racial, political, religious, or any other group affiliations. I firmly feel that, as a collective humanity, we should prioritize the significance of alleviating suffering through empathy over engaging in intellectual debates about who is right in the war. This is a principle and value I consider crucial and worth standing united for.
If we fail to find an alternative to war, your country could and likely will eventually experience war and even nukes, and by then, it will be too late to truly matter. Avoiding war should always be the priority. If, however, it becomes necessary, we must only engage in war after thoroughly exhausting absolutely all other possible solutions. Let’s not deceive ourselves—currently, war is the default response because one side or the other is going to greatly benefit from it.
As a society, if we genuinely cared, we would refuse to tolerate nor accept war’s immense wickedness, extreme cruelty, and unimaginable suffering as a so-called “solution.”
I seek a universally sensible solution that can benefit everyone. It baffles me that as a collective humanity, we refuse to achieve this. Harnessing the power of our intellect far surpasses the antiquated practice of waging wars in our contemporary era. War is a practice fit for primitive cavemen lacking the intelligence to predict outcomes and timelines. We say we are civilized, but we don’t conduct ourselves in a truly civilized manner. Given the vast capabilities of modern human beings, I find such behavior utterly intolerable.