Overview
HOW MANY LIVES ARE WE WILLING TO SACRIFICE IN THE NAME OF PEACE? In my earlier essay, Visibility of Good and Bad, I explored why Bad is so loud, aggressive, and visible, while Good quietly goes about its business, almost unnoticed. Now I take that disturbing contrast much further. What happens when Good and Bad become organized systems of religion, political ideology, government, and military power? I examine two contrasting religious-political systems: Judaic/Hebrew Democracy, represented by Israel, and Authoritarian Political Islamism, represented by a projected theocratic Caliphate. My central test comes from another of my essays: Leave Us Alone vs. Be Like Us or Die. Can a system accept the existence of people who refuse its authority, or must it impose its beliefs and political order upon them? But the investigation leads me to an even more uncomfortable question: Is peaceful coexistence worth preserving at any price? What if containment merely postpones another war, another massacre, another generation growing up under threat? Drawing on my experience in nuclear safety and risk assessment, I examine the consequences of action versus inaction, including economic pressure, ideological confrontation, military intervention, and the possibility that decisive action may ultimately save more lives than endless accommodation. I also examine the opposite danger: an intervention that defeats an enemy militarily but creates an even greater catastrophe. I do not believe peace is the highest good when its price becomes permanent insecurity, repeated slaughter, or surrender of freedom. The objective must be preserving human life and the right to exist without submission. I suggest starting by listening to or watching the short podcast, then reading the full essay (PDF) for the reasoning, historical context, future scenarios, and risk-and-consequence analysis behind my conclusions. And my apologies for the podcasters' endless disclaimers that they are not responsible for my views! Apparently, my opinions require a warning label. Let me spare them the trouble: the views are mine, and I take full responsibility for them. I invite you to challenge my arguments. Particularly where you think I am wrong.