Thou Shalt Not Kill

By definition, we rarely - or never - think of a post-apocalyptic world as something that resembles a comedy. I mean, what’s to laugh at? The world as we, or the victims of such a situation, knew it, is gone. Everybody feels lost, disoriented, uncertain, frightened. 

However, let’s look at what ‘apocalypse’ means. After that, we can discuss what post-apocalypse means. Warning: We did our homework. We consulted dictionary.com (giving credit where credit is due, no plagiarism here) and got the following definitions for apocalypse:

noun

1. any of a class of Jewish or Christian writings that appeared from about 200 b.c. to a.d. 350 and were assumed to make revelations of the ultimate divine purpose.

2. a prophetic revelation, especially concerning a cataclysm in which the forces of good permanently triumph over the forces of evil.

3. any revelation or prophecy.

4. any universal or widespread destruction or disaster: the apocalypse of nuclear war.

Hopefully everybody has read the four definitions and has noticed the obvious. Nevertheless, just in case subtlety is not everyone’s forte, I will point out that our most common conception of an apocalypse is as a catastrophic event, like a plague or a nuclear bomb. Destruction, in a word, of all we know, all that guides us. That’s an apocalypse. However, that is not the complete interpretation. It is only partial, and look how dictionary.com offers that meaning as the last of four.

Does this mean we been misled by all the apocalyptic films, novels, and video games that promote the end-of-the-world scenario? It would seem so, at least in my peacenik’s opinion. I am interested in transparency, so am telling you right up front that violence is not my thing.

And now you have it: my goal here is to rewrite apocalypse as something inherently good, enlightening, to remove it from the horrific devastation we see in the media. My motive can be left for the end, but I warn you, I’m sticking to it. I am basing my perspective on numbers 1, 2, and 3 above.

So let’s consider ourselves in a post-apocalyptic world in which there has been a lot of destruction, as per number 4. That sounds violent, but ironically, if we destroy the means to show violence, then we stop violence from happening. Right? That didn’t require a lot of analysis, did it? 

In my idea of a post-apocalyptic world, I admit, a lot of destruction has occurred. However, no sentient being has been harmed in the process. All military materials have disintegrated. Planes, missiles, drones, combat weapons, bombs of any sort. It would be boring to give a complete list here of all the tools utilized to do harm on other nations, cultures, continents. We can certainly hash out the details later as to what was included and how the destruction was 100% controlled. Disintegration is the main thing here.

This is probably a post-apocalypse a lot of people can handle.

 Perhaps some of you have already silently theorized that this better end to the world as we know it is all the work of AI, artificial intelligence. You would be correct, but do not expect me to launch into an explanation of what AI is, because I’m not up on that.

What I do know is that AI determined how the energy source for disintegration could be programmed to only destroy the materials used to destroy on an international level. (Redundancy intended. Destroying destruction just sounds so cool to peaceniks like me.) AI deals with planned destruction, that is, the destruction by one thing of another thing. That’s why they call it AI, most likely: it’s really that smart. It picks its target and stays with it.

Now let’s see some of the ramifications of this application of AI. Again, we are merely providing examples, not a comprehensive list, since AI has vast potential.

For one thing all space exploration would become impossible, due to the disintegration of the shuttles. To those who argue that the space shuttles aren’t military in intention, whom do you think you’re kidding? Some people still remember when, as kids, they watched newscasts on black and white TV about Sputnik, Apollo, and others. It was the US vs. Russia (or the Soviet Union). Yeah, it was military. It was a dangerous game, but lots of manufacturers made out like bandits. Lucrative beyond belief, this killing thing.

You still want to know the case of the disintegration? You want to know if there are some sort of energy waves...? You know I can’t answer that. I haven’t a clue. And even if I did know, my answer would be: Top secret, cannot reveal. We simply cannot have the good apocalypse turned into a bad one, where the target for disintegration - going poof! - is deflected and something really constructive gets mowed down. So no, no telling.

What else would cease immediately if all the war games were stopped dead in their tracks? (Another great pun, you are probably thinking.) Global bombings like the apocalyptic conditions in Yemen, to name just one current region. (You know there are many more.) We never bomb for the reasons the media and politicians tell us. We bomb to support or allies or flatten our enemies. We want the resources of a region or country. Ha! Without bombs, that all ceases forthwith. Maybe Iraqi and Palestinian children can finally get some fresh air, air they’ve yet to breathe. Quite a nice alternative.

Just to be perfectly clear about what disintegration of military equipment means on the first level: There can be no war, no bombed countries, no mines. Nobody is able to harm anybody globally. Nothing dangerous could be concealed in a hangar or the Pentagon’s storage depots. Were any group or country to attempt to use destructive materials against another, these materials would be immediately, automatically, classified as military. Then AI would program its ‘energy’ to reach the newly created weapons or vehicles and make them disintegrate. War is no more. This ought to call for dancing in the streets, like the song. Right? I’m ready to join Mick Jagger and David Bowie and hustle through a night of peace. Peace is sexy, like those guys.

Not so fast. We have to be realistic. This definition of apocalypse doesn’t sit well with everybody. After all, people have panicked without war in the past. We went from WWII to Korea, then had a few years’ lull until Vietnam. We wandered into Latin America (very rich countries there), then started to focus on the Middle East. War is all a lot of children have known, both the war on the TV set and the war in the back yard. 

I have questions about this perpetual war machine humans have built up. Does everybody have a GI Joe complex? If you kill you’re a hero? Killing isn’t cool, you know.

Well, now that the slogan ‘NO MORE WAR’ has been transformed from a protest chant into a statement, the MSM have nothing to report. They are literally speechless, and newsless. I do so hate mainstream media. They are paid way too much to jabber on and on about threats to our borders and safety. I think they think we’re as dumb as they are. No names will be mentioned here, but if you like, DM me and I’ll give you the worst journalists. They’re both male and female. This is not a gender-based idiocy we’re talking about.

The MSM, now warless, finally have to admit what some of us already know: Politics are really about bullying and dictatorships, hence war. The desire for oil or other resources like lithium, copper - you name it - are translated into human rights and a supposed need to bring about regime change. Apparently democracy clouds the brain cells and we think anything goes. Kill them all. It’s worth it if the result is democracy. (If you think this is trash-talking, I don’t care. It’s how I feel.)

It is true that in a post-apocalyptic world with no role whatsoever for the military, we don’t have as much access to things like oil from the Middle East or cheap clothes from Honduras and Haiti. We are forced to look closer to home. Fossil fuels? Their usage drops greatly, and they must be replaced by sustainable energy. Without pressure from big oil, other fuels and fuel sources suddenly become common knowledge. Alternatives count! 

For example, the alcohols from vegetable matter that can works in some engines. Or the use of decomposing matter to create energy and heat. Solar panels. Aqueducts for water distribution. Things like that. You can think of your own examples, I’m sure. There is no need for a budget of trillions of dollars to pull that off.

Research fields will undergo changes, because priorities and health issues will be different. For a while there will be more funding for cancer and other virus-caused illnesses that are fatal. I say for a while, because they are priority, but once this problems are solved, science can go on to other fields. Isn’t that exciting? Heart, lung, and kidney disease will most likely be cured with support for the research. It is quite encouraging to think about how medical care will be supported, since it is about life after all. In comparison, war is about death and costs a ton. 

This is a no-brainer, one might say. Again, the logic is clear. Science for the goal of healing trumps murdering others.

As children start to grow up without war, and don’t know what it is, they may have questions. They will study the Middle East, Latin America, Africa, and Europe in order to learn about their cultures. The rest of the world will not be just be made up of the countries meddling in our elections. They will not be seen as places nobody can find on a map, but nobody wants to go there anyway. Now they are being bombed or swarming with mercenaries, but they are dehumanized. No more Honduras, Argentina, no more dirty little wars and Chilean 9/11s. No more poison cigars or dissing the doctors who go to other countries to help with pandemics. 

Weapons are just going to go poof! (I repeat myself here, because the image that the statement conjures up is just so neat.) This is such a fantastic idea, somebody should have thought of it long ago. Kids can finally start to learn something. The MSM will stop babbling about election interference by outsiders. They will have to up their game, because people won’t buy their BS any more.

There will of course be no arms deals because there will be no arms. This means a bunch of folks in D.C. are going to lose a big chunk of their side income and are going to pout, big time, but that’s too bad. Foundations won’t be able to be bought by big donors looking for favors from top-ranking state officials. Charities can become real charities again, instead of conduits for dirty money.

Some people might be thinking now about the hippie generation, and so some communes could spring up. Idealism isn’t a bad thing. It’s hard to predict if the new hippies are going to be ‘re-ups’ with long white hair or if they’ll be young, like the Woodstockers were back in the 60s. Maybe with no military expenses, retirement and assisted living arrangements could be more affordable. Oh, the possibilities are endless.

Here’s another one: Air travel will be a whole lot easier, because there will be no need to check for bombs or weapons that could be slipped on board. (Remember: AI will detect the little buggers and zap them. They ain’t goin’ nowhere, as they say.) Lines in airports will be shorter. Passengers won’t have to arrive over two hours prior to an international flight, things like that. 

People clearly realize the value of not having any war in the world, so I truly believe they will decide to vote to make it illegal. No regime changes. No aircraft for bombing. No Agent Orange or equivalent. This is likely to mean that all the video games based on killing the enemy with some high-powered weapon or pulverizing a bunch of bad countries with weapons of mass destruction will just dwindle to nothing. 

New World Order means ORDER. Bombs will become boring and obsolete. The Russians aren’t coming, the Russians aren’t coming. Oh, that is such a great thing. I for one love the sound of that.

We need to think of another one of the effects of No More War: Money from the gargantuan military budget must be redistributed, and will be doled out to various recipients. Among the top recipients - but there will be plenty to go around -will be organic gardeners, theater and acting companies, museums, yoga and Qi Jong instructors. Narcissistic body-building gyms will not be candidates for increased funding, but quilt shops and alpaca farms or other producers of natural wool will be. Feel free to present your candidates for the funding. 

Oh, and just for kicks, we might point out that the Nobel Peace Prize could be given from now on to an individual or group that actually deserves it. At the moment, that prize seems to be given to leaders as encouragement to drop more bombs somewhere in the world they’ve never been to. Somewhere they’ve never seen photos of and so haven’t seen whole communities blown to smithereens. But I digress, perhaps.

So… please go back to the four definitions given at the beginning. Note this no war thing is my idea, and that warfare (biological or otherwise) doesn’t have to be the only cause of an apocalypse. In a post-apocalyptic world, we might choose 1, 2, or 3 - meaning that truth, revelation, and knowledge are an option, according to dictionary.com.

Too bad this is just fiction. Or just a definition.