The question of whether one would kill if circumstances demanded it often elicits careful, measured responses in today's world. Yet when faced with this query years ago, my immediate and firm answer was 'yes': a response that visibly startled the questioner who likely expected a more nuanced discussion.
Consider our instinctive reaction to a mosquito bite - we reflexively swat and kill the insect, leaving literal blood on our hands. Though microscopic, it's still blood - our own blood rather than the mosquito's colourless fluid. This simple act demonstrates how naturally taking life comes to us.
Blood on our hands is an inescapable part of existence. Whether through direct action, passive support, or silent complicity, we all participate in systems that involve taking life. Even our evolution from hunters to farmers didn't eliminate this reality - we simply shifted from taking animal life to plant life. Though plants don't bleed visibly, we still end their existence for our survival.
Today's world is awash in bloodshed - wars rage across continents, driven by ego, territorial disputes, and religious differences. Many of us, especially those living in comfort, have developed an immunity to these harsh realities. We distance ourselves, considering such violence as problems beyond our influence. Yet the brutal truth remains unchanged - starvation, displacement, and bloodshed continue unabated.
The challenge lies in understanding our role in this cycle of violence. We must acknowledge that blood on our hands is inevitable, whether from self-inflicted wounds or harm caused to others. The critical questions become: How much blood is spilled? For what cause? Who benefits? Are we active participants or passive observers? While there are no simple answers, the fundamental question persists - would you kill if you had to?
Share this post