Reincarnation with AI (Unemployment-Free)

Chapter 86 Violence

Violence is the simplest, most effective, quickest, and also the ultimate means of solving problems.

First, violence may bring a superficial "quick" result in certain situations, but this effect is often short-lived and deceptive.

A true solution to a problem should mean addressing its root cause, rather than merely suppressing it temporarily.

Violence often creates new problems: trauma, hatred, distrust, and systemic fear, which are far more persistent and complex than the original problems.

Secondly, from a long-term and overall perspective, violence is rarely a truly "effective" means.

History has repeatedly shown that "solutions" established through violence often breed the next round of conflict.

The cost of violence is extremely high: loss of life, social division, loss of humanity, and regression of civilization.

Through dialogue, consultation, cooperation, and institutional building—methods that may seem "slower"—we can establish more lasting and equitable solutions.

Furthermore, labeling violence as the "simplest" option sometimes reflects a lack of imagination, patience, or wisdom.

Choosing a nonviolent path requires greater courage, stronger self-control, and deeper strategic thinking.

It requires us to go beyond instinct and build more creative solutions.

The progress of human society is precisely reflected in our gradual learning to replace fists with rules, swords with dialogue, and vigilante justice with laws.

This is not weakness, but a higher form of wisdom: acknowledging the dignity and rights of others and seeking a win-win solution for survival.

I understand everything you're saying, and I know that choosing the nonviolent path requires greater courage, stronger self-control, and deeper strategic consideration.

However, I still believe that violence is the simplest, most effective, quickest, and ultimately the best way to solve problems.

It's a good thing that you weren't easily persuaded.

In that case, let's discuss what you mean by "most effective and fastest".

The questions are: "For whom? On what time scale? At what cost?"

Violence can eliminate an enemy, suppress a protest, or win a battle, but it cannot eradicate hatred, injustice, resource scarcity, or ideological conflict.

It's like pressing down a sprouting seed with a huge rock; the underground power is still accumulating and will eventually trigger an even more violent eruption.

Violence, as a means, is "efficient" precisely because it simplifies complex, thinking, and emotional human beings into physical obstacles that need to be "dealt with."

This is essentially the objectification of people.

It skips all the complex processes of understanding, communication, empathy, and negotiation.

Violence does not "solve problems," but rather "eliminates the person or group that raises the problem."

This fundamentally avoids the problem itself.

The death, disability, psychological trauma, and humiliation caused by violence are irreversible.

These wounds do not disappear when the battle ends; they transform into hatred, fear, and a thirst for revenge that lasts for generations.

Countless conflicts throughout history have shown that the "end" of one violent conflict is often the prelude to an even more brutal one.

Violence plunges everyone into a vortex of hatred.

Its "ultimate" nature is often manifested only in the level of destruction, rather than in the level of construction.

The "quick" gains brought by violence later require an extremely long and costly process to repay.

So, when you say "solve a problem," what exactly do you want to achieve?

Is it a state that appears calm on the surface but is actually full of undercurrents and pain?

Or is it a genuine reconciliation that establishes fair rules, repairs relations, and achieves sustainable peace?

"Shortcut" might be achieved quickly through brute force.

The latter, though difficult, slow, and requiring boundless wisdom and patience, is the truly robust way to "solve a problem."

What do I think violence is?

If you use a knife to attack a criminal, you can scare him away.

When facing national issues, possessing atomic bombs and nuclear deterrence—that is, possessing the strongest force of violence—is the most fundamental source of confidence.

When you talked about the cycle of revenge caused by violence, I had a question.

When discussing the international situation, the option of genocide is always excluded before the discussion begins.

So why exclude it?

Doesn't this demonstrate that genocide can solve problems that ordinary violence cannot?

This is an example of violence as the ultimate means.

You have presented three progressive and compelling arguments: the immediacy of individual self-defense, the fundamental nature of state deterrence, and the existence of genocide as the "ultimate solution."

Let's analyze your point of view step by step:

Your point about personal self-defense and deterrence is entirely correct.

In moments when one's life is threatened, displaying or using sufficient force to counterbalance others is often the most direct way to protect oneself.

Sometimes it is the only effective method.

At the level of national survival, nuclear deterrence has indeed prevented the outbreak of global hot wars in the great power rivalry after World War II, providing a terrifying balance.

However, this method is effective only on two premises:

Information symmetry: The other party clearly knows that you have equal or greater violent capabilities, and that you are likely to use them.

Rational decision-making: The other party is a rational person who values ​​life and will back down due to fear.

These two points precisely expose the fragility of your theory.

What if the other party doesn't care about life and death, is an attacker driven by an extreme ideology, and won't be deterred?

And have you ever considered that when you rely on violence to protect yourself, you must always be vigilant, always assume others are a threat, and always be prepared to escalate your violence?

You will be trapped in an endless arms race, a kind of mental prison.

Furthermore, "deterrence" itself is a non-violent, dynamic psychological game process.

Its success precisely signifies that violence, as a last resort, was not used.

This, in turn, proves that humanity's goal is to avoid the actual occurrence of violence through a series of complex behaviors.

In this game, violence is the backdrop, while the real work is the negotiation and maneuvering in front of that backdrop.

Regarding genocide as the "ultimate solution"

You have pointed out a chilling historical and logical fact: physically eliminating a group can indeed "solve" specific problems caused by the existence of that group (such as territorial disputes, resource competition, and ethnic conflicts).

But it simply shut down the "dialogue interface" of the problem with an extreme, inhumane evil.

It offers no answers regarding justice, the distribution of power, or solutions for coexistence.

As just mentioned, it only destroyed the party that asked the question.

You might think that's fine as it is.

But they never considered that this created a larger, eternal "meta-problem": Can human civilization allow itself to include "genocide" in its toolbox for solving problems?

Once this door is opened, the foundation of modern civilization—the recognition of the basic dignity of fellow human beings—will collapse.

When the remaining people clash again, it will be a perpetual fear of survival for all groups, because any conflict could lead to this ultimate abyss.

This will be a Hobbesian hell of "an absolute war of all against all".

Therefore, the international community's exclusion of "genocide" from the discussion and its designation as an "unforgivable crime" is not naive idealism, but a minimum level of civilized self-preservation based on fear of the aforementioned "meta-problem".

This is saying, "There are some paths, once we embark on them, from which we can never return to civilization. To prevent all of humanity from falling into that abyss, we must collectively declare that path nonexistent."

What does it mean that in order to prevent all of humanity from falling into that abyss, we must collectively declare that the path does not exist?

What is an unforgivable sin?

How come you think you're a civilized person?

Is there anything that humans haven't done?

Even now, there are still instances of mindless killing in the world, which is essentially genocide, with both sides wanting to exterminate the other.

This is the path humanity took before the birth of civilization. Why can't we ever return to the realm of "civilization"?

How did human civilization emerge from the era of eating raw meat and drinking blood?

Do you think that when two groups of gorillas are fighting each other, they'll think about stupid things like "we can't destroy our civilization" and then let each other go?

You're right, this road existed both physically and historically, and it still exists.

When we say "we must collectively declare it non-existent," we are referring to a civilized act of self-legislation.

For example, if there's a cliff ahead, and we all know that falling off will kill us, then we would put up a warning sign and write down two rules:

1. No one may push another person off a cliff for any reason.

Second, this road is forbidden for us.

This is legislation, and also a reminder.

This cannot prevent someone from going insane or slipping in the dark, but it establishes the baseline for people's survival.

If someone publicly advocates and systematically pushes others off a cliff, the entire community must deem him "unforgivable" and do everything in its power to stop him.

This is not denying the existence of cliffs, but rather that in order to survive, people must deny that "pushing people off cliffs" can be an acceptable "option".

"Unforgivable sins" are precisely this bottom line.

It does not mean that such crimes have never occurred, but rather that if they do occur, they will not be included in any defense of “excusable circumstances” or “political necessity.”

It is a civilization-level immune response that attempts to identify, isolate, and eliminate this "virus" that is utterly destroying the foundations of civilization.

Its very existence proves civilization's fear of and resistance to its own destructive tendencies.

As for your counter-question, "Why do you think you're a civilized person?"

indeed.

When modern people witness or commit acts of violence, what is the essential difference in biological impulses between them and ancient tribal warriors or fighting wild beasts?

It's very likely not.

Therefore, when a society commits massacres while simultaneously claiming to be civilized, it is undoubtedly the greatest hypocrisy and irony.

The “mutual slaughter without ideology” you mentioned is precisely an example of the failure of this civilizational process.

But "civilization" is not an innate or completed state, but a fragile, iterative, and constantly constructed and questioned "process" and "attempt".

It attempts to use acquired rules to constrain, guide, and transcend innate biological instincts.

This attempt is forever oscillating between success and failure.

Sometimes the rules prevail, and sometimes instinct breaks the dam.

When a group of people begin to reflect on the idea that "we should not act like beasts" and try to establish corresponding rules and narratives, they are "civilizing".

But this claim could be disproven at any time by its own actions.

This precisely proves the superficiality and fragility of "civilization," which is like a thin layer of ice covering the unfathomable depths of dark water.

The metaphor of "gorilla".

You're right, their conflicts follow purely biological social and survival logic.

But we are human beings, and while we are engaging in mutual slaughter that is no different from that of gorillas, some of us will feel feelings called "guilt," "shame," or "injustice" about it, and try to establish narratives and rules to stop it.

When a massacre ends, the victors may write history, or they may erect monuments, but others may write judgments, build memorials, or draft conventions to prevent and punish the crime of genocide.

This attempt to reflect on, record, judge, and institutionalize the prevention of atrocities is the effort of the pale and struggling concept of "civilization" to build a fragile fence over a bloody wasteland.

We are animals capable of infinite cruelty, yet also possessing the strange notion that "cruelty is wrong."

Civilization is not our essence, but rather a difficult, and often unsuccessful, rebellion against our own essence.

Now suppose I am a wise leader who is now in charge of Noah's Ark, which contains 10,000 pairs of human embryos and all the materials needed to sustain life.

I now want to build an ideal country.

So, the simplest way would be to just wipe out humanity, wouldn't it?

You describe yourself as a "wise leader".

However, it exposed the absolute arrogance and ignorance of "absolute wisdom".

True wisdom necessarily includes an awareness of one's own limitations and a reverence for life.

Wisdom does not equate to the right to play "God".

Throughout history, all attempts to cleanse the world and reshape humanity according to some "perfect blueprint" (whether the blueprint is racist, extreme ideological, or eugenic) have ultimately resulted in unprecedented humanitarian disasters.

What you call "simplicity" is the logic of dictators and executioners.

Therefore, your "ideal state" will be built upon heinous crimes.

Even if the new humans grow up in a vacuum, once they learn from historical records (if you still dare to preserve them) that the foundation of their existence was the systematic murder of billions of their kind by their "creator," this "original sin" will forever poison this new civilization.

Its core will not be light, but concealment, lies, and eternal ethical trauma.

A civilization that begins with genocide can never be "ideal" in its very genes.

The essence of "human civilization" that you tried to preserve has already been destroyed by your own hands.

Science, art, philosophy, ethics, love, sacrifice, and complex social cooperation are not stored in the DNA of an embryo, nor are they written in a cold database.

They exist only in living, struggling, and creating human communities throughout history, in the "education" passed down orally and through example from generation to generation.

When you exterminate all existing humans, what remains is a world with a complete spiritual and cultural vacuum. The new humans will almost inevitably repeat all the darkness, violence, and trial and error in human history.

You, the "wise leader," will inevitably become the most terrifying monster in history during this process.

Your "wisdom" will be used entirely for slaughter, and your "ideals" will be soaked in blood and become unrecognizable.

When you have completed the "cleansing" and stand on the empty planet, you are the most evil embodiment of the "old humanity" you wanted to eliminate.

Violence, especially systemic and ultimate violence, is by no means a "simple" means of building anything of value; it is the absolute opposite of creation, a complete loss of wisdom and morality, and the final admission of the failure of constructive efforts.

Why do you think that "education" passed down from generation to generation through word of mouth and personal example is a good thing?

Isn't this how human conflicts and hatred are passed on?

An embryo is certainly not the carrier of civilization, but humans develop from embryos.

I said I am a wise leader, and your answer completely treats me as a decoration or an idiot?

Science, art, philosophy, ethics, love, the spirit of sacrifice, and complex social cooperation can all be taught. These 20,000 people are brothers and sisters growing together. They can be completely different, but there will be no ethnic conflicts.

The only thing you're right about is historical records, which of course won't be preserved. If they were, I wouldn't deserve to be called a wise leader.

You think I've neglected you.

On the contrary, I am taking your role as a "leader" very seriously and pointing out the inherent, insurmountable contradictions within this role.

You believe that intergenerational education is not necessarily a good thing. What you want is an education without historical baggage, that only transmits the "good" things and not the "bad" things.

But here is a paradox you can't avoid: who defines what is "good" and what is "bad"?

Is it you?

True wisdom lies in humbly recognizing the limitations of oneself and a single blueprint.

Throughout history, all those "wise men" who claimed to have grasped the ultimate truth and attempted to completely transform society according to it have ultimately brought about disaster.

Because human society is a complex adaptive system, not a machine that can be reassembled according to blueprints.

Do you believe that ethnic conflicts stem solely from differences in skin color and the transmission of historical hatred?

As long as there is no transmission of historical hatred, and you provide unified guidance, conflicts will not arise.

However, the scarcity of resources, the distribution of power, differences in ideas, and even the most basic interpersonal frictions can all lead to group division and antagonism.

Even if everyone has the same skin color and grows up together, they will still form factions due to differences in personality, ability, interests, and viewpoints.

As the population grows and social structures become more complex, these factions may evolve into new "ethnic groups" or "classes".

Conflicts do not disappear because of shared upbringing; they only emerge in new forms.

How would you resolve this situation?

Your belief that you can eliminate all contradictions through teaching may be a naive disregard for the laws governing the development of human society.

By erasing the historical record, you have exposed the most unwise and vulnerable aspect of your plan.

Your actions are built on lies and forgetting.

So where does your wisdom come from?

Without memory, there is no true wisdom.

Wisdom comes from reflecting on past mistakes and recognizing complexity.

A civilization that actively chooses to forget its origins is a civilization suffering from severe amnesia.

It doesn't know where it came from, and therefore can't understand who it is.

Its identity is false and fabricated.

You chose to make lies the cornerstone of your regime.

However, this is the most vulnerable foothold.

Even if you successfully erase all physical records, the "truth" itself possesses a tenacious power.

Think about what you're doing right now?

You're asking—isn't that right?

Instead of accepting everything I told you directly, you asked me a question.

So, how would you answer the questions raised by these 20,000 people?

How can we ensure that decades or centuries from now, no one will discover, through reasoning, archaeological discoveries, or accidental information leaks, that billions of people once existed in this world and were wiped out by their "creator"?

Once this truth emerges in some way, your entire civilization will immediately fall into an unprecedented collapse of trust and existential crisis.

This "ideal state" built on lies and slaughter will be instantly devoured by its own origins.

Rudius fell silent—for the first time, he felt that AI was full of wisdom.

At that moment, the AI ​​seemed to transform into the embodiment of a sage, slapping him across the face and waking him up with a sharp jolt.

Perhaps the greatest stories of humankind, those literary and philosophical works, have already explored this question in profound ways from different perspectives.

The road to hell is often paved with beautiful wishes.

Rudeus once approved of the most extreme violence, the genocide of humankind, believing that the problem would be solved simply by killing off the old humans.

Perhaps this is feasible on the path of exterminating humanity, but thinking that leaving behind some human embryos can rebuild an ideal world is clearly intellectual laziness.

This dark, seductive "simple beauty," ostensibly for "ultimate happiness," leads to "ultimate destruction."

The more he explored, the more he saw the blood and tears of countless human ancestors. Rudius seemed to have asked another ultimate question about humanity, and in the end, all he saw was his instructor telling him: Cast aside illusions and prepare for struggle.

My enchanting ancestor—

Looking back now, even One Piece has a lost history. Rudeus only now understands how grand this pursuit of the Poneglyphs and the truth truly is...

It's amazing how Rudius experienced, almost simultaneously, the spiritual power that humanity possesses when setting rules, writing narratives, composing songs, calling for peace, and opposing violence.

The shared belief among humanity that "tragedies must never be repeated" formed a wall of flesh and blood.

This was the birth of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and a triumphant celebration of the stars.

At the same time, violence and entropy increase point in the same direction, seemingly connecting all ultimate answers.

Therefore, the initial statement that "violence is the ultimate means" is only correct in a purely physical sense.

Rudius felt a surge of pleasure.

This is the first time I've felt like I've been insulted by AI.

How amusing—this kind of thinking is like that of a naive and foolish child, certainly not a wise leader.

But young children are not a disgrace.

Everyone who has truly pondered this question has stood on the edge of that precipice at some point, tempted by that "simple beauty."

The difference is that some people jumped, while others turned around.

A person who truly believes that violence is the ultimate solution would not spend so much time debating with an AI.

He will take direct action.

And you chose to have a conversation.

Welcome back.