Genocide Dilemma

Published on Dec 5, 2024 (updated Mar 22, 2025), filed under misc (feed). (Share this on Mastodon or Bluesky?)

Imagine group A to commit genocide against group B ^*, and to be stopped before it killed everyone from that group.

Later, group B commits genocide against group C.

Group A’s continued genocide on group B could have therefore prevented group B’s genocide on group C.

What does this tell us about genocides?

I believe this tells us only one thing: Neither group A nor group B is particularly advanced. As a matter of fact, they are primitive.

Group A has not yet learned that what hurts others, hurts everyone, including themselves. Out of fear, which violent acts are based on, it commits unspeakable crimes.

Group B is even worse. It also hasn’t yet learned what group A hasn’t learned, even though it was affected by it. Furthermore, while justifying its own crimes by arguing for some sort of exception (why their genocide was acceptable, but not group A’s), it ends up untangling and undermining the reasons why anyone came to its help against group A.

On our planet, we are arguably the most dominant yet least developed species. We have the power and we use our power to dominate the planet, but we do so recklessly and irresponsibly, killing other species as well as members of our own, all the while destroying our own habitat.

That we still commit and accept genocides is one major sign for our lack of development.

But the real dilemma, or tragedy, is not one of one genocide preventing the next:

It’s that we all know this to be destructive and hurting us all—and don’t act, change, or decide to be different, as a species.

We could—but we don’t.

^* What a horrible topic, absolutely. How great would it be if genocides weren’t still a sad reality.