We Act

Have I posted before about the ambiguity of the word, "we"? It can mean the whole human race or we in this country as opposed to other countries or those who manage society, e.g., "What should we do about the unemployed?" (Clearly, in this case, "we" excludes the unemployed.) Only a few centuries ago, "we" were Western Christendom converting heathens or fighting infidels whereas now "we" are an armed nation-state economically out-competed by the Japanese (or someone else). What will "we" be a few centuries hence - assuming that the human race survives, of course?

Abrams to Flandry:

"'...ever since Akhnaton ruled in Egypt, probably since before then, a school of thought has held we ought to lay down our weapons and rely on love.'"
-Ensign Flandry, CHAPTER EIGHTEEN, p. 192.

Well, if "we" means the whole human race or, in the Technic History, all intelligent species, and if all of these beings lay down their arms, then there will be not only no problem but also immense benefits, and I am hopeful that this will happen in future but it is not happening either now or in Flandry's time so Abrams' "we" means the Terran Empire or rather that much smaller group of people that administers the Empire. Clearly, it makes no sense for that group to lay down its arms but what else might happen? How many strands of thought are there in the Empire? We do not know, of course. There are limits to how well speculative fiction can reflect reality.

Abrams says that pacifism:

"'...denies we have any duty to act in this life.'" (ibid.)

Thus, he echoes karma yoga.

There is a duty on every individual and society to act in some way but what way?