Live and let live?

Or better still

He who you won’t allow to expire, won’t permit you to live.

I’ve often wondered about the epistemological validity of the phrase “live and let live”.

What does it mean? What can it mean?

What are its real-world applications?

Is it utilitarian to live and let live?

Or is it another way of saying that anything is preferable to conflict, violence, war, murder?

I was listening to a very interesting YouTube video about the advent of the Proto-Indo-European people(s) who went on a conquering trek from the Eurasian steppes to the Atlantic shores.

According to the archeological findings, the preceding Cucuteni Culture was mostly pastoral-agricultural, and relatively peaceful, especially compared to the Yamnaya or Kurgan people who annihilated them around 3,000 B.C.

In one fell swoop the New Copper/Bronze Age Culture of the Sword replaced the Old Eneolithic/Copper Culture of the Plow from the Bug River in Ukraine to the Basque Country and Ireland.

This happened a lot throughout pre-history and history when an advanced group of people contacted a primitive one.

This is also what happens every time you decide to make your swords into ploughshares and your war-bows into violin bows.

Live and let live?

Throughout History, and its Annals are replete with such examples, all wars had but one issue: the complete extermination of all vanquished males, and the absorption, very often a brutal process, of all their womenfolk into the ranks of the conquering people.

The Old Testament is testament, forget me the pun but the temptation was too powerful to resist, to myriad examples where the victors inaugurated their rule by the ritualistic execution of the losing side’s military age men, and the casual rape or forced marriage of their women.

So, when I reflect upon the fate of millions upon millions of men who have dropped their swords after a fight, in the vain hope of survival, only to be cut down like slaughtered lambs, I realize that ‘live and let live’ is the philosophy of the weak risk-takers.

You see, folks, it’s a foregone conclusion that only the strong survive in nature. The weak ones get eaten or killed, enslaved or raped, but in any case, subdued and live their lives on the sufferance of their victors/captors.

No matter how you cut and slice it, defeat is bad, and victory guarantees survival and prosperity, at all levels.

However, whenever a victor begins to have second thoughts and starts questioning the validity of his choices, and favors leniency over a hardline, that is the moment when they decide to start playing for the other side: they decide to be the next Loser.

Unfortunately, Life on Earth continues to be a sum-zero game. Resources are limited and the population continues to grow. This puts a strain on the division of resources per capita. That’s why you have haves and have-noughts. That’s why not everybody drives a new car. That’s why not everybody has a job. That’s why not everybody who has one, can afford a home. And the examples are infinite in this vein.

Countries that choose to forgo their grip on power, end up depleted husks, devoid of hope and empty of people.

One must continuously fight if one wants to stay on Top of the pile.

This explains all wars. This explains the winners and losers of the geopolitical game. Life is brutal. And life on top is even more so.

The alternative is equally brutal, with none of the rewards reserved to the medalists, and all the injunctions suffered by quitters and losers.

You want to live and let live?! Fine. Start working on your footwork. You will need it.