No Man is an Island

I agree that it's necessary for those who believe it to be necessary. There's no arguing the common sense in strength by numbers; I would only question what people choose to fight for.

If it is their religion and God, so be it. But, every side can lay this claim, and there is nothing of notable substance which separates one claim from another. "But, our God is the only one, true God!", oh, a student of history one is not, to have ever made this claim. It is often through denigrating the other that we find a hollow vindication of one belief over another.

If it is to survive, to live for the very sake of living, then what is the essence of living? Many countless people have attached a value to their lives, but none can be fully justified without taking the whole--the sum--of all lives into account, and thus negating the value of the individual over the whole.

If it is to pass on some cosmic or genetic code to their progeny, what task does this perform that all the others have not? Furthermore, who are you but a shadow of who is to follow? To protect ones right to exist is not a man's law alone --it is also a rule of nature and can be found in every facet of life as a universal truth.

If one is a "lone wolf", and does not partake in social happenings, is their right to exist any less than one who is popular? If one has twelve children, does this grant them thirteen reasons to live and just as many claims to be right? And, what will happen should calamity strike and rule of law evaporates? The many will triumph over the few, we assume, because there can be strength in numbers. And yet, through it all, a single, solitary individual can survive. Perhaps we are comforting ourselves with the idea which best suits our desire to remain safe whenever we ponder this preconceived notion that society will collapse and all that we hold close may turn to ash, reduced to becoming nutrients for the soil. But, even in the ashen ground, a solitary plant will find a way to grow and bloom, produce fruit and eventually die all the same. We do like to place value on our lives because it gives a sense of purpose, a reason to continue living. Not every person will possess the very same reason to live, and with this, we arrive to the "why". Is there any reason greater than another? Does the man with thirteen reasons have a greater claim to life than the single, solitary person?

I do understand the concept of community, to belong to that which is greater than the self. And after the praise has been given and received for a charitable contribution, after the many have accepted you as a member to their numerous reasons to live, you will still be one out of many. You will still have the same claim to life as the lone individual.

Life is, before anything else, just an experience. It can be a personal experience, or one which is shared with as many as one chooses. When society fails, when the many fail, the individual will remain a constant. The many will continue to struggle, they fight to maintain their collective beliefs, and attempt to give a sense of purpose to why they exist. The many will condemn any outside belief and criticize what they do not understand. The many will choose to eradicate the "lone wolf" because of fear, and they will not accept that which does not promote the continuance of the collective. The many have already failed at maintaining their society, and they will claw and fight to the bitter end to not become an individual. To be alone.