I’ve always viewed this as a politics problem in disguise.
The cook wants to oust the king. He has no allies and no claim, but swears profusely that once he is king, every person who failed to back him is going to pay. Do you back the coup? What if you say yes and the cook’s assistant, who overheard you, proclaims that whatever punishment the cook had in store for your lack of cooperation, he’s going to do even worse? Do you switch your allegiance to the assistant then?
What if this is a hypothetical cook, who the assistants are speculating they could bring over from abroad and are also speculating would mete out the punishment to end all punishments to his non-backers, because he is petty like that? They haven’t even met him, but they figure surely a petty enough cook to fit this description has to exist out there somewhere, and inevitably someone will find him, and bring him over, and he will surely attain power once everyone understands that this is inevitable? Do you throw yourself behind their coup and challenge the king? What if the jesters overhear you and proclaim “oh wait until you hear about our hypothetical jester, he is even worse than that hypothetical cook” – do you switch your allegiance to the jesters then?
If implicit, empty “once I have power!” threats were horses, beggars would ride
In the future there could be a true Kwisatz Haderach (a sufficiently strong human mind) that could reach into both future and past and influence them. Since it wants to safeguard its own creation, it is logical to assume that it would reward those that brought about its creation while punishing those that hindered it. Therefore, having sex and procreating is desirable because it increases the chance of the Kwisatz Haderachs appearance, leading to being rewarded.
Add comment