text: “It’s not inflammatory rhetoric or exaggeration to state that the overwhelming majority of problems with humanity come down to our obsession with lust and mating. Sexual assaults, overcrowding, famine, disease, war, pollution, and the exhaustion of natural resources are all related to primal, emotional behavior. Those significant issues are directly linked to our inborn need to reproduce. Just think how much more progress our society could achieve without these base urges, dragging us down.” The audience remained silent. It’s not that they didn’t agree with the speaker, as a matter on principle. It was widely accepted as fact but recognizing the negative impact of human desire was a far cry from actually doing something about it. To take that beloved feeling away was to remove a large portion of what we are as human beings. It was perhaps a bridge too far for many. Just the thought of a loveless existence filled them with dismay but this natural reaction was short lived. Over time, the heretical message was repeated often enough that it started to take hold with a certain segment of the population. The idea resonated with a world tired of the negative aspects of human desire. Too many people. Rape. Unwanted children. Hunger, disease, famine. Once emotion was removed from the equation, it all seemed very clear. The carnal passion for mating and competing for the most desirable partner was largely responsible for all those maladies and countless others. The public was slowly being convinced to curb their intimate activities and deliberate efforts to reproduce. The concept of love was dying. As always, science produced ‘the answer’. Technically it had existed for years but humanity had been too addicted to the opiate or passion to consider it beforehand. Only with time to acclimate to the idea of a desire-less world did the ‘no love’ movement gain momentum. In a stunning example of universal cooperation, every country on Earth made taking the newly synthesized ‘anti-desire pills’, mandatory. With unanimous peer pressure from the initiated and a constant barrage of ugly reminders of the results of passion ruling the heart, it wasn’t even necessary to force the people to accept it. They took their pills and slowly morphed into an emotionless society. The idea of resistance to this radical shift in thinking was over before it even began. For many years, reproduction was highly regulated and controlled by the same organization that pitched the idea of celibacy and emotional restraint. Suggestive music and adult themed movies were banned. Relationships and intimacy were strongly discouraged. Murder rates went down as a result of ‘the pill’. Wars were few and far between. Rape and unplanned pregnancy were virtually nonexistent. By the numbers, the anti-desire initiative was wildly effective. Early adopters helped bring the reluctant in line by a combination of shame and social intimidation. Humanity had finally found a blueprint for peace; and all it had to do was stifle and suppress its most primal, natural instinct. Along the way to this emotionless utopia, an underground resistance movement started to coalesce. They were a direct result of the rebellion to our natural instincts being so suppressed. The members of this secret cabal hid their identities from a very disapproving public and stopped taking their mandatory ‘medicine’. They congregated in the shadows and discussed possible ways of stimulating healthy debate on the loss of our human sexuality. They sought a means to shake the drugged masses out of their sterile, loveless utopia. Naturally, the status quo reacted with a fierce level of venom once they found out about the mounting opposition to their global authority. The anarchist, ‘pro-sex’ rebellion forming in the fringes of society threatened to destroy their hard-won, neutered peace. The more people listened, the more their seditious message spread. Fewer people took their pills. As before, the pregnancy rate spiked. Wars broke out while violence and assaults spiraled. Proponents of maintaining the current system pointed to those troubling statistics as proof of the chaos that human desire caused. On paper, there was unanimous validation for taking the anti-desire hormone regimen. Proof of the destructiveness of emotion was ironclad and indisputable but the cold, hard facts failed to take into consideration the deeper, emotional context. It was part of our DNA to seek love and pair-bonding. Just as it had begin, the worldwide anti-desire movement collapsed on itself. To seek an intimate alliance with another human being is built into who we are. Humanity craved the tantalizing chaos of love and lust. With that behavior comes a whole host of troubling issues but to suppress our nature is to throw the baby out with the bath water. The majority realized that peace wasn’t worth the emotionless sterility the anti-desire pill caused. Once society witnessed the complex balance of joy and pain which comes from regular human relationships, more and more ‘opted out’. They accepted the possibility of experiencing lows, for the reward of potential highs. Predictably, there was considerable resistance to ‘the resistance’. World authorities sought peace and order, not potential happiness, because it often came with pain and rejection. It was much easier to maintain a loveless societal flatline than the risk of feeling greater things. The highs were too high and the lows were disappointing and intolerable. Having unprecedented law and order for a long period seemed like it was the mark of great progress. Others felt it was infinitely better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all. Eventually, colonies formed across the world of those who wanted to keep the bland security which the anti-desire pill afforded. Theirs was a peaceful, loveless existence that suited their personal preferences. They were happy with the benefits of emotional regulation and desire suppression. For them, the positives outweighed the negatives. It boiled down to a fundamental difference in how some people think. For the gamblers and risk takers on the other hand, they cast aside the security of a loveless, peaceful utopia, in favor of greater potential rewards and deeper consequences. It was a philosophical trade off. Both schools of thought felt that theirs was the superior ecosystem and way of life (and for each of them, they were right). The divided arrangement was the best type of freedom and liberty for all involved. Desire and potential love for those who sought it. Peace and security for those who preferred it. As it became clear, they realized they couldn’t have their cake, and eat it too.