This world is not a dystopia: it is a constant plus or minus variation on the ever-changing landscape of time, made up of individuals exchanging the highs and lows of tiny experiences, all subjectively placed on a spectrum ranging from good to bad and probably reaching far better and worse than those. This world is not a dystopia, but there are a lot of things wrong in the world if wrongness is determined by at least one person believing that a change could cause an improvement in their life or the lives of others (either present or future or both). There are a lot of things wrong in the world, but it seems that this wrongness stems from differing opinions on what would constitute an improvement in the current state of existence, and what would constitute a degradation.
There are a lot of things wrong in the world, but I don’t think they all have to be fixed with some blanket solution that appeases everyone, because such a solution is an attempt to achieve an unreachable goal, and such movements towards that solution produce smaller and smaller ever-exponentially decaying returns on investment to an asymptote of maximum overall utopic appeasement that both cannot be reached and should not reasonably be strived for, for to strive for maximum appeasement is to reduce the importance of gratitude when good enough should be good enough because it is enough and contention towards contentment is a fight for fighters who say they want peace but won’t give into peace because peace doesn’t force the equality that satiates the whims and needs of all individual indulgences in a consumeristic society. Isn’t a good deal one where both sides feel like they are getting screwed but walk away knowing they could do no better, assuming neither side wants to be on the losing side nor wants to force others to lose with a great recognition of loss?
There is a natural order to everything, with tension and opposition, where wrongs are not righted by direct opposition, but by a settling balance. The tug and pull of differing perspectives with mismatched rankings of importance where both sides are striving to right a clearly marked wrong reaches a power-play-produced equilibrium where both sides are fighting so hard to correct said opposing wrong that neither can make the other budge from their position of supposed rightness (which may (at times) be more out of pride and stubbornness than infallible belief in a cause). This kind of balance risks breaking with a sudden snap and forcing one side forward and another back with a chaotic blast that shocks both parties and breathes life into brand new problems with brand new opposing solutions as teams once again form along The Next Big Panacea’s proposition lines.
If both sides were to concede and accept some imperfections, that too would represent an equilibrium, but one where both sides could relax with a tension much less likely to reach a breaking point. Peace is not a state of perfect equality, but a state acceptance and appreciation of inequalities. A body at rest can and will stay at rest, when all of the forces acting upon it are in balance. I want to lessen the pressure exerted on my own body, and remain at rest, by accepting my own lot in life, and doing what little I can to overcome my little struggles and navigate my own personal highs and lows. I checked the weather today: it’s not so bad out there.