I think you missed the real question, so let me rephrase.
It's not hard to grasp as an abstract concept, and in general it's a concept I mostly agree with. What i'm trying to grasp why you think this "blow up the world" will work as an effective strategy to get there, instead of "incrementally destroy the system".
You are trying to fight a political fight here, and "radical stances" rarely work well there. If you are going to "Demand we get rid of this impediment to mankind", expect to never get rid of it. Change doesn't happen by screaming about how bad things are, and taking radical stances, change happens by doing something about it, be it legislative lobbying or otherwise.
The more people take the "radical" stance, the less radical it becomes (relative to
the status quo). That's my whole point. So stop bickering about how we'll never get
anything done with demands for abolition - demand it be done, and tell others to do
the same. It's that simple.
Actually, it's valuable to have both (the radical as an anchor, the moderate to define a path), as long as they don't spend so much time fighting each other that the real goal never occurs.
It's not hard to grasp as an abstract concept, and in general it's a concept I mostly agree with. What i'm trying to grasp why you think this "blow up the world" will work as an effective strategy to get there, instead of "incrementally destroy the system".
You are trying to fight a political fight here, and "radical stances" rarely work well there. If you are going to "Demand we get rid of this impediment to mankind", expect to never get rid of it. Change doesn't happen by screaming about how bad things are, and taking radical stances, change happens by doing something about it, be it legislative lobbying or otherwise.