OBS Chapter 2337
Chapter 2337
Chapter 2337
Thanos brought countless destruction and death to countless worlds, but not a single death brought him any pleasure… Yes, while Thanos was slaughtering, he suffered immense inner torment. He didn't enjoy those deaths; in fact, he loathed them. Thanos was undoubtedly a villain, but he felt no pride or positive emotions towards his actions. Believe it or not, he never considered what he did to be righteous. He simply believed it was necessary!
He is neither a pure embodiment of evil nor a simple power-hungry maniac, but a "savior" who firmly believes in his mission, a "martyr" willing to sacrifice everything for his ideals. Thanos's core motivation stems from a seemingly rational premise: finite cosmic resources coupled with the unlimited expansion of life will ultimately lead to the collapse of civilization. This view is not entirely absurd; it actually alludes to Malthusian population theory and ecological crisis theories in the real world. In *Avengers: Infinity War*, Thanos shows Gamora the destruction of his home planet Titan, demonstrating that without drastic measures, all civilizations will ultimately face self-destruction.
Thanos's solution—randomly wiping out half of all life in the universe—was cruel, but in his eyes, it was the most "fair" way:
Indiscriminate: regardless of race, wealth, or status, it is completely random.
Efficiency: Using Infinity Stones, it can be completed instantly, avoiding prolonged suffering.
Sustainability: Providing survivors with more resources and room for development.
The terrifying aspect of this logic lies in its partial plausibility. Just as some extreme environmentalists in reality advocate "reducing the population to save the planet," Thanos pushed statistical thinking to its extreme, forming a self-consistent "cosmic ecology."
Thanos did not do evil for the sake of evil, but firmly believed that evil was a necessary price to pay for achieving good results.
Thanos's ideals and ideologies, while stemming from the principle of fairness and aiming at the survival of all races in the universe, undeniably appear excessively cruel. From this perspective, Thanos seems to be examining the world from a godlike viewpoint; his way of thinking transcends ordinary people, reaching an unparalleled level. However, it is precisely this level of understanding that makes his ideologies difficult to comprehend within the universe; aside from his loyal followers, almost no one can grasp their profound meaning.
Therefore, in the universe, Thanos has always fought alone for his lofty ideals and beliefs. However, as time passed, he gradually felt the loneliness of being at the top. In his early years, Thanos disregarded the opinions of others, steadfastly practicing his ideals, randomly and fairly eliminating half the population so that the other half could live happily. Gamora's homeland is a typical example of this, first destroyed by Thanos, and then rebuilt under his ideals. As time went on, while adhering to his ideals, Thanos gradually felt lonely, beginning to experience the unique loneliness of being a villain. On his journey to find the Infinity Stones, he encountered many superheroes who also upheld their ideals and beliefs. Facing these heroes, Thanos always showed leniency, trying to avoid killing, because he knew that he was merely seeking understanding, hoping that someone could resonate with his ideals and no longer leave him to walk alone in the darkness. In the film, he tirelessly explains his ideals and beliefs to heroes like Iron Man, Doctor Strange, Captain America, and Thor; in reality, he's searching for that long-lost sense of belonging. However, even though Thanos ultimately achieves his ideals and beliefs, he still fails to gain the understanding of any of the superheroes. When he lays down his armor and retires in the sunset, his lonely and desolate figure appears even more poignant at the moment of his decapitation. This atmosphere is precisely what Marvel meticulously designed. Even supervillains have their own pursuits, emotions, and destinies. Behind their endings lies another kind of heroic loneliness.
In fact, Thanos didn't experience many ups and downs in his early life, nor did he deeply feel the loneliness of shouldering the responsibility of "saving the universe" alone. This was because he foresaw the future too early.
Isn't this a tragedy in itself?
Throughout human history, many visionary individuals have guided humanity in the right direction and illuminated the path forward.
However, these visionaries themselves did not receive respect from the public during their lifetimes, often suffering social oppression, some even paying the ultimate price. Examples include Bruno, who was burned at the stake, and Tan Sitong, who was beheaded. At the very least, they endured the predicament of being misunderstood, unappreciated, and isolated, as well as the inner torment of loneliness and conflict.
A visionary is also an awakened one. In the process of awakening, one must endure the pain of inner conflict, entanglement, and loneliness. This is because one must first question and negate one's own established values and worldview before gradually forming a new set of values and worldview.
It's like replacing a part of your own consciousness. If a person completely replaces their consciousness, is they still themselves? Many people suffer from amnesia, which is very painful. If a person completely forgets themselves, and their thoughts are replaced by someone else's, it's essentially equivalent to their own death. Replacing a finger isn't a big problem, but what kind of pain would it be if most of the body were replaced? Yet many people live their lives in a daze, never deeply considering these questions, like someone in a deep sleep. The insightful see those around them asleep, dreaming sweet dreams. If they shout to wake them and disturb their dreams, they will suffer their insults and attacks, and even their relatives and friends will not forgive or tolerate them.
Therefore, pain, heartache, and loneliness are the price that all visionaries must pay.
Many years later, people will recognize the value and correct direction of all these visionaries. Only then will they acknowledge and celebrate their wisdom and courage. But during their lifetime, they may have lived in poverty and misery.
Imagine you're a top scientist trying to explain quantum physics to a five-year-old. You go on from wave function collapse to the uncertainty principle, but the child widens their eyes and asks, "So, electrons dance like little fairies?" You're speechless—because you can't imagine a world without these fundamental concepts. This is the "curse of knowledge": once we acquire knowledge, we can never return to a state of ignorance, leading us to overestimate others' understanding, making communication inefficient or even failing. This phenomenon is not only widespread but often makes intelligent people appear "foolish," hindering innovation and collaboration. But the more controversial question is: in this information-saturated age, has knowledge itself become our greatest enemy?
The "curse of knowledge," originating in psychology, refers to the difficulty knowledge holders face in thinking from the perspective of ignorance, assuming others share the same information. Just as once you learn to ride a bicycle, you forget your initial clumsiness from falling; once you become an expert, you can no longer express yourself in the language of a beginner. This cognitive bias was revealed in a 1989 experiment by economist Colin Kaymer and others: subjects tapped out the rhythm of a song, while others guessed the title. The tappers estimated a 50% success rate, but the actual rate was only 2.5%—because they "heard" the melody in their heads and couldn't understand the listeners' blanks.
This curse is everywhere. In education, teachers lecture on calculus, yet students look bewildered; in the workplace, programmers use coding jargon to sell software to clients, who find it all incomprehensible; even in families, parents use adult logic to educate their children, leading to conflict. Knowledge, meant to empower, has become a barrier to communication. But why do we fall into this trap so easily? The way our brains operate is largely to blame: we rely on "cognitive shortcuts," automatically filling information gaps to save energy. However, this causes us to ignore the cognitive gaps of others.
Of course, this doesn't mean Thanos was right!
He should be considered an ecoterrorist!
Thanos's approach seems rather unprofound, as the scientific principles he relies on are already covered in high school biology textbooks. As these textbooks explain, nature achieves ecological balance through various means, such as disease, predators, and the capacity to consume resources. Humanity—intelligent life—strives to break these limitations, thus disrupting the balance. The result is overpopulation; when the capacity to consume resources exceeds the capacity to replenish them, natural decline ensues. When other species disrupt the ecological balance, people simply "slaughter" them. Examples include the recent "American carp" and the "Australian hare" discussed in high school textbooks. People might even gleefully enjoy this "slaughter." However, it seems that on a larger scale, it is precisely intelligent life—humanity—that is "disrupting" the natural balance. They recklessly celebrate their life force, treating the full extent of reproduction as a right, leading to overpopulation. At this point, people realize that limiting themselves is "evil." Thus, Thanos appeared as the "evil" one, eliminating half the population to protect the laws of ecological balance.
Thanos sought to achieve "ecological justice," yet he was portrayed as an "evil villain." This is roughly the so-called "curse of knowledge." Thanos believed he had grasped the science of ecological balance and witnessed the ecological disasters caused by disrupting this balance. Therefore, he thought that eliminating half the population to avoid impacting the ecological balance was, in reality, using the Infinity Stones for the benefit of life from the perspective of life itself. Thus, as an eco-terrorist, Thanos's motives were fundamentally different from those of Poison Ivy and Ultron. The latter two were anti-human, while Thanos was "for humanity." Thanos should be seen as a public servant forcibly promoting a "family planning" policy on a large scale. From a human perspective, Thanos relied on Malthus's *Essay on the Principle of Population*. The expansion of human reproductive desires and resource consumption tends to exceed the carrying capacity of the environment. Individuals are always selfish; humanity possesses this knowledge but is unwilling to relinquish its desires for the sake of so-called "balance." Therefore, from a selfish standpoint, Thanos is the "evil" one, and the ecological lessons he wants to teach are, in his view, the selfish life forms are the truly evil ones.
The relationship between Thanos and humanity is akin to that between Americans and the "American carp." As discussed in *Parasyte: The Code of Life*, "protecting the environment" is a hypocritical concept, essentially just protecting humanity itself; humans only see the species that prey on them as evil, but when humans become predators, they themselves become just as evil. Of course, these statements in *Parasyte* are from the perspective of the parasites—the creatures that prey on humans. The principle is universal, but the perspective differs. Generally, human selfishness distorts the laws (Logos). The difference is that Thanos doesn't represent a specific predator, nor does he want to occupy a particular niche in the food chain; he wants to represent a transcendent law. However, the superheroes who "protect" Earth (again, a hypocritical slogan) don't see it that way. To them, Thanos doesn't represent the laws, but merely occupies a strange niche: Thanos wants to eliminate half of humanity without gaining any benefit. The Infinity Stones are merely tools for Thanos to achieve "ecological justice," not any personal gain. As seen in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Season 5, there's an alien alliance besides Thanos who wants to extract resources and benefits from Earth before he attacks. Compared to these aliens (typically the Kree), Thanos's plans are clearly much more "noble." It's no wonder Thanos belittles Ronan the Accuser's "politics" in Guardians of the Galaxy. Those galactic politicians are always thinking about their own or their family's society's interests, not upholding the dignity of natural law like Thanos does. Regardless, in a sense that Thanos doesn't conform to humanistic ideals, he is a terrorist.
But that doesn't change anything.
That is his own tragedy!
He was in agony while frantically creating death.
This is so dramatic!
Therefore, death favored him!
If he were just a simple serial killer, death wouldn't really care... Death happens all the time, but only the most brilliant, intense, and conflict-ridden deaths can attract the attention of the goddess of death.
Thanos did it without a doubt.
He's too divided.
His reasons for committing the killings were incredibly noble; he genuinely believed it, and deep down he was constantly tormented and tortured by them.
But his methods were brutal and obsessive!
On one hand, they are noble at heart, and on the other hand, they are madly depraved... that's the kind of vibe they have.