Reply to comment

 This question is a little too open-ended, I think.  There is so much I can choose to relate, so much space I can choose to take up with this posting~ so much to ignore!  Huzzah!  Choice!  Indeed there is choice among us!  I think this is somewhat of a given!  Alors!  I suppose the two vexations wondered about in this novel are~ the debacle of choosing to decide based on the effect your decision will have on the universe, or choosing, going from the macro to the microcosm, based on the effect of your decision on your own personal happiness.  Well... basing your decisions on your relevance to the world seems to accomplish very little.  I might agree that in most cases pursuing personal ends is actually the most effective way of influencing populations as a whole~ if only because you choose by your endeavors (consumer choices, employment, neighborhood, politics) to join others, to become parts of a whole that can be measured and put to collective use, directed (or oppressed, as the case may be).  BUT I think choice goes as far as human capability, and to languish in the hopelessness of your situation, dwell on a lack of choices, is wasteful.  There are always choices, and though there may be very strong pressure towards one lifestyle or another, one major or another, one partner or another the power to decide remains wholly invested in you.  Now.... if you choose to become a serial killer there will, of course, be consequences, and part of decision making involves considering costs.  But the decision still remains open, it is possible to choose to become a raging maniac with a large gun (because a small gun would be entirely inefficient).  The consequences of becoming such an individual are just so extremely unhelpful to health and happiness (to most people) that the choice loses some of its attraction.  But it IS a choice.  However ridiculous.