Self.

Page 49

"Maybe self-improvement isn't the answer...Maybe self-destruction is the answer."

I feel like this quote basically sums up a lot of the book (well of what I have read so far). This question has appeared in history before (almost all "evil" acts could be related back to this statement), and since it doesn't have an answer, it gets people wondering a lot. And then it gets those people to self-destruct. However, doesn't something negative always turn out from this? And, okay, maybe for something negative to happen might not be the worst thing in your book, but how else could humanity survive. Later in the book, Tyler does mention that his intention is to "...break up civilization so we can make something better out of the world." But how come this hasn't worked yet? Many have tried to bring civilization to ruins, and some people go along with it, but then there are always going to be people, the "good guys" who try and stop it. Because that's what we're taught. Good is good and bad is bad. We like good, we don't like bad. But why? I think that's the whole beginning of the thought that self-destruction might be the answer.

Then again, can't self-improvement be the same thing as, or at least similar to self-destruction? In order to "improve" ourselves, we have to break something down of our identity that we want to reform. So really, maybe the answer is to have just a little bit of both. One has to have a balance, a moderation, with self-destruction/improvement, just like with everything else:)