Is love a cure all?

Last time we talked about the PD James novel The Children of Men in a fairly broad way. This time we will be tackling the question of Rosie the evangelist and her message of love. At the end of the novel, does love act as a cure-all that lasts past the end of the novel, through the apocalypse? If we start by thinking about what it is that love is meant to cure we can figure out whether love managed to cure the society's disease.

When we look at the country shown throughout the beginning of the novel we see a world of apathy and selfishness. Theo as the main character and the viewpoint character has throughout his life admitted to being largely apathetic to other people's emotions and needs. This apathy springs from a selfishness and a desire to not need other people. We also see the Council of England and Xan being especially greedy for power as representatives of the majority of the country. The country and people are said to only want three things: Protection, Pleasure, and Comfort. All very selfish things, focused on the individual self instead of the larger group. Even the Five Fishes are not above selfishness. Rolf, the leader, is only out as a revolutionary because he wants the power of the Warden of England for himself. In fact the only time we see people showing any sort of selflessness is when there is true affection shown to others. Miriam with her brother, Luke toward Julian, and Theo toward Julian and her child. We even see the selflessness and love that humans turn towards animals and inanimate objects with the lack of children or desire for romantic love. Theo's ex-wife shows care to the cat, people have christenings for newborn pets and even treat dolls as objects of affection that need to be cared for.

 So if love is meant to cure selfishness and greed, does it? And then does it stay through the apocalypse? As I said before Love does seem to be the factor influencing the way that people interact with each other. In the last portion of the book we see people sacrificing their lives for love. Luke gives up his life to save Julian and the unborn child. Miriam risks her life and ends up losing it for Julian and the child as well as the love between Theo and Julian. The child is just the ultimate way to make this evident. What is a child but something that, supposedly, has to be loved, in the context of the novel. It seems to be impossible for anyone in the world of the novel to not love a child as their hope. A child is something that has to be loved above the self. It needs a selfless love to grow. If a person is selfish in their relationship with a child, the child will most likely die. Does the love stay through the apocalypse? With the life of the child it has to. Does it cancel out and destroy the selfishness? No. We see when Theo puts on the ring of England and doesn't take it off that the greed and selfish nature of humans is still there. It is impossible to get rid of that negative portion of the human but there is hope in the child and the love that Julian has for both Theo and the child and that Theo, we assume, returns. So the greed is still there. But so is the love. They both persist and will continue as long as there are humans as they are both innately tied to what it means to be human.