I don’t believe in coincidences. Recently, I read an article by 
Úrsula K. Le Guin
The premise of Le Guin’s story is that all the splendor, beauty, and harmony of an imaginary city are founded on the imprisonment of a ten-year-old child—malnourished and isolated—in a basement. Kim’s story, meanwhile, speculates about what would happen if this child were killed. Both works are profound and allegorical, but one lingering doubt reverberates in my mind: Who is this child, this scapegoat, this Savior upon whose misery the magnificence of a city is built? Who are those who walk away from him? What motivates their killers?
Isabel J. Kim
Answer 1 (simplistic): It is the human heart. Or the atomic bomb. Both are dismissed by Le Guin herself in her story.
Using the freedom of expression of our era, nourished by social media, Kim herself hints at some answers:
Answer 2: The monk, the Bodhisattva, the sacrificed Savior, protagonist of the ancient myth of immolation for the sake of the world’s purification. Here we encounter homeopathic or symbolic magic. The death or renunciation of the sole Leader or God guarantees the world’s harmony. But we know this isn’t the case. In fact, in the second story, the dead children are replaced by others.
Answer 3: Social Control, Obedience, Fear, or Slavery. Four siblings with strong claims to winning the prize as meanings of the Child. I dismissed them for one reason. For the third murder, the upper and lower classes unite. Later, among the Experiencers of the Nice House, heated debates arise, leading to mutual accusations and, unnoticed by anyone, the death of the fourth child.
Answer 4: Black Market. It is known that this trade is one of the great veins and pillars supporting the prosperity of many cities, but isn’t it also a source of much suffering? In both stories, wealth, well-being, and health prevail. Though people grieve when, during adolescence, they learn the origin of this prosperity, the people of Omelas ultimately live happily. Those who cannot bear the bitter truth have the option to leave for another world.
After some reflection, this answer didn’t fully convince me either. Even though one character, the anonymous content creator, alludes to the traditional history of many great nations.
I also dismissed this possibility, first because Omelas is not at war with anyone—economically or otherwise—and second, because after each child’s death, climatic catastrophes and ideological conflicts (like homophobia or religious fanaticism) erupt, which do not stem from economic or commercial origins. No, it’s not Black Market either, I told myself.
I spent a while digging and digging into the child’s hole. Not to kill him (I’m neither a rebel nor an anarchist), but to see his face. It’s possible I glimpsed it.
My final answer: The self-control of instinct. The child represents the Animal Instinct that must be locked away or repressed to favor social harmony. The ten-year-old infant described by Le Guin neither thinks nor controls his bodily functions. If he is in that state of total malnutrition and neglect, it is because he is socially repressed, imprisoned, and punished.
Returning to
A small group of Omelans chooses to walk away from Omelas, for upon learning its secret, they no longer feel free there either.
What do we do, then, with the Animal instinct, with the Survival instinct? Do we lock it away, kill it, set it free, criticize it, or walk away from it in search of other options?