First: very interesting, thank you for sharing! Personal view ~ any extreme in either direction damages the individual and the society, both "sides" need to be taken in moderation.
About the Story: it happens, being okay with everything means a person is not true to themselves, they are nothing more than a melting pot of everyone else's ideas. But, being so consumed with your own life, your own wants, showing disrespect just because you believe you know what is right so much more than anyone else, well, that is also harmful.
Solution: believe what you believe, be who you are, be proud of it and share it; do not fear it. At the same time respect other people even if you don't agree with them. Be courteous and concencious; in my mind there is never a good reason to be impolite.
About Love: I don't think I agree with the "everything is based on love..." because if it was humans would behave a lot differently... Studies show that most people have certain groups of other human beings they consider to be on the same level as an object... like a chair... or dirt. Their brain waves indicate the same response when discussing a chair and criminals in prison, the homeless, radicals of the other side. This occurs in a large number of people, but not all. If it didn't occur in anyone, I think that would be a good improvement. Everyone is alive, everyone feels, thinking about others as dirt, as an object, whoever the person is, damages not only your interactions with them but also changes your brain chemistry and makes it more likely that you will start to think of larger and larger groups of people as dirt. If this phenomena did not occur, then love might have a chance.
Could be my point of view is off: I freely admit to "loving" everyone, or caring about everyone equally. And yes, this may mean I don't know love, maybe I don't, I've never been in a relationship, I don't even know if real love is possible. I hope it is. But, be that as it may, as my religion taught me: loving your neighbor does not mean feeling that fuzzy feeling you sometimes get for everyone, it means doing right by them no matter how you feel. That is true love. Doing what needs to be done for other people no matter how you feel because that is our purpose in this life. Help one another.
Desert/Water Situation: Give it too whoever would be able to do the most good/be the most help to people once they got out of the desert. Critically analyze yourself and the other person and do what needs to be done based on who has the most needed or critical skills. This may sound cold but that in and of itself is a blessing. No worries about how you are perceived, about self-sacrifice, about killing another. It is what is needed, and there are no regrets.
So maybe I don't know love, but I know that dehumanizing anyone damages the individual. And preferential love may be what this world runs on, but I would not call that love, at least not the biblical definition of love. Love your neighbor as yourself includes everyone. I take better care of my family and close friends than other people because those are the people God has put within my reach to do the most good for. Everyone else is just a friend I have yet to make. That does not mean I agree with their views, or will validate their actions, or believe they are entitled to anything. What it does mean is that I will help those I am in a position to help, that I can help. I believe that anyone who has the ability to help another has the responsibility to help. And I will help those in my immediate circles more because they are who God has placed closer to me that I can help more. That does not mean forgetting the rest, but that does mean focussing my attention where it can do the most good.
Practical, practical, practical.
About the end: Both sides hold extremes, forcing people to be alike and taking away what makes them unique is as horrid as the author fully wants us to believe. On the other hand, a purely capitalistic society based on preferential love destroys those with great potential just because they are not in the right place at the right time. Both views are misguided although both come from a desire to understand and do their best for people. A balance, a flux, and oscillatory motion, that is what is needed for this world, and for our humanity to survive.
My opinion only, I do not mean to offend either side, but I see much of that as being written in anger and anger is a useless exercise that doesn't do anyone any good, no matter the reasoning. "Do what you can, with what you have, where you are, and accept the rest." So either work to change something or accept it for what it is, those are the options. Getting mad does not change anything, therefor it is not useful. Occasionally it can be used to reduce stress or to vent and help a person be in a calmer state of mind, but otherwise it is silly. I have a hard time believing anything said in anger by anyone... the same can be said though for the people's anger at others for not understanding universal love though. I disbelieve their ideas as well. By allowing themselves to not make a choice/decision on one religion/way of life over any other, they are abdicating their uniqueness and ability to make a difference. They are denying themselves more than they are denying love, it seems to me, which is just as foolish.
