How do you answer this ...

[Pauly]

Just been watching the news with my niece whilst we ate breakfast, and the assualt on Fellujah came on.

Afterwards, my niece, only 8 years old asked me 2 questions that I couldn't answer. The first was "Why do we have to destroy our world?" and the second was "What are we doing to our world?".

All I could do was cuddle her and say I don't know.

It's pretty sad actually, when I was 5 and a half years old the same thing was going on; removing Saddam Hussein from Iraq. I remember I was one of the people that joked about it and said "oh yea he's gonna bomb us", but one of my friends was actually scared.

It does make you sad though when you have to look at a little girl and try to answer why we're killing ourselves.

[ethicaldesign]

"Out of the mouths of babes" they say!

It's surprising what a clear and uncomplex (and often correct) view of the world children have unhindered by conditioning and the sort of acceptance we develop (often against all logic) by the time we reach adulthood.

Reminds me of something I read not so long ago:

A SERMON ON ETHICS AND LOVE

One day Mal-2 asked the messenger spirit Saint Gulik to approach the Goddess and request Her presence for some desperate advice. Shortly afterwards the radio came on by itself, and an ethereal female Voice said YES?

"O! Eris! Blessed Mother of Man! Queen of Chaos! Daughter of Discord! Concubine of Confusion! O! Exquisite Lady, I beseech You to lift a heavy burden from my heart!"

WHAT BOTHERS YOU, MAL? YOU DON'T SOUND WELL.

"I am filled with fear and tormented with terrible visions of pain. Everywhere people are hurting one another, the planet is rampant with injustices, whole societies plunder groups of their own people, mothers imprison sons, children perish while brothers war. O, woe."

WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THAT, IF IT IS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO?

"But nobody wants it! Everybody hates it."

OH. WELL, THEN STOP.

At which moment She turned herself into an aspirin commercial and left The Polyfather stranded alone with his species.

The above is meant partly in jest ofcourse, but it's quite beautiful in its simplicity. I'm sure a lot of people would laugh at your neices naivety but for me personally those questions are quite valid and really leads me to the question of who is naive. Her for having a vision of how perfect the world could be, or the adult word for accepting it the way it is. Even on an individual level the word "NO" can be very powerful.

Perhaps the answer to her first question could be simply "Because we as individuals as we grow into adulthood come to accep things the way they are and let them happen".

[the_pm]

The way we act toward each other and the way we treat ourselves has changes very little over the course of many millenia. The big difference is we've devised more complex justifications for the treatment, and we are much more efficient at inflicting it. The problem is that there is a healthy contingency of people who really do want this type of conflict to prevail, and there are as many reasons for this desire as there are people who favor conflict.

For an interesting perspective on cultural conflict, try reading Asimov's "The End of Eternity." You'll easily read it in one day.

But this is about how we destroy each other - a sad but perpetual fact of life. Your niece's question is very different. She wants to know what we're doing to our world, and the answer you don't want to give her is "we're creating a mess of it in hopes your generation will clean up after us." I was listening to the news on the way to work this morning, and they were discussing a report about the Arctic polar ice caps, how they are melting at such an alarming rate that within the century, portions of Florida and Louisiana will no longer exist on the map (a significant thing if you understand U.S. geography). They predict a global rise in ocean levels by three feet during that time.

Maybe the movie Day After Tomorrow wasn't so far off... (great movie, BTW - I bought it the day it came out on DVD).

[ethicaldesign]

The way we act toward each other and the way we treat ourselves has changes very little over the course of many millenia. The big difference is we've devised more complex justifications for the treatment, and we are much more efficient at inflicting it. The problem is that there is a healthy contingency of people who really do want this type of conflict to prevail, and there are as many reasons for this desire as there are people who favor conflict.

I agree to some extent (and fully about the idea that there are people who want things to continue as they are - that hasn't changed much - however we shouldn't forget that they are probably in the minority albeit a powerful minority).

Machiavelli's analysis for example still holds true in a great many ways today, however there are some significant changes in the way we view ourselves and our relationship to others as individuals that HAVE changed over millenia and even over the last few centuries.

Most of these changes have come about through education and the increasing facility for people to think for themselves and their rejection of just blindly accepting the status quo.

Slavery for example. While the reality of it is that slavery probably does still exist to some extent (shrouded under the cover of economics rather than open slave trading perhaps), the vast majority of people if you asked them whether they thought slavery was a good idea would probably find it quite abhorrent. Even amongst those who seek power or wealth. Go back over a few centuries and it would be an accepted fact of life amongst a far larger proportion of the population, as would dictatorship (lets not forget the idea of democracy however flawed is a fairly recent invention).

There are other equally dramatic changes in public perception that starts with the individual and ultimately effects the way the world works and how we live our lives and view our relationship with each other. It's usually when public perception changes en-masse that positive and progressive change takes place and this all starts with the individual questioning rather than accepting the status quo.

There are innumerable examples of this being the case throughout even recent history. Consider how radical the ideas of the civil rights movement in the US appeared at the time, and how generally accepted they are amongst the majority of the populace now, or how radical the ideas of John Locke and Thomas Paine, both fellow Englishmen who valued the concept of individual responsibility and reasoning were to the prevailing attitudes in my country at the time. Both men ultimately had a massive impact on the way the US and much of the rest of the world operates today.


For an interesting perspective on cultural conflict, try reading Asimov's "The End of Eternity." You'll easily read it in one day.


I haven't read that. Sounds interesting. I'll have to check that out sometime.


But this is about how we destroy each other - a sad but perpetual fact of life.

My question would be why should we accept it as a perpetual fact of life?

Up until a couple of hundred years ago (or more recently depending which part of the world you look at), we accepted the idea of dictatorship and slavery as a perpetual fact of life, along with a number of other things that we no longer accept as a species in general today.

If a child asks "why do we destroy each other", to reply "it's a sad fact of life" isn't really an answer imho as it avoids the question itself altogether and essentially acts as a way of conditioning the child to into an acceptence of the situation that perpetuates the problem in the first place.

It's only when we start as individuals trying to answer that question honestly I believe things will ever change.

If occams razor is correct, that little discordian quote above is quite a valid way of looking at things I think.

[Pauly]

Maybe the movie Day After Tomorrow wasn't so far off

Actually I did some research on this, and we're actually supposed to be 4,000 years into an ice age period. The day after tomorrow film is actually accurate in predicting what will happen, however they (experts) say it would take hundreds of years and not 10 days.

My question would be why should we accept it as a perpetual fact of life?

There has always been war in the Middle East. That is a fact of life and a very sad one. We're not accepting it as a fact of life, and that's why there is a War in Iraq, and various other countries around the world. 'Action is a weapon of mass destruction', from a song but I believe that now.

[ethicaldesign]

Maybe the movie Day After Tomorrow wasn't so far off

Actually I did some research on this, and we're actually supposed to be 4,000 years into an ice age period. The day after tomorrow film is actually accurate in predicting what will happen, however they (experts) say it would take hundreds of years and not 10 days.

I haven't seen that film yet myself but it's on my list at lovefilm so hopefully they'll send it out at some point when I've got a bit further through my list. Looks like an interesting film with quite impressive special effects, but as you say the timescale is obviously way off.

That pentagon report aswell was probably some way off in terms of timescale as far as I can tell aswell (you know the one that they tried to keep a lid on that predicted global warming would be a bigger threat than terrorism over the next 25 years). I'm still trying to work out how a fairly conservative organisation like that came out with a report like that though (kind of makes greenpeace look tame).



There has always been war in the Middle East. That is a fact of life and a very sad one.

I agree it's a fact that wars have happened historically, but that they should happen perpetually isn't really a fact of life.

That we get old and die, that if you throw something up in the air (at least here on earth) it'll come back down, that if you starve the body without oxygen for a week it'll die you could consider fairly immovable facts of life (though the former might even be open to question at some stage).

Warfare and group agression is a human behaviour so subject to change. Just because something has historically happened doesn't mean it has to continue for all eternity. I'd be naive to think that this would ever happen very soon but I like to hope that over time we will eventually accept the errors of our ways as we have over so many other things and that that aspect of human behaviour will become culturally and individually abhorrent (as have so many other things).

We're not accepting it as a fact of life, and that's why there is a War in Iraq, and various other countries around the world.

The logic of that is lost on me a bit I have to admit. We're not accepting war as a fact of life, and that's the reason we're having a war?

[Pauly]

Yep.

There are some crazy people in this world, worse than Hitler was. If we accept no war, then we would be ruled by one person, that would be horrible. That's why we have war. Good, and evil.

[ethicaldesign]

Yep.

There are some crazy people in this world, worse than Hitler was. If we accept no war, then we would be ruled by one person, that would be horrible. That's why we have war. Good, and evil.

I would tend to wonder first of all whether Hitler would have ended up with the mindset he did, if he existed in a world without war. This is obviously quite an abstract and philosophical question but quite valid imho.

Despite the 'evil' label he has been given there's no doubt in my mind that he was a product of his experiences as much as his genetics (unless ofcourse you take the religious viewpoint of original sin which I find an unacceptibly simple answer that is often used to avoid unpleasant revelations) and the position germany found itself in during his childhood and eventually during his rise to power was itself the result of a previous war. A situation that not only influenced his behaviour in later life but facilitiated his rise to power.

Not at all saying that the way he responded to that was in any way justified however, just that I don't like the cop out of branding him 'evil' and not bothering to look at any of the things that might have led him to such a twisted mindset and ultimately actions in the first place.

Also, how far would hitler have got if the idea of war was considered an abhorrent and insane human behaviour that people refused to accept on an individual level and collective level. Hard to build an army under those circumstances if the vast majority of the populace look upon your ideas as absolutely sickening and insane.

The concept of good and evil I don't really accept. Who is it that decides what is good and what is evil? That dichotomy has been used since time immemorial to create conflict and control individual will and repress reason.

Don't forget that Hitler claimed to have god on his side, and many of his troops thought they were fighting for good and in the name of god.

[kirxklox]

One of my rules is that it is of poor conversation practices to talk about Politics and Religion. It causes more hurt feelings than anything else in the WORLD. This is the Internet and there is no controls set for Religious Groups, Ethnicity, Race or any of the other contentious topics of today. Solving the Worlds problems is going to be a life long endeavor for everyone.

Start now.

Say "I refuse to Accept War as a means of settling disagreements".

[Pauly]

You're quite right, but the fact is we have war, and we always will, if not between ourselves, another planet, galaxy, universe etc.

Hitlers troops were decieved along with the public in Germany into thinking they were on the good side and fighting for what they thought was right, and what 'God' wanted. But this doesn't change the 2 sides of Good and Evil, just like it doesn't today.

No doubt if any terrorists are captured they will claim they were fighting for freedom, but that's why we're there so why are they shooting us and not helping us? They will claim they have their God with them, but all religions have murder down as a sin (if you believe in that junk).

Anyone defying or trying to defy the real good and then claims they were fighting for good in my opinion is a coward who is 'man' enough to fight with no face, but not man enough to face the consequences.

I think we got a little off topic, but in a world where war and hate exists, you can only hope that someone will take their head out their *you know what*.

[ethicaldesign]

One of my rules is that it is of poor conversation practices to talk about Politics and Religion. It causes more hurt feelings than anything else in the WORLD. This is the Internet and there is no controls set for Religious Groups, Ethnicity, Race or any of the other contentious topics of today. Solving the Worlds problems is going to be a life long endeavor for everyone.

Yes, I know it's always a subject that can cause arguments, but I like to think that it's better to talk about things than fight over them, and while I might personally disagree with someone I will rarely hold their oppinion against them (and always hope that people offer me the same courtesy).

Even when I disagree with someone the result of a conversation can be a benefit because it can educate me and help me understand their viewpoint and that in itself might change my mind. That is ultimately how we learn ofcourse,


Say "I refuse to Accept War as a means of settling disagreements".

That's my position :D

[the_pm]

I agree on this position, but what if someone refuses to accept peace, and they are disagreeing with you?

[Pauly]

I agree on this position, but what if someone refuses to accept peace, and they are disagreeing with you?

Another reason we're at war. The Falluja situation is a perfect example. You have rebels who are refusing to let Iraq enter a diplomatic, secure and peaceful state, and being selfish in thinking they can take power.

If they refuse peace and disagree with you, then they should live on side by side and let you go your way and them go theres. Selfish *lots of swear words here* people pick up a gun and shoot (I would say fight but I see fight as a man to man fist dual, not a coward with a weapon hiding from his enemies, and ultimately - fate).

[ethicaldesign]

You're quite right, but the fact is we have war, and we always will, if not between ourselves, another planet, galaxy, universe etc.

We will only have perpetual war, if we continue to accept it. The minute we as a species say "NO" is the minute that it stops (exclusing the possibility of an alien invasion ofcourse but I would like to think that if extra terrestrial life has evolved to the point they can travel faster than the speed of light that they might have evolved beyond warfare).


Hitlers troops were decieved along with the public in Germany into thinking they were on the good side and fighting for what they thought was right, and what 'God' wanted. But this doesn't change the 2 sides of Good and Evil, just like it doesn't today.

Exactly my point! That's why I posed the question "Who decides what's good and evil?".


No doubt if any terrorists are captured they will claim they were fighting for freedom, but that's why we're there so why are they shooting us and not helping us? They will claim they have their God with them, but all religions have murder down as a sin (if you believe in that junk).

Exactly my point! I really don't think the idea of murder being an abhorrent human behaviour is junk though. I'm not a religious person myself but that is definitely one part of their philosophy that I completely agree with.


Anyone defying or trying to defy the real good and then claims they were fighting for good in my opinion is a coward who is 'man' enough to fight with no face, but not man enough to face the consequences.

As I say, who decides the 'real' good though? In germany Hitler declared what was 'good' and what was 'evil' and people believed him. The same distinction has been used throughout history to repress basic human reason.

If the general populace in Germany looked upon his ideas with critical reason, and viewed the very idea that the man was trying to lead them into a break with religious instruction in the name of god, trying to lead them into a situation that nobody liked and everyone hates (war), then they might have spotted the insanity of that proposition.

What Hitler did in a large part is as old as civilisation itself. As Ceasar said:

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizery into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edge sword. It narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so! How do I know? For this is what I have done! And I am Caesar!"

Or in the words of one of Hitlers henchmen:

"Of course the people do not want war! But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it is a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy! All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to the greater danger."

It's my own sincere hope that eventually history will teach us something (heaven knows it's been repeated enough times already).


I think we got a little off topic, but in a world where war and hate exists, you can only hope that someone will take their head out their *you know what*.

You're completely right! If we survive as a species and civilisation continues to progress I'd like to think that at some point a child will be sitting in a history lesson wondering what insanity drove us primitives to murder each other rather than cooperate as a species in the same way they might today wonder what unevolved mentality drove primitive people in our past to blood-sacrifice their first born to make the crops grow and the weather good.

[the_pm]

then they should live on side by side and let you go your way and them go theres That would be the definition of having accepted peace. It's very easy to say you don't accept war. But both sides have to agree with that statement or else war is what you'll have, regardless of how badly you don't want it.

I'm not at all trying to justify war. I'm just trying to call it as I see it. The fact is that war has long been a way for people/nations to make their lives better. It is at the expense of others, but the desire to make your own life better is a primal desire. That's Darwinism. We've just mixed it in with technology. The combination could result in the destruction of everything, but that's not a foreign concept in the natural order of things either...

[ethicaldesign]

I agree on this position, but what if someone refuses to accept peace, and they are disagreeing with you?

Perhaps the same thing that happens when some other form of abhorrent behaviour exists in society (assuming that the majority look upon it that way).

It would first of all be less likely to happen (because it would no longer be accepted as a fact of life and a basic human behaviour for everyone, but something unusual - a sort of perverted way of looking at things if you will - and the influence of social beliefs on our behaviour as individuals shouldn't be underestimated).

What happens if someone decides that they want to trade slaves for example? Or Bait bears or hold dog fights?

Society has a way of responding to that. The very idea of these things to most people nowadays is perverted and it wouldn't be accepted. Such people who tried to engage in such activities would be stopped and few people would take part in them.

Go back a couple of hundred years and this activity along with many other things that we now consider an abomination, to a very large proportion of population in those times would be acceptible.

Progress. Civilisation.

It's worth considering that just about every great civilisation has been destroyed by group agression. If we are to have a chance to move forward and progress as a species and continue along a positive path of societal evolution I think we need to learn from our mistakes in the past.

[the_pm]

Funny. According to Morris Berman in "The Twilight of American Culture" the decline of American civilization is coming along just fine with or without war... :shock:

[ethicaldesign]

I agree on this position, but what if someone refuses to accept peace, and they are disagreeing with you?

Another reason we're at war. The Falluja situation is a perfect example. You have rebels who are refusing to let Iraq enter a diplomatic, secure and peaceful state, and being selfish in thinking they can take power.

If they refuse peace and disagree with you, then they should live on side by side and let you go your way and them go theres. Selfish *lots of swear words here* people pick up a gun and shoot (I would say fight but I see fight as a man to man fist dual, not a coward with a weapon hiding from his enemies, and ultimately - fate).

The problem with looking at the way things are rather than what they could be is that it does nothing to answer the underlying philosophical questions or address any of the reasons that lead us into that position in the first place.

War will certainly be perpetual if everyone takes that viewpoint because it's harder to see the wood for the trees as the saying goes.

It's really not that I have my head up my ass. I understand the way the world works at the moment and I understand how odd such a proposition sounds at this current moment in time. I've just looked past what is to consider what could be.

That has been the starting point of every positive form of human progress throughout history. Two hundred years ago, I would have probably been saying "imagine a world without slavery" and I'd have people saying "take your head out of your ass, there has always been slavery and always will be!".

[ethicaldesign]

Funny. According to Morris Berman in "The Twilight of American Culture" the decline of American civilization is coming along just fine with or without war... :shock:

:) Another book that sounds interesting. I'm going to try to check that out aswell.

Ofcourse I haven't read it yet so can't really comment, but if that's the basic premise I would tend to wonder whether he had considered whether warfare is a significant part of American Culture (as it is in most countries of the world at the moment - not wanting to just single out America).

I'm personally always quite fascinated by the swiss way of looking at things "You want to get into a war...sure...Go ahead..We'll just watch and look after your money in the mean time" :D

[the_pm]

I'm personally always quite fascinated by the swiss way of looking at things "You want to get into a war...sure...Go ahead..We'll just watch and look after your money in the mean time"The Swiss have always been content to play that role. Some might say they're not ambitious. Some would say they are very smart. Yet others would say they are only acting prudently, because they've sized up the competition, and they understand they're better off not getting involved.

It's been years since I read Berman's book, so I don't entirely recall it, but he talks at length about many, many aspects of American culture, focusing quite a bit on academics, IIRC. It's a very good read. I recommend a trip to the library for this one, and purchasing it if you like it :)

[ethicaldesign]

then they should live on side by side and let you go your way and them go theres That would be the definition of having accepted peace. It's very easy to say you don't accept war. But both sides have to agree with that statement or else war is what you'll have, regardless of how badly you don't want it.

That's my sincere hope. Not likely to happen in my lifetime but hopefully at some point in our distant future we will as a species recognise the absurdity of continually walking into a situation that nobody likes and everybody hates (both sides of the equation).

I'm not at all trying to justify war. I'm just trying to call it as I see it. The fact is that war has long been a way for people/nations to make their lives better. It is at the expense of others, but the desire to make your own life better is a primal desire. That's Darwinism. We've just mixed it in with technology. The combination could result in the destruction of everything, but that's not a foreign concept in the natural order of things either...

Yes, I do see your point. Don't forget the occasional importance of cooperation (and even in certain situations selflessness) in darwinian evolution however.

I understand what you're saying about primal desire, but we manage to keep a lid on so many of our other primal instincts. I like to imagine that we might stretch that to a couple more in the future. Afterall, we've evolved beyond primates (sometimes I wonder I have to admit, but being an optimist I like to think most of us have at least :D).

[the_pm]

A. Certain primal instincts will never be overcome. That's a good thing. I'll leave it to everyone's individual imaginations to decide what those might be...

B. Cooperation is what happens when a bunch of people fight on the same side of the war ;)

C. The benefits of cooperation in peace and in war have come about through evolution as well (I doubt too many amoebas cooperated back in the day). Perhaps one day we will evolve to the point where war simply becomes unnecessary. I've heard talks on the ages of man. Looking at modern times, we had the Age of Reason, then the Age of Industry, most recently the Age of Information, and some academics believe the next age will be the Age of Leisure. But we have to get over ourselves first.

[ethicaldesign]

A. Certain primal instincts will never be overcome. That's a good thing. I'll leave it to everyone's individual imaginations to decide what those might be...

No, but they have been succesfully restrained or redirected.

I'm guessing that you're hinting at sex :D

If you look at that primal instinct in particular there are a number of aspects of it that have been restrained and which are considered abhorrent in society on the whole and in most cases the individual themselves (not talking about this from a dubious victorian moralistic viewpoint but pointing out perhaps the differences between ourselves and how a caveman which might be genetically the same as us might view what we would now consider the more damaging aspects of that particular instinct)


B. Cooperation is what happens when a bunch of people fight on the same side of the war ;)

What if everyone eventually starts to consider the notion that as a species, we are all on the same side?

Reminds me of that video clip I saw a while ago where Regan's at some world conference and he comes out with something along the lines of:

"I often wonder how condusive to world peace it would be if the world faced some outside threat not from this planet"

The camera pans over to who (if my memory is correct) is a bunch of japanese politicians who have this really uncomfortable "is this guy mad, or does he know something that we don't" sort of look on their faces.

:D

Perhaps he wasn't so nutty afterall though when you consider the effect that global warming might be having in the long term.


C. The benefits of cooperation in peace and in war have come about through evolution as well (I doubt too many amoebas cooperated back in the day).

Yes, but we're not amoebas are we?

Perhaps one day we will evolve to the point where war simply becomes unnecessary.

I live in hope!

I've heard talks on the ages of man. Looking at modern times, we had the Age of Reason, then the Age of Industry, most recently the Age of Information, and some academics believe the next age will be the Age of Leisure. But we have to get over ourselves first.

I hope you're right about the "age of leisure" thing :) Bit of a crazy idea though (as crazy perhaps as my proposition that we should give up the idea of war - or perhaps that's even part of it - afterall unless you're a bit of a lunatic going to war could hardly be considered a leisure pursuit!).

Hope this all doesn't come across like I'm taking the moral high ground on any of this btw. I understand human falibility and I'm about as falible as the next person in all respects (including the things that I'm arguing against here). It's just something that I fight against within myself and would hope that over time we as a species can conquer them. That only starts when we accept them and try to change them within ourselves though (something I struggle with myself on a personal level).

[kirxklox]

"War is Hell" no matter where you are at. It is no solution to the problem and will only bring more strife if the basic problem is not solved.

Been there, seen it first hand.

[ethicaldesign]

"War is Hell" no matter where you are at. It is no solution to the problem and will only bring more strife if the basic problem is not solved.

Been there, seen it first hand.

It's surprising how many ex-soldiers who have seen it first hand come out of the situation with that attitude. A lot of my personal opinions about this have been informed by people who saw active service.

It's equally surprising to me how many people support wars (or even start them) who have never been in that position, and who despite their supposed support choose not to take part personally even when there is the opportunity for them to do so.

For an interesting soldiers take on the whole thing, I would recommend to anyone to go and read a little about a guy called "smedley butler" - who is generally regarded as a marine legend in the US (the most decorated marine in US history):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

In particular his essay 'war is a racket' linked towards the bottom of that page:

http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

I wonder how many vietnam veterans agree with him? And how many veterans of the war that's going on at the moment are going to agree with him in a few years?