I want to continue to explore the question that I raised in my last blog regarding the causes of the struggles that exist in the world today. I mentioned that our major battle was not between religions, or countries, or ideologies, but was a race between the forces of higher consciousness and the forces that control the thinking and actions of ordinary man. The main issue concerning the world today is whether or not we will kill ourselves, either through an unspeakably horrible war, or through the destruction of our environment, or will we learn to live in a more peaceful and balanced way.
First of all we must understand that war has been an integral part of the history of mankind. There has never been an extended period of peace since the beginning of recorded history. In a Nubian cemetery dating back 12,000 years 50% of the bodies showed evidence of violence. It has been estimated that 90-95% of all civilizations have engaged in some form of warfare. There have been over 150 conflicts and 600 battles in Western Europe in the last 150 years. What is different today is that, for the first time in the history of mankind, we have the potential to destroy our planet through the use of nuclear and/or biological weapons. Very simply the risk of war is no longer acceptable.
There are a number of theories about the causes of war. There are psychological theories that believe that man is basically aggressive and inherently violent. He cannot control himself and war is inevitable. There are theories that believe that war is not a result of the nature of the average man but is primarily caused by power hungry leaders who have no regard for human life. When a society is struggling these leaders use their superior motivational skills to rally the masses behind some dream or belief system that offers hope of a better life in this world or the next.
There are economic theories which see war as a constant struggle for resources and riches
especially when there is scarcity or inequality in the distribution of material wealth. Marx believed that war was a result of competition for resources between imperialist countries and would not end until there was a world government. Thomas Malthus believed that war was a result of expanding populations and limited resources. When the population increased to a certain point it had to be whittled down by war or famine or some other major catastrophe.
A recent theory has been named the "youth bulge theory. This viewpoint attributes war to the existence within a society of too many men ages 16-30 and not enough jobs or productive outlets for their energies. These men need a way to spend their time and channel their testosterone. War is one of the possible ways that can satisfy their needs for action, adventure, and sense of accomplishment.
All these theories have one element in common. They are the result of a level of consciousness whose primary motivation is self-gratification. They are the result of a desire to get more for oneself or one's family or one's country. You might say this is the way man is and their is nothing we can do about it. I agree that this is the way man has been in the past and the way most man are today. However, this way of being is no longer what is required for survival. This is the big difference in the world today.
If we accept the idea that the primary instinct of man is for survival and that evolution has been a result of perfecting man's ability to survive, then we must also accept that for man to continue to survive he is going to have to evolve to the level where he will not engage in activities that are self-destructive. In other words we will learn to get along and recognize that our planet's survival is mutually beneficial or we will go the way of most of the other species that have existed on the earth. It doesn't make sense to bet against us.
Showing posts with label war and peace. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war and peace. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Thoughts on Violence and War
I always hated the Yankees. I hated Mickey Mantle. Yankee Stadium, Ballantine Beer (their sponsor), Mel Allen (their announcer), even the Bronx. I know it's a little irrational, but I couldn't help it. The Yankees were the enemy. I never once, though, considered strapping dynamite to my body and blowing myself up in their dugout. It never crossed my mind to hijack a plane and crash it into their stadium. Maybe I was a little soft in those days, but for some reason these ideas never even occurred to me. Should I be proud of this? Not really, this should be normal. But for some mysterious reason we are continually looking for ways to hurt and even destroy our enemies.
Of all the problems that exist in the world, violence is numero uno. It seems to me that one thing we should avoid is: killing each other. Now you might say: "what if we're being attacked." Of course we should defend ourselves. This is not even worth discussing. What is critical though is to reduce the probability that we will destroy ourselves through an unspeakably horrible nuclear war. Every other concern, of all the worlds politicians, especially the leaders of the major powers, needs to be secondary to this one possibility. This is one point there must be agreement. There are no circumstances that I can think of in which destroying the world is acceptable.
This might sound obvious. However, it cannot be emphasized enough. The question then is how to best prevent this. This is where it gets tricky. There are two basic lines of thought and numerous variations on each line. The first view is that in order to avoid violence against us, we should kill our enemies before they kill us. This is sometimes called the"preemptive" strategy. The second view is that we should "turn the other cheek." If someone hits us we should not respond but let them hit us again.
Neither point seems realistic. The first strategy advocates the very thing you are trying to avoid. It assumes that man is naturally and uncontrollable warlike and aggressive. Logically, belief in this strategy will result in consistent killing and destruction, until only one nation or one religion or one political system or even only one family remains. Plus, how do you determine when your enemy is threatening enough that they must be killed? Who makes this decision?
The second view has a much greater chance of preventing violence but the risk in today's world is a little too high. There are too many wackos who view non violence or passive resistance as weakness and will take advantage if they see an opportunity. It doesn't seem that this strategy would work against someone like Hitler, or Charles Manson, or Genghis Khan.
So what is the solution? In the past the consequences of war were horrible. Today, they're catastrophic. We need to find some middle ground that balances the necessity to present a strong image with the moderation to act prudently, to prevent situations from escalating past the point of no return. I believe we cannot assume that there is no hope and that there is no way to compromise. Here are some thoughts from some I consider smarter than me.
If you want to make friends you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.
Moshe Dayan
You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.
Albert Einstein
An eye for an eye will make the whole world go blind.
Mahatma Gandhi
If I am brutal and you use brutal methods to overcome me you become brutal just like me.
Khrishnamurti
True power comes from when we have every reason to kill and we don't.
Oscar Schindler
War does not determine who is right, only who is left.
Bertrand Russell
Someday they'll give a war and nobody will come.
Carl Sandburg
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Voltaire
The way to win an atomic war is to make sure it never starts.
Omar Bradley (General)
Either war is obsolete or men are.
Buckminster Fuller.
Although there is no simple answer as to what strategy will be most effective, the necessity for finding an answer is escalating. Necessity has been known to be the mother of invention. President Obama seems to me to be on the right track in admitting weakness and trying to establish a dialogue amongst all sides. I think we should support his efforts. I am hopeful.
Of all the problems that exist in the world, violence is numero uno. It seems to me that one thing we should avoid is: killing each other. Now you might say: "what if we're being attacked." Of course we should defend ourselves. This is not even worth discussing. What is critical though is to reduce the probability that we will destroy ourselves through an unspeakably horrible nuclear war. Every other concern, of all the worlds politicians, especially the leaders of the major powers, needs to be secondary to this one possibility. This is one point there must be agreement. There are no circumstances that I can think of in which destroying the world is acceptable.
This might sound obvious. However, it cannot be emphasized enough. The question then is how to best prevent this. This is where it gets tricky. There are two basic lines of thought and numerous variations on each line. The first view is that in order to avoid violence against us, we should kill our enemies before they kill us. This is sometimes called the"preemptive" strategy. The second view is that we should "turn the other cheek." If someone hits us we should not respond but let them hit us again.
Neither point seems realistic. The first strategy advocates the very thing you are trying to avoid. It assumes that man is naturally and uncontrollable warlike and aggressive. Logically, belief in this strategy will result in consistent killing and destruction, until only one nation or one religion or one political system or even only one family remains. Plus, how do you determine when your enemy is threatening enough that they must be killed? Who makes this decision?
The second view has a much greater chance of preventing violence but the risk in today's world is a little too high. There are too many wackos who view non violence or passive resistance as weakness and will take advantage if they see an opportunity. It doesn't seem that this strategy would work against someone like Hitler, or Charles Manson, or Genghis Khan.
So what is the solution? In the past the consequences of war were horrible. Today, they're catastrophic. We need to find some middle ground that balances the necessity to present a strong image with the moderation to act prudently, to prevent situations from escalating past the point of no return. I believe we cannot assume that there is no hope and that there is no way to compromise. Here are some thoughts from some I consider smarter than me.
If you want to make friends you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.
Moshe Dayan
You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.
Albert Einstein
An eye for an eye will make the whole world go blind.
Mahatma Gandhi
If I am brutal and you use brutal methods to overcome me you become brutal just like me.
Khrishnamurti
True power comes from when we have every reason to kill and we don't.
Oscar Schindler
War does not determine who is right, only who is left.
Bertrand Russell
Someday they'll give a war and nobody will come.
Carl Sandburg
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Voltaire
The way to win an atomic war is to make sure it never starts.
Omar Bradley (General)
Either war is obsolete or men are.
Buckminster Fuller.
Although there is no simple answer as to what strategy will be most effective, the necessity for finding an answer is escalating. Necessity has been known to be the mother of invention. President Obama seems to me to be on the right track in admitting weakness and trying to establish a dialogue amongst all sides. I think we should support his efforts. I am hopeful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
