War and Human Natures
I borrowed the title for this post from Paul Ehrlich's book, Human Natures. Ehrlich's theory is that there is no one human nature but that phenotypic expression (our genetic make-up added with our environment and culture) combined with the uniquely human ability to choose makes up different human natures.
I'm sure all of us would agree that the killing of other people is fundamentally wrong. In nature there are factors that drive species to kill animals of the same species, but indiscriminate killing is rare and can usually be attributed to a survival instinct. Take the example of a family of baboons at an evaporating waterhole in the southern Sahara. A documentary follows their plight until the waterhole has completely evaporated. Initially as the crocodile infested water recedes family members risk their lives to save others but over time they focus more on their own survival and eventually begin attacking each other.
Understanding that humans and baboons are different, although genetically very similar, it's interesting to contemplate how much choice has enabled us to advance. Choice allows people to invent and innovate without being restricted by the slow evolutionary process of natural selection. While invention and innovation are products of choice war can also be a choice.
When war is undertaken without a direct identifiable threat it is by definition a choice. Preemptive war is indicative of a human paranoia. Paranoia is a phenotypic trait some humans exhibit and others don't. Conservative people by their nature tend to be more paranoid than non-conservatives. They live their lives constantly in fear always contemplating "what if" scenarios. "What if I go to Disneyworld and terrorists launch a chemical attack? What if I fly to Paris and my plane crashes? What if I walk down the street and drunk driver mows me down? What if I don't send my troops to Iraq and they attack me?" All very low probability events, in fact not one has a probability of less than one in a million.
Every citizen should contemplate whether they want leadership that plays to the fears of a minority or a leadership that identifies and addresses actual issues. Poverty, the environment, healthcare, urban education, the defense budget, unemployment, gas prices, social security and corporate corruption are all current issues that are affecting our lives now. They don't depend on probabilities, they exist.
I'm sure all of us would agree that the killing of other people is fundamentally wrong. In nature there are factors that drive species to kill animals of the same species, but indiscriminate killing is rare and can usually be attributed to a survival instinct. Take the example of a family of baboons at an evaporating waterhole in the southern Sahara. A documentary follows their plight until the waterhole has completely evaporated. Initially as the crocodile infested water recedes family members risk their lives to save others but over time they focus more on their own survival and eventually begin attacking each other.
Understanding that humans and baboons are different, although genetically very similar, it's interesting to contemplate how much choice has enabled us to advance. Choice allows people to invent and innovate without being restricted by the slow evolutionary process of natural selection. While invention and innovation are products of choice war can also be a choice.
When war is undertaken without a direct identifiable threat it is by definition a choice. Preemptive war is indicative of a human paranoia. Paranoia is a phenotypic trait some humans exhibit and others don't. Conservative people by their nature tend to be more paranoid than non-conservatives. They live their lives constantly in fear always contemplating "what if" scenarios. "What if I go to Disneyworld and terrorists launch a chemical attack? What if I fly to Paris and my plane crashes? What if I walk down the street and drunk driver mows me down? What if I don't send my troops to Iraq and they attack me?" All very low probability events, in fact not one has a probability of less than one in a million.
Every citizen should contemplate whether they want leadership that plays to the fears of a minority or a leadership that identifies and addresses actual issues. Poverty, the environment, healthcare, urban education, the defense budget, unemployment, gas prices, social security and corporate corruption are all current issues that are affecting our lives now. They don't depend on probabilities, they exist.
posted by mochi at 9:15 AM
10 Comments:
This is what government does to its people- they use fear as a control mechanism. If Michael Moore ever did something good with his work, he does well displaying this notion of fear as a controlling mechanism in Bowling and Fahrenheit. Democrats are supposedly the party that cares about education, health care, the environment, the problem is we dont have Democrats in office, or even Republicans for that matter (well, not enough to make effective changes at least). We have rich elitist lawyers who go at one another like a bunch of spoiled middle school girls. Mochi makes great points here, but both parties are just as guilty (I would say the Republicans moreso nowadays though). Kerry was telling everyone that the draft would be reinstated if Bush was re-elected- thats a fear tactic right there, and I could not see that happening because whatever party tried to do that probably would not exist in a matter of a decade due to the overwhelmingly hateful response that would ensue- no one parent of today's children has forgotten about Vietnam. I say it all the time, I dont agree with much of what Bush may say or do, but I cannot imagine for even a second that this country would have been better/worse off with Gore, or Kerry- who I will never stop saying was the worst Democratic candidate for president probably ever, even worse than Walter Mondale. I mean, I was only 3 years old at the time, but I doubt anyone could have been a bigger hypocrite AND I am willing to bet Mondale showed up to work for the almost two years leading up to Super Tuesday 1984. Kerry's no-votes for that time span and his acting like he is a champion of the poor should have just been plain embarrassing for this party and I still cannot understand how such a pompous bastard won that party's nomination. The only reason he earned one vote was the "anyone but Bush" notion. All the excuses in the world were made for his loss- Bush's moral values were what won the election, war time president, and yes, the fear in the American people- Bush did have the benefit of being the incumbent, but the Democrats might as well have not run anybody. In regards to today's current problems, I still dont see any representation from our Congress to believe for a second that Democrats really care about domestic issues like education, gas prices, health care. They go out, complain, bad mouth the other side, INSPIRE FEAR in the people- nothing more than a strategy they use to get elected next time theyre up, disguised as trying to convince people they care and they are working for them. But other than bitching about it and making threats, what do they ever do for the people? Seriously, term limits and a third party anybody? Not really disagreeing with you so Mochi, as much as I am pointing out that our Congress is run by a bunch of douchebags on both sides of the spectrum.
Agreed, I'm not saying this is a partisan argument. Most our democratic representatives are fundamentally conservative. In fact when it comes to my flying to Paris analogy I'm a conservative too. I wanted to keep this post less about government and more about more about human behaviour. By this persepctive I'm not going to vote democrat or republican.
Well put. And in regards to human behavior and fear, it seems that even though we know something terrible is unlikely to happen to us as the chances are small, the fact that it could happen is locked into our minds. Just that uncertainty, that something bad would not happen is what is constantly emphasized every day. How much of the fear-inspiring threats out there are authentic or fabricated, that is a whole other issue. But the fact is, as you discuss in your concluding paragraph of the original post, the problems we absolutely know exist that we see at home every day seem to be the last ones we worry about.
All very excellent points. I was one of those who supported Kerry because Bush was the far worse of the two, but the Kerry betrayal soon revealed that his whole campaign was suspiciously skull-n-bonesey. Luckily for me, I am an independent and will remain so until a political party comes along that I can support enough to join.
Having said all that, there's one thing Chickenhawk mentioned that I don't support, and that is term limits. In an ideal scenario, people should be allowed to re-elect someone as often as they want, without restriction, if that person proves to be the right one for the job. Otherwise, a good person can be forced to leave, and replaced with a rotten one. I think the only term limits we need are our actual votes.
When things go the way they should, of course...
I just don't trust lawyers. Honestly, I think anyone who steps into that forum (Washington), even with the noblest of intentions, becomes corrupted by all that goes on there with money and power. I don't feel represented in any way by Congress. Also, if we cannot elect a president as often as we like, why does the same not apply to Congress? I honestly have never been able to grasp that. I mean, thank God they are in place for the president- but I do not understand how we can pick and choose who does and does not have limited terms- time to read up a little bit on that I guess. Somewhere in Massachusetts (or any state), there surely is someone brighter and more devoted to their people than a Kerry or a Kennedy, but power and money are obviously on their side and that's what wins in this country. But at the same time, Shea, you are right in that the people's votes should decide. It might not solve anything to limit terms, it may; it is definitely a statement reflecting my lack of faith in our government. Term limits would certainly filter out some of the garbage, but at the same time it would filter out those who have served their constituents responsibly (although I do not think there are many of those on the federal level).
Jack made a great point on Smorg's most recent post:
"Country. I love my country, but realize what makes the country. It is not the government, it is not the beautiful landscape or towering monuments that we have built. It is not the military or our educational institutions. America is a country made up primarily of good hard working, self-sacrificing individuals like you, Mochi and Shea."
Today, it certainly does not seem that that which makes our country, is that which is represented.
Not that this has anything to do with every important point that each of you have made, but Cats, Wolverines and one species of non-predatory bird (along with Man) are the only species that Kill for Sport. (Out of 2 million species currently classified).
As far as being ruled by fear, I think the scenarios you use as an example are ones that involve, albeit very low probabilities of occurrence, devastatingly high potential damages - primarily death.
They live their lives constantly in fear always contemplating "what if" scenarios.
I think you misrepresent, or possibly misunderstand, what actually goes through the mind of such a conservative. I'll provide my viewpoint, because I do consider such things fairly often. Do I live my life paralyzed with fear such that I cannot go to a public location? Absolutely not. Do I consider that bad things can happen and I should at least be aware of the location of exits and such? Most definitely.
Are all the scenarios you mentioned probable? Yes. Planes crash, terrorists strike, and drunk drivers kill people. In circumstances in which we exercise a modicum of control, such as driving/walking or visiting a public place like Disneyland, are we paranoid or prudent to consider bad things (including natural disasters like earthquakes and fires) so that we might be prepared to respond appropriately?
I would say prudent. After all, there is a reason the flight attendants tell you to look around and make note of the nearest exit. Not because they believe the plane is going to crash, but because IF the plane crashes the consequences of not having that information are likely to be lethal.
I agree that there are people in our country that obsess over these possibilities to the point of distraction, paralyzing themselves with fear. Maybe those are the particular types of people to which you were referring. But I definitely fall within the same category and do not consider my self "paranoid".
Do you also believe you are going to win the lottery?
I don't think that is a good analogy, mochi, although I understand where you seem to be going. Yes, the lottery has very high probabilities against winning. Perhaps, I don't know, the probability of winning it is the same or even lower than some of the examples you used. Although I'd guess the probability of getting hit by a drunk driver is a bit more likely.
But here's the thing. Even if people don't believe they'll win the lottery, or have a strong belief, the downside is extremely low and the upside is enormous. Exactly opposite of the examples you cite. Hey, if I play the lottery every day for a year without winning I'm out $365. Certainly I could have put that to better use, but really it isn't a huge deal. But if I go along blissfully ignorant of even the slim possibility that my plane could crash or a terrorist group could launch some kind of attack on the crowds at Disneyland, and don't even stop to make note of where the emergency exits are, or where I can find shelter, I'll probably end up dead or severely injured for not taking a few moments to orient myself to my surroundings. Same applies to natural disasters.
And people play the lottery because they understand that, despite the odds, there is a chance to win. Exactly why I stop to consider my surroundings, because no matter how slim the odds, there is a chance your examples could actually happen.
Mochi,
What a FUN post!
Here goes:
Mochi, fear is a human trait and all have it. Read back over the Neo-lib blog and many of its associated blogs and look at the fear evident in many of its posts. If one does not fear, they are either mentally unstable, on drugs or considered sociopathic--this is a deficit, not an attribute.
Paranoia is excessive fear, and is not exhibited as much as many would expect. Surely not the 100 million or so human being “conservatives” that exist in the United States that you are saying are “paranoid”.
Psychologically speaking, it is a rare pychotic symptom that is a part of an overall mental illness, (primarily psychotic disorders but can cross over into other disorders from organic mental disorders to autistic or development disorders). 1 : a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations,2 : a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others.
Excessive is always the key to defining paranoia, and although you may look at the incursion into Iraq as being motivated by excessive fear, others would consider it containment or enforcement in a post 9/11 world. (Timeline: Iraq invaded Kuwait, Iraq was defeated and told to disarm and abide by UN resolutions (such is the plight of losers), Iraq bucked resolutions, Iraq was made to abide by UN resolutions—whether they wanted to enforce them or not)
Keep in mind that all but a few of your “other leaders” were all for the action in Iraq, but found their continued support waning and thus chose the most politically expedient "phrase for the day".
Caution or cautiousness which is the hallmark of conservatives are not necessarily exhibitions of paranoia. Caution usually means one sits back and assesses the situation before blindly leaping forward. Caution usually considers the outcome before launching into the action.
Caution, for example, prompts one to buy life or homeowners insurance, place some of one’s resources into savings, open a college fund for a child, obey the law, treat another with respect, etc.
Caution has always been the hallmark of a true conservative and it has little to do with unreasonable fear.
The examples you point out are not indicative of conservatives (the Disneyland stuff, etc,) because how many conservatives do you know who live in the extremes that you speak of?
True conservatives are also about balance—and avoid the extremes of both left (liberal) and right (radical) ideology. You make the mistake in here of using a relative term and assigning the term “conservative” to the Bush Administration and our current government.
_________________________________
Part 2.
“Every citizen should contemplate whether they want leadership that plays to the fears of a minority or a leadership that identifies and addresses actual issues.”
If you are alluding to the Democrat platform, then you are endorsing a party of fear.
-They scare old people by saying that the Republicans want to take away their social security,
-they scare women, by saying Republicans want to take away their right to choose,
-they advance their social agenda by saying that Medicaid management is going to hurt children, etc., etc.
Both parties play on fear, Mochi, just different issues (and often the same).
If they were so concerned about domestic issues as listed, then how come they go against what are the obvious fixes?
-Poverty is overcome by allowing a free market to flourish, business to grow and the hiring of people, but Democrats want to play on the fears of others by saying that business needs to be controlled more (control is a symptom of paranoia).
-The cost of healthcare is skyrocketing because of frivolous lawsuits and government involvement, socialized medicine the domain of fearful Democrats who think they can manage it much better than free enterprise, and the fear of tort reform that will hobble the lawyers payoffs.
-Urban education—all education for that matter has been held back, placing us FAR behind the civilized world because of fearful Democrats, far more interested in preserving old institutions like the Department of Ed, who refuse to allow our education systems to improve through innovative competition.
-Unemployment can only decrease if jobs are available. Business is the only employer (other than government) and Democrats have proudly indicated that they are against business (evil “Capitalism”). Far more often they vote inn favor of hurting business by increasing taxes and regulation, making it more difficult for companies to do business, grow,hire more people and compete in a global economy.
-Social security is a dinosaur created to solve an immediate problem post depression. It has remained both a dinosaur in both administration and principle with most Democrats loath to do anything about it.
-What are Democrats doing about corporate corruption?
If "conservatives" are more paranoid, then maybe Democrats are the new "conservatives".
You see, Mochi, in speaking of government one doesn’t understand that our leaders are not motivated by fear so much as they use fear to motivate. This is common whether they are “conservative” or “liberal” and it is seated in their irrational desire to retain and expand their power.
Both parties play on fear to motivate voters.
___________________________________
Part 2.
“Conservative people by their nature tend to be more paranoid than non-conservatives.”
Could it be that "conservatives" are just more aware of the realities and dangers of life?
I believe that you get your information straight from the scientific Berkeley study that indicates that conservatives are motivated by fear and aggression. They add to that list: Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, uncertainty avoidance, need for cognitive closure and terror management, and you can see just how wonderfully scientific that study was.
Of course, if you follow the same "scientific" reasoning, couldn’t we we say that being liberal is about: Cowardice and appeasement , comfort with confusion and ignorance , recklessness, indecisiveness and similar cognitive defects , and terror mismanagement?
Of course the “conservatives” they used as baselines were: Hitler, Mussolini, Rush Limbaugh, and Ronald Reagan. A common misconception and starkly ignorant bias not founded in reason. (Unable to see through their ideology they lump Reagan & Limbaugh in with Hitler and Mussolini)
Neither Hitler or Mussolini were conservatives. Hitler always claimed he was improving upon Marxism and socialism (''Nazi'' stands for National Socialism). Mussolini was born into a socialist family, was a leading socialist journalist and thinker, and was admired by Lenin. When Mussolini broke with the Socialist Party about WWI, he declared, ''You think you can turn me out, but you will find I shall come back again. I am and shall remain a socialist and my convictions will never change! They are bred into my very bones.''
Mochi, I don't buy the above statements about "liberals" any more than I buy the ones about "conservatives". Which makes me a little bit sketical of your post.
Stirring the pot,
-Jack
Hey, CH, ready to start a joint ‘blog? Ha!
Post a Comment
<< Home