posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 04:07 PM
I'm opposed to war in most cases. I do consider the possibility of "Just War" but am concerned with the 'flexibility' of definition. I try to
look at the idea "lessening suffering" as the only justification possible for war and then who decides - how can one decide just what will lessen
That said and after reading the posts (until the thread started to devolve to 'picking at nits' - happy to say it hasn't devolved too badly) I want
to share some of my thoughts on several posts.
I want to give a huge Shout Out to Kari12
for referencing THREADS. The most horrific television mini-series I've ever seen.
It only played once in the US that I know of and it took me years of searching to find a video copy of it. I am glad to see that it is available
Only then Kari12, I'll not reference the actual poster but it will become obvious to those reading the various posts. I'm seeing a few common
threads that deserve serious commend and debate.
So in no particular order:
1 - Human Instinct for War
I don't believe humans have an instinct for war, I think the instinct is for survival (individually and collectively). Our instincts evolve very
slowly and are mostly physically based in response to physical simuli in the environment (from the definition posted earlier.
What is meant here is more accurately characterized as Socialization. The evolution of the Group and it's response to PERCEIVED threats. Our
conditioning from childhoold creates 'threats' out of non-physical things which we react to physically (if only in stress).
Humans have evolved over the ages from a time when a threat had to be immediate (to self or tribe) into a state of conscienceness that anticipates
possible future threats. That evolvution has been a sucessful stragety for humanity - and hence reinforced in the Socialization of each sucssesive
This stragety is no longer serving humanity or the planet and we must find the will and willingness to continue the evolution further. But only
self-reflective humans - those who actually show up for life - can do so.
I quote from Frank Herbert's Dune on the difference between animals and humans. For those who know the work - I refer to the test of the Gom
The gom jabbar is a fictional weapon from the Dune universe created by Frank Herbert, appearing in his 1965 novel Dune and its adaptations. It is a
poison needle tipped with "meta-cyanide" that is used by Bene Gesserit Proctors in their death-alternative test of human awareness.
In Dune, Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam uses a gom jabbar to test Paul Atreides just prior to his departure to Arrakis. This "humanity test" is
carried out with a box that produces pain by "nerve induction", causing intense and severe pain without inflicting any physical damage. Only a human
is considered to be able to possess the self-discipline to withstand this pain and resist the urge to take their hand out of the box. A person who
withdraws their hand is stung with the gom jabbar, causing instant death.
“ Stop! I hold at your neck the gom jabbar ... the high-handed enemy. It's a needle with a drop of poison on its tip ... It kills only
— Mohiam to Paul, Dune (1965), Frank Herbert
Later in the novel, Paul's sister Alia uses a gom jabbar to kill the Baron Vladimir Harkonnen. Paul next uses the gom jabbar as a pointed analogy
when he tells Mohiam, "I remember your gom jabbar. Now you remember mine - I can kill you with a word."
I find this the most profound statement of the dividing line between those human's that are merely animals that can talk and use tools and those
human's that are actually human and using the evolved capabilities of the human race.