On my most cynical days, and today is one of them, I believe humanity has lost the right to refer to itself as “intelligent.” We are violent animals that use aggression to achieve relatively inconsequential goals.
Today, as with most days, the worst of humanity is on display: war. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines war as, among other things, “a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations”; “a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end”; and “to be in active or vigorous conflict”.
Fine, these are clinical definitions of war. But make no mistake, war is simply the implicit approval to commit murder. Human life, at least human life on the opposing side, is of such little value that anything goes: indiscriminant bombings, beheadings, rapes, kidnappings, torture, collective punishment, horrific weapons used to cause mass casualties, etc. All, animalistic behaviors designed to exert dominance over the opponent. Call it the alpha-dog syndrome, if you will.
We thrive on conflict, whether it is road rage, civil rights, or global politics, we love to fight. No room for peace-loving individuals on this planet. Get out of the way, the aggression train is coming through and if you’re not ready to fight then they’ll be picking your pieces off the rails.
Humanity’s history is rife with war and conflict. I see this as a flaw in humanity while others see this as a necessary evil while still others see it as humanity’s crowning achievement. Our ability to reason (some would say lack of ability) has led to the most destructive behaviors ever carried out on this planet. We do not all see things the same way. And while this can be one of the most wonderful aspects of humanity, it has clearly shown that it is also one of the worst.
Now, I am not advocating that we all should believe in the same things or think the same way. No, then we would not be much different from ants, and we’re pretty damn close to them as it is. Our ability to see things differently and have differing opinions on just about every topic is an important human trait. What bothers me is the inability to see opposing viewpoints; the lack of compromising between factions; the “I’m right and your wrong” attitude; the killing of people who have different beliefs than you; and so forth.
Throughout history, most of humanity’s leaders have led the species down dangerous roads, roads that ended in death, fostered hatred, and prevented the masses from uniting. For you see, most people want (have always wanted) the same things: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If the world’s masses knew they all shared these same goals, then the world’s leaders would be overthrown by morning. But the world’s masses think they are alone. Their leaders have told them that such-and-such group wants to destroy their way of life, effectively killing the hopes and dreams they have for their children. So conflict is created, unity avoided, death continues.
I do not offer a solution, because I do not believe we humans are capable of eliminating conflict. Maybe I should say, we do not have the desire to eliminate conflict. For as we all know, conflict is profitable, so therefore, conflict will continue. And for the love of conflict, more people will be murdered, more lives destroyed, more cities demolished, and more of the worst of humanity will be on display.
--Randy Anderson
July 14, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Unfortunately, I disagree with you when you say "For you see, most people want (have always wanted) the same things: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If the world’s masses knew they all shared these same goals, then the world’s leaders would be overthrown by morning. But the world’s masses think they are alone." I don't think that people are capable of existing without conflict with one another; in fact, I'm of the opinion that the very nature of society is in conflict with the basest nature of man.
If you get a large group of people living together, rules necessarily have to be made to regulate life; otherwise anarchy devolves into the strong ruling over the weak. But because these rules come to represent "the greater good", we instantly have conflict with "the personal good", as individuals become dissatisfied with sacrificing for those who they do not necessarily share bounds with, aside from proximity.
This is going to happen regardless of culture or the type of government. And this not only applies within a given society, but also across borders. There you see it more blatantly, where "the greater good" means "the global good", and "the personal good" means the "the nation's good". If there's an inherent conflict between the nature of society and the nature of man, then we can just throw off all bets when we talk about the interaction between nations.
While I agree that there are always those out there who wait to exploit conflict and war for their own benefit, I tend to believe that even if everyone was acting sincerely, we wouldn't be in a much different position.
But I'm cynical lately too ;)
I still think most people want life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Of course, all three of these are relative to each individual. Undoubtedly, the range is huge with some of us just wanting to be left alone, while others will pursue the ability to control entire populations.
Now, while I may have stretched it a bit with the comment “If the world’s masses knew they all shared these same goals, then the world’s leaders would be overthrown by morning. But the world’s masses think they are alone,” I believe that even if this revolution occurred, new leaders would emerge that would again manipulate the masses and the entire cycle would repeat itself.
So, maybe I did not make myself clear, but I do agree with your comment “I don't think that people are capable of existing without conflict with one another; in fact, I'm of the opinion that the very nature of society is in conflict with the basest nature of man.” The question is: Is this an inherent trait or is it learned behavior? On my most cynical days I’m of the belief that it is inherent, an aspect of humanity that can not be changed.
Regarding your comment “If you get a large group of people living together, rules necessarily have to be made to regulate life; otherwise anarchy devolves into the strong ruling over the weak.” Why is this so? Is this any different than what is currently playing out even though we supposedly have rules? In my mind, the strong currently rule over the weak anyway. I see those in power perpetrating conflict between the masses as the main reason for this. Keep the masses confused with fear and hatred of their fellow human beings, then the powerful get more powerful. Now, is this fear and hatred of our fellow human beings inherent or is it our violent tendencies? Or is this fear and hatred a learned behavior?
I think we’re both on the same side of the issue here. We see flaws in humanity that disturb us greatly and we struggle to understand the logic behind those flaws. In general, I find humanity disgusting and I fear for my children and their future. Maybe Hawking was right, I too question whether humanity will be around in a hundred years?
Post a Comment