Sarath Chandra and I have been having a dialogue on war, among other things, which you will see started with something else altogether, and with his permission I reproduce our GB conversation so that my other friends can join in and share their viewpoints and that way both Sarath and I can learn from it .
Somewhere along the way I started to think as to why I"m having this discussion at all, since my life has not been affected directly by war. But then I realised that wars are started and carried out by individuals like me and if I can better understand the underlying reasons for the apparent necessity of war, I may better be able to understand myself. And also, there is a lot of new-age teaching out there that tells us that thought has tremendous power, and I figured if sufficient people think peace, we just might be able to phase out war.
Disclaimer : If you"re looking for some light reading, please don"t read further. This is all serious stuff and I wish now I had interjected some light humour, but since I don"t know Sarath very well, I wasn"t too sure J
Sarath, I hope you like green J
JJ - 26th June
Thanks for looking over my posts, Sarath, but you wouldn"t find anything cerebral there :))) I tend to get cerebral only when the need arises. At other times I tend to repose in a contemplative place. I"m think I"m basically a right-brain thinker. I read an interesting article on www.wired.com the other day about how the "Logical Age" is giving way to the "Conceptual Age" because humans are realising that logic and reasoning is something that can be outsourced soon to thinking robots and that now we are feeling the need to explore the hiterto neglected regions of our right-brain. If that happens we might even get to a place where we realise that war and violence is so futile , but on the other hand we might also get creative in our violence and then our robots to churn out weapons by the millions :(
SC – 26th June
Regarding your comment on my GB,
Once we create "thinking" robots which must include learning, there is no way intelligence will die anymore. I think mankind has long since realized war and violence are futile. The war that is going on in various parts of the world is an economic necessity for the weapon"s manufacturers, defense researchers, armies etc. Once war ends the societies have to support a huge number of people in non-war activities. I don"t think people realize this. This has to be strealined process. Mankind cannot stop warring one fine morning. The poverty caused by that will rival a lot of wars and is longer lasting. We have to increase economic activity and simultaneously reduce wars gradually as we absorb members formerly supported by wars. One can point out so many deaths and suffering due to war and all; but unless we realize this reality that ain"t going anywhere :(
JJ - 26th June
Sarath, nowhere did I imply that with the outsourcing of logical tasks are humans beings going to stop thinking. I only meant that we might shift to more right-brain thinking. It is true that the manufacturers of weapons need to keep war alive. But looking at the deeper issues, it"s the ego of mankind that keeps wars and violence alive. And in any case wars are no going to end in a day, so no worries about the displaced labour force. When computers first came on the scene the same argument provoked a lot of fear, but no widespread hunger or death took place.
SC – 26th June
Well, Jolly, my sentences are getting disconnected. Sorry about that. When I said "intelligence won"t die after the emergence of thinking robots", I meant even if we (humans) happen to die in a nuclear holocaust or comet impact, intelligence will likely survive in the form of those inorganic machines. That part is just a misunderstanding and I do agree with your first couple of sentences.
Moving on to the war issues, I think, it is erroneous to compare it with the software boom. The emergence of computer led to the fallacious arguments you mentioned. The problem was the issue was examined only on the surface (I may be doing that in the war scenario; but that is a different issue). Computers effectively could replace a lot of manual labor. It decreased labor costs resulting in lower product costs, more time, bigger companies as companies started catering to greater demand; the economic activity a company can handle snowballed
The domino effect of a computer finally providing greater net economic activity cannot be escaped if we follow the law of causality patiently. I never misunderstood this phenomena since the introduction of computers (but this is irrelevant). In short, computers did not destroy an existing economic activity; they just provided a much more economically efficient way to do it. The net economic result is positive.
But when we stop wars, we are destroying an economic activity. These people have to be absorbed in other sectors. It is not like replacing 10 accountants with 1 accountant and a computer. It is like no accounting activity (department) anymore. Besides wars also have the important role of preparing us for possible more dangerous extra terrestrial threats. We would be extinct in the face of the merest challenge, if we don"t know how to face up to an adverse situation or challenge from another species.
This is not a justification of war; but unless we recognize the issue in all aspects we will not find an efficient way to minimize wars while retaining its advantages. It is an open secret that many wars are encouraged because of economic reasons. For example, the Taliban emerged because the Afghans did not know what to do with their weapons after the soviet war. The market was kept alive by continuing their militant activities by spreading to Kashmir, Pakistan, and turning their eye to the US and Europe. My contention is only that if we want to stop the war a lot of thought should also be given to the economic side of it; flashing the images of ravages of war appeal to only the emotional side of us. And most of us have no direct financial stake in these wars. In effect, we are fighting for the funds to be allocated to us civilians, while the armies/other outfits want the funds for themselves.
JJ - 27th June
First of all Sarath, I don"t think the entire war machinery all over the world is going to close down one fine day and millions of workers going to enter the workforce suddenly. If at all such a shift towards no-war happens it"s going to be gradual. And if well managed the economic aftermath can be handled as well. Case in point - Japan. After WW2, when they dismantled their war apparatus their economy didn"t fall over. It survived and prospered. You have to remember that the defence industry eats up a lot of money from govt treasuries on one side as well. And I"m no expert in this matter, but I think war is something we can phase out gradually once mankind realises how futile it is. All it requires is political will. And keeping the arms industry in business is not the ONLY reason that wars take place.
And that we need weaponry to shield off aliens is being over-confident of our own devices. If those aliens are capable of inter-galactic travel, it stands to reason that their weaponry will be far more advanced than ours. But these are all skimming the surface issues, I still think that it is the human ego that keeps wars (on micro and macro level) and violence alive. Looking for economic and security reasons to keep the war fires burning is like treating the symptoms rather than the cause.
SC – 28th June
Jolly, this is what I could come up with J A bit jumbled, but couldn"t do better with the presentation. Sorry.
Jolly, I hope you understand I am not supporting wars. I only think whenever we want something it is not sufficient to look at it from one point of view and declare if everybody does what we think should be done, then the world will be perfect. The problem is everybody else thinks the same way as we do.
"Political will" is a word. The question is what does the word contain? Imagine being a head of a state with the political will to stop the war and decide what you would do with that word? How would you phase out war? Imagine being Indian head of state and solving India"s problems on the North eastern border, Northern border, and western border with that will. What is the road map?
Anyway, I personally don"t think any problem can be solved without understanding all aspects that run it clearly. A war has two major driving forces; the dispute and the economy of weapons and personnel. All of us know only the dispute and we say "Why are they fighting? Can"t they solve it peacefully?" You can say fighting is not an answer; they can sit quietly and think about it. What if one party sits quietly and the other overpowers them? How would you, the advice giver ensure justice is done in this case? Another war or ask for maintaining status quo like the UN did in case of Kashmir and dragging the problem along? The other force is the strong flow of money that drives it. It can be your personal view that we have no chance against an intergalactic race; but not many around the earth would appreciate we giving in without a fight in case of external threats;
Why? what would be Indians" general reaction if we neglect our defence readiness and get attacked by a superior army like Russia or some European army? Say we don"t have a chance and die?
An example is playing right in front of our eyes in the form of Tibet as to what might happen to a society that neglects its defence. It depends on the "sympathy" of international community for whatever little demands it has. And every country in the world knows there is little in the form of gain or loss by taking a stand keeping Tibet in mind. It is virtually irrelevant. They make their stand vis-a-vis their relationship with China. War has a role in societies; it is certainly irrelevant at many places; it has a very strong economic angle to it; it is virtually impossible to dissolve armies around the world; defense research is not exclusive from many other socially relevant research or scientific research; they are by products of the same research.
Just saying everybody should stop it will not get it done. We have to convince all parties concerned of our reasoning. Unless we understand all parties (disputing parties and economic wings), I don"t think we have any hope, of developing such a reasoning. Stopping wars (or having the political will for it) is a goal; not a process. A prospective solution is developing the process towards that goal; not stating the goal.
JJ - 29th June
Sarath, I agree entirely that one must understand all aspects of war. But what I am advocating is that we look a bit deeper than that war is caused by dispute / economic reasons. It is said that the first war took place when Cain killed Abel (envy, or wanting to possess what the other person had). On another note, it’s said that war started when the first fence was put up (claiming land that belonged to nature as one’s own). So, it appears as if war is almost as old as humankind itself. To paraphrase it my way :))) war is caused by ego (dispute) or greed (economic reasons). So I believe it’s going to be around for a long time, unless we take the shorter route and nuke ourselves or take the longer route and rise above our ego and greed. I think it will take an event very close to the annihilation of the human race for humans to finally wake up and realise the futility of war.
Since you’ve brought up the issue of Tibet and countries in states of non-preparedness, why is it that China is not attacking Japan? Wouldn’t it stand to gain more? Why is no one coming to Tibet’s rescue? Why did the US come to Kuwait’s rescue when Iraq attacked it? Political will is not enough, even a world governing body like the UN cannot stop wars let alone eradicate it. Sorry, my thoughts are a bit jumbled today :) must be Sunday indolence :)))
SC – 29th June
Am enjoying the war discussion. Jumbled or not, you make some pertinent points. Anyway, I will ignore your second GB entry; ; those are questions on diplomacy, foreign policies based on self-interest. The first one, though a very interesting analysis, I disagree with. War is not as old as mankind; it is as old as life itself. When facing limited resources, all species settled their disputes by physical combats. The (physically) stronger (or agile etc) always prevailed. Any analysis of how a species settles disagreements will show man right on top; we use force much less frequently is settling disputes than any species that was ever here on earth (to our knowledge). Of course, it is a different matter that some species may never had to fight as they never faced a situation of limited resources
An instinct for self-preservation is primal in all life. Still, mankind evolved a way to settle a major portion of its disputes without using force and relegated war to a section of society. This is the reason for mankind"s success as a species, in my opinion. And this came about, because mankind defined private property rights, and the concepts of rights and freedom. As you said, it may look like ego and greed are the driving forces of war. But from another point of view, all war is over inadequately defined property rights. It is mostly over properties over which no single person has the right to take any decision. The only way I foresee the end of wars is to wait for the end of nation-states (which is already underway due to globalization and internet). Once national boundaries dissolve and become irrelevant, and properties on boundaries are privatized, we evolve as a single global community. Then we just have to find a way to train ourselves against external threats :)
BTW, please let me know if you really want to talk about your second entry on my GB. I have some ideas and information, and we can follow up and educate each other as we discuss (or if you know everything :)) you can just tell me) :)
JJ - 30th June
Sarath, one only need to watch a few episodes of Nat Geo / Discovery to find out that animals are warring on a daily basis, for them it is a matter of survival. We are the superior species, aren"t we? Endowed with intelligence of a higher order. So it stands to reason that we will settle our disputes more amicably. If globalisation and the blurring of boundaries will eliminate war, what could be better for mankind. But, I think, in the 20th century itself, more people were killed in wars and related events than many centuries put together. Look at the Indian subcontinent, India got split into three different countries and their differences are getting more entrenched by the day. And living in the US, would you not agree, that the Americans are getting more neurotic about security, national boundaries and foreigners (esp of a certain faith) after 9/11? With the arrival of terrorism, war has taken a more insidious form, war now no longer means war between countries.
It is true that wars sometimes happen as the result of fighting over scarce resources, but it is also said that if all countries would disarm and release their defence budgets, it would end global hunger. So resources are not exactly scarce, it"s just that it is in the greed of some parties to corner most of the resources and keep the scarcity alive. That is more to do with power than mere basic survival. Humans unlike animals, are not satisfied with what we"ve got, we must constantly be increasing our sphere of influence. With a mindset like that I don’t have much hope in wars being eliminated just by regulating property rights. On the other hand, I think if all the world will reach a common level of economic prosperity (like Europe has :)) then eliminating war would be more probable. But like I said before, it is in the best interests to keep others poor, weak and vulnerable. Hence, war continues.
SC – 30th June
Now here goes another treatise :))
Superior? Endowed? - I"d say we evolved and are evolving. We used to do the same as what the animals are doing now. We chose to learn and are still learning. No animal can stop fighting suddenly. Not long ago (on geological time scales) we had no chance against most wild animals and could have been extinct (like the Neanderthals were). I"ll give mankind a lot of credit for being resilient enough to find a way to survive and flourish against overwhelming odds where we reached a point that we have to take care of the same species that even now would not hesitate to eat us alive if possible. Besides, just because somebody is intelligent, disputes won"t be resolved amicably. The intelligence should result in a method, and that method, which separated mankind from the animal kingdom, is private property rights.
On more people being killed in 20th century than many centuries put together - Basically wars have always been part of human history. Accurate statistics are recorded now. It wasn"t so even 3-4 centuries ago. If we take the proportion of people participating in war, it has decreased drastically in the last 2 centuries. Besides, now even a single man can kill 100s with strategically placed bombs while earlier even the man with cruellest intentions can kill only one at a time and only when physically proximate. If 10 out of a total population of 100 in a village are poor in 2000, and the same village evolved to 100000 in 2010, but now we have 20 poor; saying the number of poor has doubled in 10 years maybe accurate, but a mightily misleading picture. In the background of exponentially increased global population and the firepower we have in a single individual, it is easy to see that mankind has actually improved (and this is a gross understatement) in time.
On neurosis about "a certain faith" - I"d prefer that to more bomb blasts. In fact I wrote a couple of articles on Islam (I have an index - 2nd from bottom on my current page); I think it is the last major challenge of mankind. This is not to say I am against muslims; but as long as Islam does not separate itself from governance like all other "faiths" did, I am fighting it. In fact, I don"t think it can be qualified as "faith" or "religion" in the background of death sentences for criticising Quran/Muhammad in a dozen countries (and extensively used to frame laws in a lot of the remaining 40 Islamic majority countries).
On Money - I"ll be typing a lot of what I said elsewhere if I go in detail. Can you please read "Understand Money, Poverty, and prosperity" on my page before going further? In the background of that, a 100 dollars in the center of Manhattan is not of the same value as in Africa or the tropical forests. The 100 dollars are pieces of paper; they have no intrinsic value; nobody can eat them or live in them. The value is proportional to the amount of output a society has. Stopping all war activities and pumping out all that money into the poor regions will not eliminate hunger. It will only increase inflation. If money were to solve all problems all a country has to do is print out more notes and distribute among the poor.
These "solutions" that say the rich should "share" their wealth with the poor and the rich countries exploited the poor countries to become rich come from a basic lack of understand of money (especially currency, which we started thinking of as having intrinsic value). And of course, it feels good to blame somebody else for all the problems an individual is facing and with the number of poor being what it is, one would get the numbers to support. In short, poverty is a result of lack of economic activity, not a lack of some pieces of paper. And each country has itself to blame for not being able to device efficient trading systems, if poor. In fact, the world over, the richest are not those with the greatest natural resources, but with the most efficient trading systems.
And if humans were satisfied with what they"ve got, they would not have separated (or even survived) themselves from animals in the first place. We came from animals and we have eliminated a lot of intra-species force; saying going back to being like animals (as against a desire for more; greed if used negatively, ambition if used positively) will eliminate war, I don"t think, cuts much ice.
JJ - 2nd July
That we have managed to avoid being wiped out at the jaws of wild animals and have flourished is in itself a sign of our superior mental prowess. But the point I’m trying to make is that humans and animals war for different reasons. They war for basic survival, but we do on account of our ego and greed (or for the survival of these). Oh, I’m beginning to be repetitive now :( Just because we are intelligent doesn’t mean that disputes will be solved amicably. But because we are intelligent we can find out the causes of war, eliminate them and therefore learn to live in peace. :)
I don’t know the exact numbers that were killed in the 20th century alone in wars, but I was also speaking in relative terms not in absolutes. Look at all the wars waged in the 20th century and the numbers killed and affected. Mind boggling !!! The argument that less people are now participating in wars now is of little comfort, considering the fact that weapons nowadays can wipe out entire cities and affect populations for generations (Hiroshima and Nagasaki). While in the past a single soldier could only cause limited damage in face-face combat and that too only to the others fighting in the war, in present times weapons can cause not only death but undocumented suffering and hardship to living civilians (eg, sanctions against Iraq). So let’s not go into ratios :)
Sarath, I wasn’t suggesting that the entire war-machinery be dismantled and the proceeds distributed among the poor nations. That’s too simplistic a way of looking at things, and is never going to work anyway.
The line between greed and ambition is thin in any case. And a lot of people try to disguise their greed by calling it ambition. To do your best, to give your best, to realise your full potential, to stretch your boundaries, that is ambition, and that is what makes us stand out from the animals. To do the same but by usurping what is not yours, and to do so willfully and to the detriment of the other person, is greed and that is what is leading to wars.
Please add your own thoughts, folks J
106 Comment(s)
