Homestead mailing list

[EarthNSky <erthnsky AT bellsouth.net>]

Lynn, I think we are fussing over semantics to some degree, compounded
by my inability to express myself well....You are speaking English,
better than I am, apparently. ;)

Lynn Wigglesworth wrote:

> Fighting to survive is NOT the same as aggressing against others.

It is not morally the same.  One is justified, one is not.  It may,
however, be physiologically the same.


OF COURSE
> most people will defend themselves if attacked. It IS human nature to
>  defend one's self. Defending yourself isn't aggressing or starting a
>  war I was disagreeing with your statement:
>
> "We are a warring species, plain and simple.  We ask, and if we do 
> not get, then we demand, and if we do not get, then we take by force.
>  I believe this to be true of all humanity, whether that human is a 
> paleolithic tribe or NATO. "

I said in an earlier post that 'warring' wasn't the best choice of words
here.  I should have said violent or aggressive, but even those carry
moral implications that I don't necessarily mean.
What I was unclear about in the above quote is the "take by force" part.
When people take by force, they often don't realize that the
consequences of their impulsiveness will lead to violence. I do realize
that sometimes the taking by force is in itself violent, but not always.
Have you ever watched a room full of pre-schoolers playing with toys?
If they want, they take, and then usually the person who lost the toy
will slap or punch back...and then a fight ensues.  The original taker
was agressive, but he had no intention of starting a fight/war-he just
wanted to play with that particular toy(he had that want, that need)
I think, if you look at young children, you can remove the morality
associated with the action and just see the natural instinctiveness to
fight.  We, as adults, want to moralize it and say this kid was wrong
because he took the toy or this kid was wrong because he slapped the kid
who took the toy...All I am saying is that in reality, both actions are
part of the same physiological process, driven from wants and needs,
whether it is a toy, water, hunting rights, oil, arable land, etc.

In my family's homesteader journals from the mid 1800's, there are
stories about other groups of homesteaders being attacked by 'Indians'
who were depicted as violent savages who would, like animals<g>, attack
for no reason.  Now, you and I both know, today, that they had a very
good reason....We know that whites were trespassing and messing up their
hunting, their way of life, their overall survival was threatened..Today
we can see that..we see both sides of that...but then, we were ignorant.
Perhaps they would have chosen a different route if they had understood
that their actions were being considered aggressive, or perhaps they
could have tried to work a deal for safe passage, but very often, it
became tit for tat.  Just as it is today with street gangs.


> To me, that statement is completely at odds with your statement that
>  'nobody wants war'. If nobody wanted war, we wouldn't have war. 
> Obviously some people find it an acceptable thing to move troops into
>  other countries and wage war.

I hope what I wrote above clears that up, because I don't think it is
necessarily at odds.  For over a decade the Hatfields and McCoys fought
"a war" that began with an argument about whose land a pig was on.  I
really doubt they wanted or thought that their disagreement would
snowball the way it did.  For Gulf War I, I honestly don't think Saddam
Hussein wanted a war with the US.  He invaded Kuwait because it has once
been a part of Iraq before the British butted in and recarved the lines.
 He wanted it back-also for the oil, of course, but whatever...I
honestly don't think that he believed we would act..at worst, he
probably expected sanctions(big woop).  I think he was quite surprised
when we not only liberated Kuwait, but did that from inside Saudi Arabia
and Qatar, his Islamic neighbors, and furthermore, advanced into his
country, all the way to his back door.  I don't think Saddam wanted war
at that time...he had already been at war with Iran..however, he got it.
 I personally believe that Saddam is one of those pathological/mentally
ill warmongers, and I probably should not use him as an example, but I
have to get stuff done today and he's what I first thought of in my
writing haste.


 The fact that so many people do NOT display aggressive,
> war-like tendencies proves to me that we are NOT universally a 
> warring species. That was the point I was trying (unsuccessfully, it
>  seems) to make.

No, not unsuccessfully.  I don't think that we are evolving, because
that would involve long periods of time and biological processes that I
don't think are necessarily changing, but I will say that perhaps in the
21st century, mankind is more enlightened, and that will continue as
long as we are interconnected like this.  When we can visually see on
TV, on the Internet, the results of our policies, our actions, even
well-meaning ones,(think butterfly effect with the environment) and
intellectually assess that and moderate ourselves, then we have a chance
at evolving into something better, a species that doesn't even think
about violence as a option because there would never be a need for it.
I recall a Star Trek episode about such a place. :)  However, in the
history of our species, we have only had a global awareness for a very,
very short time, and we are still stuck in our old ways.  With each
generation, we will become more enlightened, more civilized, and do less
harm. ( I hope so anyway)



> It is not the nature of some (most?) people to aggressively attack or
>  steal from others, therefore it can't be a species-wide trait.
 I'd go as far as
> to say that Evilbullybadguys and the people who follow them are the 
> minority.

In good times and in the best of all possible worlds(thank you
Voltaire), I would agree with you.  In good times, the evilbullybadguy
is, as you say, pathological-it is an easy ID.
These days when there is overpopulation, when resources are slim, the
evilbullybadguy isn't so easy to ID.



What percentage of people in the world have fought in a war? What
> percentage of the US population joins the military (1/100th?) Perhaps
>  that's the percentage of the population with the 'warrior gene'?

Do you really think there is a separate gene for this?  I don't. I don't
think that people who resort to violence are always mentally ill.  I
believe there are genetic links to mental illness, and that in some
mental illnesses violence and aggression are symptoms and indicative of
that illness, and that some of the evilbullybadguys in the world are
pathologically impaired, genetically impaired, BUT I CERTAINLY DO NOT
BELIEVE THAT ALL AGGRESSORS, ALL VIOLENCE, ALL EVILBADGUYS HAVE SOME
GENE THAT IS DEFECTIVE, BECAUSE I THINK WE ALL HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO BE
THAT EVILBADGUY UNDER THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCE AND CERTAINLY FROM
ANOTHER'S POINT OF VIEW.  I am not yelling, just writing in all caps for
emphasis only.



 Evilbullybadguys
> are very disruptive, can attract or conscript others to help them, 
> and are generally seen by the majority of the world to BE 
> Evilbullybadguys. The fact that we see them as an aberration tells me
>  that most people aren't like them.

I think you are only seeing the pathological ones...
I see the capability within every human on the planet.

Bev

--
“Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to
hate. Hate leads to suffering.”        Yoda