Ross A. Finlayson wrote,
> I think that many who fought for democratic nations did so because they were
> and thus legally obligated to go fight. Those who had moral or ethical
> to do so were probably of the following camps: 1: those who sought to
> extend democracy, 2: those fighting against atrocities against civilians, and
> those figting or working to promote democracy as well as bring about the
> blatant tyranny. Each one was an individual.
Nonetheless, conscientious objectors and non-combatant draftees abounded. So did
female workers in bomb factories. I had referred to willing warriors, eager
soldiers, those who fought for god and country.
If making the world safe for democracy requires a world war, then let's replace
democracy with meritocracy.
Except for the professional soldiers (the gung-ho types I was talking about)
they were all civilians before they were drafted.
When you get run over by a tank, it doesn't really matter which side's tyrant
> Someone in an unrelated post noted that humans fight each other because there
> one else to fight. It's the species' immune system, in a metaphorical sense.
In a metaphorical sense (and even in a non-metaphorical sense), when the immune
system attacks its own organs, it's time for an immune system tune-up. A
hay-wire immune system can kill as surely as a disease. It seems extropic to me
to replace war with something else... like maybe a technological singularity.
"In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs
it is the rule." Friedrich Nietzsche
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:15 MDT