From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Mar 23 2003 - 18:56:32 MST
Nathaneal writes
[Concerning my (Nathaneal's) conjecture:
* Instincts towards violence can’t be
controlled and have to be kept in check]
> I am beginning to think that this* common belief
> is affecting the way people view the Iraq war.
The entire notion that we even have /instincts/ predisposing
us towards violence is in stark contrast to the doctrine of
the Blank Slate, which has been basic dogma throughout the
20th century.
Whether or not violent instincts can be controlled depends
greatly upon the individual and that individual's genetic
endowment. Stupidity is also highly correlated with violent
behavior. Soon, I predict, people with especially violent
tendencies can be treated.
> *That a continuous upgraded net mind will make humans be able to control
> their instincts until eventually there is no more violence.*
>
> Such a statement is extremely theoretical. Although genetic
> changes or even IA might give us that ability I am doubtful
> that our instincts can be kept in check otherwise.
Yes, though there are two levels that you are referring to,
and I'm a little confused. There is the level of nations,
and there is the level of individual people. I dare not
speculate on the ways that genes affect the dispositions
of nations.
I completely agree that without genetic modification, too many
people will remain violent, and criminal behavior can only be
dealt with by the primitive methods now in place.
> 1. Many anti-war activists believe that this* is possible and that war
> should be avoided.
> 2. Many war activists believe that this* is possible and that war is
> progressing globalization and thereby causing this to happen sooner.
>
> The other belief is that this is not possible. If this is not possible,
> given our technology at this time, than these instincts for power and
> violence will always be present in society.
Let me address the level of nations for a moment. Nations
are *not* in recent centuries administrated by violent or
sociopathic individuals. Each such leader, whether it's
Putin, Blair, Bush, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Marcos or Pinochet,
is a very sociable and effective team player. These leaders
take advantage of the territoriality and instincts of their
citizens, to serve their citizens by lookout out for the
national interest (or what they perceive to be the nation
interest).
Thus each leader---from Hussein to Blair---acts at some level
to advance what he believes to be the national interest. It's
still true that in non-democratic countries, the egos of the
leaders have an often appalling effect: Hitler, or Hussein,
or in fact any politician whose picture is prominently displayed
in public as some sort of "Beloved Leader", often identify their
own personal interests with those of their nation, and such is
their control that they get away with it.
> *That these instincts can’t be controlled and have to be kept in check*
>
> Then the argument is what systems are best at keeping
> these instincts in check?
In my opinion, Anders was definitely on target when he
suggested that we appreciate the value of the free market
in moderating non-peaceful tendencies. Observe that only
one time to my knowledge (1812-1814) was ever a war fought
between two democracies. As much as two neighboring
democratic countries may hate and despise each other
(Greek vs. Turk, present day, or American vs. Brit 1928),
it never quite comes to war.
> The best systems would be ones that have the smallest
> percentage of people that need to be kept in check,
> stopping the problem before it starts.
Reverting to the level of individuals in society, yes!
> So then the argument is what is the best propaganda
> to send people so that they have very little ability
> to revert to these instincts.
I can not think of historical examples in which exhortations,
maxims, education, or propaganda has had the desired effect.
Some cultures, e.g. the Amish or Quaker, do succeed sometimes
in multiplying their numbers through peaceful living, and
becoming a force against war. But to the degree that we
want to credit them, it is their culture, I claim, not their
having succumbed to someone's propaganda that should get
the credit.
(And moreover, it must be kept in mind that such cultures
to date have thrived only inside protective barriers erected
by democratic nations---barriers that keep such pacifistic
communities from being quickly overrun by violent nomads
or other nations.)
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 23 2003 - 18:56:54 MST