From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon Mar 24 2003 - 17:12:21 MST
Lee Corbin wrote:
> Nathaneal writes
>
>
> 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.
>
Please support that contention. I am not aware of any such "dogma".
> 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.
>
I disagree. If broad control/channeling of agression was not
widely possible and practical civilization would not have
occurred. Violence is one of many likely possibilities given
our genetic makeup. It is fortunately not the only or even the
predominant one.
>
> 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.
>
Do you mean too many people will remain capable of violence or
too many people will chose to be violent? I assume the latter.
>
>>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.
>
There is no such thing as "an instinct for violence" per se.
War should be avoided as much as possible and violence curtailed
simply because as we become more technologically sophisticated
the possibility for highly dystopic outcomes, up to and
including the destruction of humanity and all higher
intelligence on this planet, grows. Levels of violence and ways
violence is channeled that were acceptable at a lower level of
technology become fraught with greater consequences.
>
> 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).
>
Stalin? Hitler? Excuse me? Some of these individuals were
actively psychopathic and some of them practiced genocide. Some
of these individuals believed that killing off other humans was
quite ok as long as it seemed to advance their own goals. There
is nothing good or "being a team player" about this.
> 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.
>
You don't believe any leader acts predominantly from
self-interest or the interests of some sub-national group[s]
s/he is part of? This is a very wildly ahistorical statement.
That the leaders may rationalize what they wish to do as being
in the national interest in no way says that they are actually
acting according to what they believe to be the national
interest. Democracy has nothing to do with it really.
>>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.
>
Actually, on an individual level, it would be more fruitful to
ask what living conditions would lead to the less perceived need
for violence. It is not a question of ability. It is a
question of choice. Or are we attempting to persuade ourselves
that human beings have no such control as most humans learn as
children?
>
> 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.
>
What do you think is in their culture that leads to this outcome
if it is not a set of shared and lived memes?
> (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.)
Actually, some of these peaceful cultures did a fabulous job of
facing down or rather coming to amicable terms with violent
groups around them. See the Quakers interaction with Native
American populations for a case in point.
Without some training and dedication to looking for non-violent
solutions (not necessarily as an absolute prohibition however),
more violence than necessary will result. In a world where
large numbers are disenfranchised to a critical level, more
apparent need to resort to violence will be felt and acted upon.
In a world where preemptive violence is ok between nations, more
nations and individuals will perceive themselves to be
intolerably threatened.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 24 2003 - 17:15:25 MST