posted
This is merely a post about who thinks that the world should unite before we encounter an alien race so that we do not wipe ourselves out of existance... please respond to this forum Thank you... EVERYONE RESPOND AND STATE YOUR OPINION!
Posts: 9 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is that we face global threats as great as as alien invasion already and do nothing. Any number of things from valcanic eruption to global flooding to asteroid impact. The news just does not get to the hitherlands.
posted
Pepek, Your ignorance of the human condition is obvious. Humans have always united against a common enemy. To unite the world, we would need an enemy that is far superior to the power of any one nation.
I think perhaps BeansAchilles, that we would first need the threat before any unification could occur. We cannot unite against a threat that may or may not be in existence.
Take the recent U.S. aggression against the nation of Iraq. There was no enemy in Iraq, thus the enormous backlash against the United States. It was a foolish endevour at a most impromptu time. The time for that war was during the Persian Gulf War, not now. The atrocities committed by the United States during this war have been great. But what can be said has been spoken by many. I just pray that Bush is defeated outright by his opponents, or is removed before the election. But that is neither here nor there. For the peoples of the world to unite they must have a common enemy. This is clear. Whether it is an enemy here or from without, the enemy must exist first.
Those who watch rarely speak up. Those who speak rarely hear all. But those who listen see all there is.
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree.. even with a far superior threat- we may put on the face of unity, but just like in Ender's Game, I have no doubt that there will be deception and underhandedness running through someone's mind.. There's always someone out there attempting to benefit despite everyone else.
posted
It's been my belief that our odds of survival for the long term increase if we become united.
And I mean LONG term. I believe we see the trends now to one world culture/government/language. Mmmmm... Hegemony.
It's not a bad thing. But, as discussed many times before, there are drawbacks. Loss of other cultures and languages is one tragic side effect. Those trends being one cause of terrorism against "globalization".
We don't have to loose our cultural quirks or languages, but they will most likely become unpopular for whatever official or mainstream language will take over for commerce and international communication. Sounds like English.
I guess as long as there is one language that all people have in common that is good enough. As long as all people can communicate with each other and planetary business and government it will be all good.
Actually...the key to our longterm survival is space. We need to get off and colonize. We have all our eggs in one basket. We are fine for many thousands of years... again... the LONG term.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't worry guys. I've got it covered. When I become Dictator of the World, you can all have very well payed positions in my organization. Either this, or I will become God.
Posts: 1401 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No Enemy in Iraq? Please just a bunch of bunnies with big brown eyes huh? You sir are either ignorant or mearly stupid. I hope it is the first for the second is incurable and usually fatal. The second though is tragic, it is likely no fault of yours.
As to those who think one global govt is the way to go, well all I can say is that in biology that is a strategy for suicide. No single organism can respond to all the possibilities. It lives or it dies, life evolved instability to create diversity so that no one change can wipe it out. All humanity focused to a common purpose? What, make more babies? Save the ozone? Fight the aliens? Half the world would welcome them if they came to help them fight the USA.
I expect greater insight from this group of thinkers. Ride the fools and forget the sound bites, think about history and imagine something closer to the real situation.
OSC used to do this better then now, he is getting caught up in history and world as he would like it to be. With the intention (good) of moving the world more that way. Enders game was gritty, dirty, bloody, harsh naked truth. Mankind was feeding its children to Bhal to save itself. That is us!
If he still had that clarity he would never let them drop the first killing from the screenplay. Nothing will unite humanity and nothing should, many competing organisms will be stronger and less sick then one bloated one.
If you don't mind doing all of the boring work while I get the fun stuff (like torture), then you can be my Vice-Dictator.
Posts: 1401 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. It is nice to see a mind worthy of a thought. Perhaps Mr. Counter you misunderstood my words, for from where I sit, they are true, though perhaps we differ on the meaning of enemy. I speak of an enemy from a national standpoint. Perhaps Iraq represented a personal enemy to many, but it was not a national enemy until war is declared. You cannot name an enemy without just cause, so there is no enemy without the cause. The people would not stand for a war they do not support and so an enemy cannot exist without the support of its people. An enemy is not just a potential threat to one's own power. For were it as such, all nations would be a threat to the United States and require destruction. It is true that Iraq was more of a threat than say Afghanistan, merely due to our own foolishness. But it is also seen that Iraq was beaten down to the point of little power after the Persian Gulf War and the sanctions opposed afterwards. As well, I hope that no fool here will bring up the weapons inspectors as justification, as it is a well-known fact that some were known spies of the United States and caused the removal of the inspectors.
Though I must commend you on your viewpoint as you pose a very intriguing thought to me regarding humankind, though I must disagree with your conclusion. It is true that many competing organisms is much better than one, as it promotes survival. Though you, yourself, seem to be ignorant of the nature of survival, merely that one will do anything to assure said survival, even unite with past foes to assure the survival of the species. Observe the Soviet Union in its days. They fought with the United States until its foe was destroyed at which point they became enemies. A true unity I agree is not possible as you have stated, nor is it desireable. But a temporary truce, a united front against a greater enemy is. It is true that great things are accomplished apart and while in competition, but it is also true that those working together, sharing information can achieve goals of great worth.
I say to you finally, that if you wish to state the ignorance of one, you should first ask for clarification if you do not understand fully. As well, if you wish to abash me, explain my ignorance, before attempting to redicule my ideas. You insult without justification or understanding, perhaps showing a little ignorance of your own, though I hope you are more clear to my views.
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Back to the subject of Alliance vs competition, I point you to the Space Race. No single human endevour holds more survival promise then this, yet as allies and friends the US and Russia have done nothing significant, while as enemies the drove each other to greatness.
quote: Humans have always united against a common enemy
This is where you display ignorance, since you have said always I need only rebut with one but I will give you enough to establish a pattern.
The Gauls failed to Unite against the Romans and fell tribe by tribe out or racial hatred. The Indians failed to unite against the Europeans, and fell one by one to them. The Africans failed to stand together against Imperialism, and fell piece by piece.
Humans are quite capable of taking pleasure in watching an enemy fall even when sense should tell them that they are next!
As for those making nonsense noise on the post, make one that starts 'meaningless noise' and use it for chit chat. Otherwise come up and talk at the big table with the grown-ups.
posted
Maybe the Indian tribes did not unite together, but I'm sure that within each particular tribe, unity was most probably strengthened. Im sure that all bickering and tribal issues were set aside while they tried to deal with the invading Europeans. Or maybe asking other tribes for help made their own tribe lose pride.
Bean Counter, you really need to ligthen up.
quote: You sir are either ignorant or mearly stupid.
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and you need not ridicule them for it.
Posts: 2756 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that we, as humans, just like other primates, have a constant back and forth. On the one hand is conservatism - the urge to do things as we always have, in a way that has been proved by generations to be sucessful. That is the way chosen and clung to by the elders. Then the young ones try what is new. We as a society can spare more of them, if they are wrong, little is lost. If they are right, then their ideas will slowly spread through the culture. Does it take an alien race to unite us? No. The immediate enemies are enough.
Posts: 39 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Maybe the Indian tribes did not unite together, but I'm sure that within each particular tribe ...
We are discussing global Hegemony not what is essentially a single family getting along through some tough times. My point is simple, so let me state it "There is no reason to expect the world to unite against any common enemy."
The only way to unite the world would be to form a coalition of the willing and bend every corner of the world to our will with military action and subjegation. It might be the lifes work of an entire generation and we would likely do all the bad things that have ever been done and think of new things just as bad.
This was the Nazi Dream, looking at the unity of the world under one flag as such a good thing that it was worth a generation of horror. Think on that as you ask the Bean Counter to lighten up!
quote:Nothing will unite humanity and nothing should, many competing organisms will be stronger and less sick then one bloated one.
Assuming that this little piece of Darwinian-style banter were true (which I'm not entirely convinced of), the analogy really isn't on par with reality. You're talking about organizations/nations as if they were bacteria in a petri dish or animals in some ecosystem. That's a vast oversimplification. Vaguely defined "organisms" don't have nuclear weapons, ton upon ton of chemical weapons, and vials full of biological agents that could utterly obliterate their species. A community of competitive individuals derives no benefit from their competition if the ultimate result is the death of all the said organisms. I'd rather consider myself a bloated, non-suicidal organism that absorbed the other organisms as organs/organelles than a group of competing organisms who may be temporarily stronger individually but almost certainly destined to obliterate themselves given an ever extending timeline.
quote:Back to the subject of Alliance vs competition, I point you to the Space Race. No single human endeavor holds more survival promise then this, yet as allies and friends the US and Russia have done nothing significant, while as enemies the drove each other to greatness
As another poster briefly mentioned, I point you to the Second World War. No single endeavor has ever saved a greater portion of the population of the earth from enslavement/extermination by an unrelenting enemy. Strange how the US and the USSR were allies for that one huh? But I guess defeating one of history's most crazed, bigoted and dangerous dictators and his similarly crazed Nazi party in their attempt to take over the world for Facism doesn't count as significant. Obviously Sputnik and the the Apollo Program had far more near-term survival implications...
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Humans have always united against a common enemy --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is where you display ignorance, since you have said always I need only rebut with one but I will give you enough to establish a pattern.
The Gauls failed to Unite against the Romans and fell tribe by tribe out or racial hatred. The Indians failed to unite against the Europeans, and fell one by one to them. The Africans failed to stand together against Imperialism, and fell piece by piece.
And this is where you display your ignorance because none of your examples are relevant. Primarily, the Europeans/Romans were not necessarily seen as a common enemy by any of these tribal groups until well after they were encountered. Think of it like the Gauls, Indians, or Africans: Initially, all you have contact with is a few pale skinned strangers who have pretty advanced technology relative to your own and valuable goods for trade. For all you know they're just some other tribe you happened never to run into. Would your first thought be, "Hey, I better call up my blood enemy going back generations and band together b/c this group of a dozen white/Roman guys is going to try to take over all of the land my race currently possesses"? That'd be using using your 20/20 hindsight vision from this century. No, of course not. At the time you'd think, "Gee, how do I get to be buddies with this guy with magic firesticks/mighty legions and use them to conquer the annoying tribe chief next to me?"
The point I'm trying to make is that the conquering groups you mentioned were perceived as being a valuable friends against current foes as well as being possible foes themselves. They weren't a "common enemy" until long past the point where these conquered groups could effectively do something about it. So while your point that these groups didn't unite and perished because of it is valid, it isn't relevant b/c the people at the time weren't (in their mind) fighting the requisite "common enemy". A common enemy is an enemy that poses immediate and critical danger to several groups. The aforementioned Nazis were a common enemy to anyone not in the Axis Alliance or neutral. Islamic fundamentalists are a common enemy to Western democracies, Middle eastern political regimes (most anyway), and just about anyone flying in a plane. Marauding space aliens would be a common (if somewhat unlikely) enemy of humanity. Romans and Europeans would not have been perceived as a common foe until it was far too late to easily do anything about them. Although to further debunk your rebuttal, when these conquered groups did eventually begin to work together (barbarian invasions of Rome, Indian and African nationalist movements) the now recognized common foe was disposed of. You'll note that France/Germany is not controlled by Romans and that India and the nations of Africa have their own sovereignty. The only ones who seemed to really lose out were the American Indians...and even they have the casinos and reservations.
quote:The only way to unite the world would be to form a coalition of the willing and bend every corner of the world to our will with military action and subjugation.
Yeah, yeah. And before you there were people who said the only way to unite the 13 American colonies into one nation was by military subjugation. So yeah I guess they'd be right if they counted the flippin Whiskey Rebellion as "subjugation". And then there were those geniuses who said the German States could never be united. Please note that at the time of incorporation into the German Empire there was no appreciable "military subjugation" by one state over another. Then there were the folks who said that the idea of a united Europe with one form of currency and open borders and well funded continent level organizations would never be accomplished without WWIII. Again, results with no military subjugation. Congratulations, you've added yourself to a fine academic lineage...
Is it really that hard to imagine that a world with a rapidly expanding global culture fostered by ever more communications abroad could not bring about a de facto world nation in a few generations? I think you've underestimated (to the nth degree) the forces of common culture and globalization
quote:This was the Nazi Dream, looking at the unity of the world under one flag as such a good thing
That's a simplification. Their dream was to subjugate, enslave (virtually), or exterminate every other group of people on the planet until the world was "unified" by default under a swastika emblazoned banner. Wishing to unite the world under the principles of self-determination, human rights, cultural exchange, and peace between states is hardly the Nazi ideal.
Posts: 183 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your answer underlines the problem (the last part) the spread of a single global culture with a big mac on every corner and everybody doing things the same way is death for our species.
People who do not understand evolution often think humans might be evolving into some new thing. Of course they are wrong, with freedom of movement throughout the globe, no isolation of population exists, there is no species shift. No drift from the norm.
Humans are however gifted with the ability to adapt behavior to meet changing conditions. Some might even be lucky enough to already being doing the right thing to meet a challange. For instance some culture might practice circumcision and thus be less vulnerable to a disease like mumps. A culture that practices managomy would be less vulnerable to AIDS etc. So creating a single global culture makes us all equally vulnerable.
Not only that but those who look with favor on the idea of a single global culture ignore the facts of life in other places.
Will it not be wonderful to be able to drive across to China to have sex with pubecent girls? Won't it be great to be able to hit the Hash Pipe in India? The Red Light in in Germany? The Slave markets of Africa?
Wait, you would impose your morals on the rest of the world and these things would vanish. You would make Arabs take one wife instead of multiple wives violating their religion and leading to war. Wait you are a do-gooder idealist you are not responsible for that war!
Or would the West have to take the rot of other cultures into its breast and face sickness and decay from habits older then Christianity?
I say it now and I will say it forever, we will never be stronger as a Hemogeny, we could not ask for a shorter path to weakness, dissolution and death.
A global government! God think of the tax burden on every man woman and child in the West. Your beloved EU is fighting like cats in a sack over the idea of assuming the burden of Turkey into its limited alliance, and they are right, it is a recipe for ruin. The inflation in Turkey will be rampant, the influx of cheap labor will lead to resentment, race hatred, unemployment and recession in Europe. This is the lesson of history.
Because humans are not evolving, the fact of global alliance would forever be vulnerable to resurgence of nationalist forces.
Your idealism would be better spent in making America such a beacon that others strive to match us and our enemies hurl themselves at us making us better and stronger with every lesson and attack.
The Bean Counter is not wrong, nor is he afraid to bleed for America, I will never swear to serve a global death trap.
quote: People who do not understand evolution often think humans might be evolving into some new thing.
Thanks, I know how evolution works. No explanation needed.
quote: So creating a single global culture makes us all equally vulnerable.
You need to read the writing on the wall. The global culture you're describing is one were every human being is locked into march-step with everyone else with absolutely no options besides the popular will. That's ludicrous. Look at the closest thing to a global melting pot we have, the US. Let's use your points. Does everyone in the US get circumcised? Flat out, no. And sure, monogamy is the letter of the law but with high divorce/remarriage rates and premarital sex...can you really call people monogamous? The one overbearing ideal of this new intermingled culture is freedom of choice to select thoughts, behaviors, foods, clothing, etc from around the world. More options, not less. I fail to see how this makes us "vulnerable". In fact the culling of bad cultural traits and integration of beneficial ones is almost its own type of evolution.
quote: Wait, you would impose your morals on the rest of the world and these things would vanish. You would make Arabs take one wife instead of multiple wives violating their religion and leading to war. Wait you are a do-gooder idealist you are not responsible for that war!
Don't put words in my mouth you damn jingoist. So caught up in yourself... You immediately assume because I say there is a global culture forming that I must think my own (and I'm assuming your) culture is just going to crush every other one like a steam roller. I don’t want impose a thing on anyone. So long as they aren’t doing any major bodily harm (sometimes not even then) to anyone, aren't stealing anything and aren't bothering me personally, they can do whatever the heck they please. Contrary to your simple "winner take all" method of cultural interaction, culture is a two way street. Have you ever heard the expression, "Rome thought it conquered Greece but Greece truly conquered Rome"? Rome militarily conquered Greece but picked and chose the best parts of its culture until it was a hybrid. Hell, it even stole most of its gods from them. It's the same today, sans warfare. The global culture picks and choose the best facets of culture from around the world and dumps the old junk. So no, the West would not have to take in the "rot" of other cultures, it takes the best of other cultures and they take the best of the West. Everyone chucks out the so called "rot". It's called "progress" and it doesn't require people lobbing artillery at each other like you seem to imply.
quote: A global government! God think of the tax burden on every man woman and child in the West.
Seeing as how you (or I) have no idea what structure a world gov. would have or what responsibilities and policies it would have toward its citizens, how can you make a statement like that? Oh excuse me, now I realize how you got it. Can I borrow your crystal ball sometime?
quote: Your beloved EU
I never said I loved the EU. I just used it as an example to counter the idea that the only way to unite different groups of people is through military subjugation. And who cares whether they're waffling about letting Turkey in? Does Turkey buy EU products? Are its political and economic decisions heavily influenced by its EU neighbor? Is there a flow of ideas between Europeans and Turks? These are the important things. Whether Turkey is "officially" listed in some list of EU countries is really immaterial.
Missed this...
quote: we could not ask for a shorter path to weakness, dissolution and death.
There's no nice way to say this: What the bloody hell are you talking about?! You're basically advocating perpetual conflict between nations in an era of weapons of mass destruction and you think global community is more dangerous than this? Are you entirely serious? You think that people in China eating Big Macs and free trade zones are going to destroy the human race before a large scale war with modern weapons would?
quote: Because humans are not evolving, the fact of global alliance would forever be vulnerable to resurgence of nationalist forces.
Huh? How does that logic follow? So because humans aren’t evolving, this somehow allows or encourages the resurgence of nationalism? I fail to see how the two are significantly connected.
quote: Your idealism would be better spent in making America such a beacon that others strive to match us and our enemies hurl themselves at us making us better and stronger with every lesson and attack.
I use my idealism to try to learn enough from my enemies (and friends) that I don't have to fight them anymore. I'm not going to take your foolish suggestion that I act arrogant, jingoistic, and foolhardy so that every other country despises our existence and visits needless destruction upon our shores. What the hell is the purpose of having enemies hurl themselves at us? Was Sept. 11th some fantastic event because the enemy hurls themself at us? Are we now somehow stronger having suffered economic setback, starting new and previously unnecessary military spending, and having constant fear of attack?
quote: The Bean Counter is not wrong
Whether you're wrong or not is a matter of opinion. However, you are most certainly insufferably arrogant, referring to yourself in the 3rd person the way you do. Have you ever tried the "royal we", I hear that's pretty conceited too.
quote: nor is he afraid to bleed for America
You're talking to an ex-soldier my friend. I see from your info one of your hobbies is "military". I'm just going to say that it surprises me you can hear the things we (if you're enlisted) hear and talk about how fantastic conflict is for society. I'll gladly defend my home but I'd prefer not to have to fight for it in the first place.
Posts: 183 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apperently your idea of global culture is so weak that it already is a de facto fact. This makes it pretty damn silly.
The other countries will just see that it is better to treat ancient tribal enemies as brothers, stop treating wives as chattel and give up raping and abusing for fun and profit?
They already buy sell and trade on a global market. The expossure to drugs and masogony and prostitution (often by minors) will not currupt us? Perhaps you were not in Korea, or Germany in the military. I do not know, tribal culture is old enough to be part of our genetic map. It resonates as a default setting to human organization. Your artificial construct of moral constraints will have to be learned and embraced. While tribal hatred and mistrust are always just under the paint waiting for a scratch.
Anyone foolish enough to not regognize that we are stronger post 9-11 is either hysterically blind or stupid. You have shown that you are not without wit, so let me direct your eyes to our strength.
We are chasing the bad guys not waiting for them. Our military is training harder and active in theater where the bad guys are. We are in position to strike Iran when they decide to join the game.
Remember how OSC wrote of America in the Shadow of the Hegemon? A great power with no collective will? Do you think he sees us that way now? They get better, we get much better. Our fat guardsman are lean and combat ready, and our equipment is improving steadily.
Schools that were behind by years are opening up for soldiers in the reserves and guard, PLDC, BNOC Air Assault, Air borne, and close combat schools. Every Infantryman at Benning has an Air Borne slot now if he wants and Benning this summer has 3000 more trainies then it was set up to handle (15,000). Our volunteer military is no longer offering asfab waivers to those below standards, it is reducing the enlistment bonus to certain MOS because they are full. In other words the will of the young people in America is to fight this war and keep it from our shores.
As for the people back home, do you think that a plane full of American's will ever remain docile in the face of an attempt to take control of a plane again? Do you think they no longer care about those that hate us in distant places? Will we ever rest with both eyes closed again?
You may not like it but that is strenght.
It is indeed about choices, but we recognize boundries beyond which choice may not pass. Where those boundries are placed will be a choice, not a gradual settling in. Who makes that choice will depend on who is strongest, most resolved and most skilled.
As OSC wrote in his latest world-watch essay about the will to combat slavery everwhere by the British, it will require our resolve and willingness to engage in battle to put that line where we want it instead of having it put someplace based on another cultures values.
If countries want to be part of the weak trade alliance that already exists then they toe the line or they are out. If they are out then they are watched and if they get out of line they are crushed.
They can stay inside their borders forever and do whatever they want, but do not let it spill over onto us.
As for a stronger global alliance, you already know what I think of that. If you think American culture has so much variety that it embraces all possible survival strategies then you have less imagination then the Bean Counter. We have spoken.
quote:Apperently your idea of global culture is so weak that it already is a de facto fact. This makes it pretty damn silly.
Or pretty damn correct, depending on your definition of "weak".
quote:treat ancient tribal enemies as brothers
Europe did it. People in America do it everyday.
quote:stop treating wives as chattel
Well most of the western world managed to do it even coming from the misogynistic practices of early Christianity. I see no reason why others can't do it too.
This is all I have to say about being stronger after 9-11. Obviously you count strength in bullets. I count it in dollars. What you say is true, we have far more better trained troops throwing down greater firepower than before 9-11. I say, who cares?
More paratroopers at Benning! Well "gory gory what a helluva way to die!" that's just great!
I'll do you one better. Supposedly sapper school is becoming an officially sanctioned DoD school! Yay! Now we'll have more engineer-rangers blowing things to hell!
I hope you caught the sarcasm here. Wow our reserve components are out fighting, la dee da. Meanwhile the federal budget is in the crapper, people are still having trouble getting jobs, major sectors of transportation infrastructure are struggling (or failing) not to go out of business, among other economic woes. For many of those guardsmen that are so lean and mean their families are at home trying to make ends meet on a guardsman's salary. All of your garbage about being a strong country because we're doing more train-ups is just that. Garbage. Bullets don't build schools. Guided missiles don't buy families food. Striker units don't do anything in the military, never mind in the civilian world. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for defending the country against attack. I just don't trick myself into foolishly thinking it's going to make us stronger or better off than before we started it.
quote: In other words the will of the young people in America is to fight this war and keep it from our shores.
Unless you count the majority of young people who aren’t signed up back at home thinking you and your ilk are full of it. If there are so many young people willing to take up arms why are we activating brigade after brigade of middle age weekend warriors to fight halfway around the world?
quote: As for the people back home, do you think that a plane full of American's will ever remain docile in the face of an attempt to take control of a plane again?
That has nothing to do with strength. The only reason people remained docile during a skyjacking was because it was smart. Before 9-11 if you were skyjacked and just shut up, most likely they'd land the plane in Iran or Egypt and let you go eventually. Try to take back control of the plane and you were likely to needlessly go nose first into the ground.
quote: Do you think they no longer care about those that hate us in distant places? Will we ever rest with both eyes closed again?
Yes, I think people will rest with their eyes closed again. People forget very quickly. Hell, a few weeks after 9-11 you already had people complaining about security procedures. Better to try to make peace with your enemies and sleep easy than be awake with two eyes open all the time.
quote: You may not like it but that is strenght(sic).
No it's not. It's military power. And it's useless (and actually wasteful to maintain) if you're fighting enemies that it does not work against.
quote: As OSC wrote in his latest world-watch essay about the will to combat slavery everywhere by the British
Oh the British, those pompous imperialist SOBs who subjugated half the world out of high handed arrogance and a level of self-righteousness that bordered (borders?) on delusional? Yeah, they're a fantastic role model. The only thing that ever came of British meddling was the ruin of the empire. You can't enforce morality on people, they have to accept it themselves. Otherwise they'll just wait until they are out from underneath your control and do it even more. Look at Iraq. It had been secularized (by Britain no less) for decades. Then one day as the US sweeps through, you immediately have fundamentalism and sharia courts spring up again that very week. You won't win hearts and minds holding a gun to peoples' heads, you'll win hatred and resentment.
quote: If you think American culture has so much variety that it embraces all possible survival strategies then you have less imagination then the Bean Counter. We have spoken.
I don't think there is enough variety in the entire universe to evade the disasters born of the Bean Counter's extreme paranoia. I'm not even sure what it is you're referring to when you say surviving, although perpetual war across the globe and the threat of species-destroying weapons is apparently not it. Because it seems you have absolutely no regard for the consequences of your fantastical notions of never-ending military buildup
Btw, good use of the royal "we". You still sound stuck-up as hell but at least you've worked some variety in there.
Posts: 183 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank You We accept your adoration as our due.
There are an awful lot of people for you to glibbly belive in extinction from warfare. Though I have often wondered if the fact of German peace is more a result having the cream of their manhood wiped out twice in the last century while their boldest departed to America.
You have passed from reasoned argument to something less, and while I enjoy that almost as much it makes the chance of educating you very small. I will give you this, it is not money or wealth in any form that is strength. Attention is the coin of the universe. Money draws a great deal of attention to itself, so it is mistaken for power. But attention focused on our strength and unity is our strength and unity.
The focus and discipline of our military and our countries focus on that as a symbol of the best in who we are is strength.
You scoff at the British for being high handed, and that is truely sad. Perhaps you scoff at Christians for shunning base desires for higher discipline, maybe the runner or the gymnist is being a fool for seeking a higher state. If you feel that way then you are the object of my pity.
You truely seem to think that people, given the opportunity will choose what is best by your standards. People are first and foremost animals that will default to a state clan loyalty and savagery unless they are conditioned to behave in an enlightened manner.
It is this belief in the basic goodness of the man beast that has caused so much harm in the form of socialism and its kin. Capitalism and the American system are sucessfully based on the assumption of the selfishness and untrustworthyness of man. That realistic observation has protected us, enough people who belive in the goodness of humanity all untrained will topple us from our place in history.
posted
This competition-vs.-cooperation debate is very interesting! I think the two of you would really enjoy reading the book "Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny" by Robert Wright. It argues that the whole of human history from Native American Indian tribes to the Mongolian Hordes has followed a pattern that begins with competition (zero-sum) but gradually moves to a higher degree of cooperation (non-zero-sum). Reading your posts was like re-reading Nonzero. You both present your arguments very convincingly (although as for attitude I think Cavalier is the clear winner!) I would be very interested to know if either of you has read this book or if you plan to, what are your thoughts on it?
Posts: 236 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
