Religion's contribute to wars

[Hilly]

tamara said:

I'll tell ya how to get rid of wars. Get rid of men.
How often do you think women would go off on a frigging crusade? Like, never. We have better things to do with our lives.
.

tamara I think you just may be right here. The male of the species does seem to be more aggressive. It would be interesting to see if there would be any change if all the nations leaders were of the fairer sex . Also I have noticed on some of your posts you refer to God as a she. That makes me smile

[dragonfly]

:-[Although I am inherently friendly and am fond of ,indeed love certain individuals (and have a personal creed of NEVER refusing a request for help) I find myself filled with horror at the human race....in my opinion on mass we are a hideous blight upon the earth and each other.We are violent, destructive and cruel with a wanton disregard for our environment that will I hope ultimately prove fatal.

If there are other life forms out there I hope we never find it or vice versa because we fail dismally to treat our own species with respect and love (let alone all the other species we share our planet with!).As long as humans exist there will be war.

I love what human beings are capable of....I have wept with joy on occasions to witness the brilliance which can illuminate our kind but rarely do people (in general) exhibit their best tendencies. I bear no malice to anyone but am fully prepared to embrace the extinction of my kind because I really believe the universe will be a safer place without us.

I'm sorry if that sounds so dark.(and sorry guys but I do think the planet would fare better fuelled by something other than testosterone....in general the male animal is far more easily goaded to violence..think Bulls,Hogs, Stallions,Bull elephants,ANY species of deer in rut etc. I'm not saying the female species is all sweetness and light but you know what I mean!)

[droskey]

dragonfly, I think I can see where you are coming from. However, I don't share your opinion of the human species. I think that we have a very long way to go, but I think that we are able to get there.

First, I don't think that our genes are stacked against us. There are those who believe that humans as a species have actually evolved to be less aggressive on an individual basis. This is true I think. Most people as individuals dislike conflict and violence. The problem is that we are sort of programmed to be agressive as a group to those who can be lumped into the others. I don't think that we can change this tendency in us. However, we can develope social and political constructs that address this tendency and mediates it.

War is ultimately the result of competition for scarce resources. Warfare has gotten increasingly desctructive as technology has made it "easier" to wage. This is a problem. It is important the social and political systems adapt to address problems such as this that arise because of technology.

One of the things that I think will improve human survivability is the proliferation of democracy. Democracy is very good at "smoothing" out the more extreme tendencies of people.

The point is that we can't rely on people to act their best at all times. We have to develope systems that deal with the way people are on average. The systems must suppress our worst behaviour and enhance our best. We recognize that we can do harmful thing. The key is not to lament that we aren't perfect angels and deal with the way things are.

Cheers.

[dragonfly]

ah Jacopo 7531-as an individual you are very democratic and kind! (and the "cheers" is smile inducing ) But you state as I do that we(the human animal) is aggressive as a group although not so much as an individual AND this is precisely my point.

Individuals rarely or effectively stand up to a group and human beings social structures are designed to function in clusters.

I agree with you that democracy is good( note that women have superior skills in this area of peace making...now if only men would allow us more power in world events!) however Democracy is too often all talk and not appropriate action!

There will always be war...over resourses (scarce or not....having plenty has never seemed to stop humans from wanting more!), Religion,cultural differences,percieved personal affronts, Love,Greed,Power....all inspired by a multitude of reasons both simple and complex. All I know is that history and indeed the time we live in now shows that humanity is all too easily goaded into war (from the scale of neighbour disputes and family feuds to entire countries)

[droskey]

dragonfly

ah Jacopo 7531-as an individual you are very democratic and kind! (and the "cheers" is smile inducing )

Thank you.

Humans tend to be more aggressive as a group than as individuals. This doesn't mean that groups of people are always aggressive all the time. What I was getting at is that people identify themselves with a group. The individuals within the group are likely to live very harmoniously with each other. However, where aggression doesn show itself, it is more likely to show itself between groups rather than within groups. However, aggression doesn't always occur.

I'll say it again, knowing the way that humans behave allows us to construct social systems that are able to maintain peace by mitigating this behaviour. Such systems should not require that individuals stand up against the group in order for the system to work.

I am coming from a standpoint that war and violence are always bad things (although sometimes justifiable). However, conflict is not always bad. There will always be conflict among humans. I find no reason to believe that the existance of conflict makes war a necessity. I think that it is possible that humans may be able to do away with war and violence on a large scale some day. There will always be conflict which has be be worked out though.

Also, by scarcity I mean that there is not enough of something (or it isn't produced at a rate) so that everybody's wants and needs for that resource are satiated.

dragonfly

I agree with you that democracy is good( note that women have superior skills in this area of peace making...now if only men would allow us more power in world events!) however Democracy is too often all talk and not appropriate action!

I have a couple of problems with this statement. First, I will grant that, on average, women are less aggressive as individuals than men are. However, you haven't given me any reason to believe that a society run by women would follow that pattern. Women should have as much say in the running of the state as men. I believe that aggression (on a large scale) is a human problem. I don't buy the extreme feminist view that it is a male problem.
Second, I would ask for some clarification as to how Democracy has failed to take appropriate action. What is appropriate action? Have other systems more consistantly taken appropriate action?

I'll end by addressing a quote in your previous post dragonfly:

dragonfly

I find myself filled with horror at the human race....in my opinion on mass we are a hideous blight upon the earth and each other. We are violent, destructive and cruel with a wanton disregard for our environment that will I hope ultimately prove fatal.

I realize that this is an opinion, but I found it interesting, mainly because it is one that many people from many walks of life kind of agree with (although maybe not as strongly as you do). It sounds like you are making a moral value judgement here and not just an observation. The statement about humans being a blight might just be an observation (we certainly have the ability to destroy our own environment much like other natural phenomenae does that we would call blights). However, you experss "horror" and a hope that the humans species goes extinct. You give human cruelty, violence, destructiveness and environmental disregard as reasons for this feeling. These sound like moral judgements where humans deserve a certain fate. Is this what you intended? If so, what are you using as your moral ruler? In other words, why should humans have regard for the environment other than the pragmatic reason of self preservation?

Cheers.

[dragonfly]

Wow...I really had to ponder my reply to all your questions Jacapo 7531 ! (but I enjoy chewing at my thoughts and the ponderings of others much the way a dog will worry the same bone over and over,bury it then dig it up...so here goes

Firstly anything is possible. You state that you believe that one day humans may be able to do without violence and war. I would love to share this belief. I think this statement is more indicative of your nature than anything else.I think nothing in our past or present indicates this. Should it be true one day that humans shall live in peace and harmony with each other then I believe our species would be so altered as to be something other than human.

Your questions regarding my moral ruler were as a stone into a pond.I can still feel the ripples.Also your question "why should humans have a regard for the environment other than self preservation?".......I am almost ashamed of my arrogance but I will have to hold firm on it for it is the core of who I am. I use my own moral ruler which I measure using the pain I register. I am human, I am fallible, I err, I have my own bias, my own prejudices ,my own failings and flaws like any other but I have a deep (spiritual) passion for the earth and yes even for people and (wow this is hard) I am able to connect with both in a strange way. On my travels I have been embraced and allowed to enter places (and I include the mind here)others generally are not.

I am torn by the duality of my emotions.On one hand I adore the different cultures and customs of a people but accept also that these differences divide us.Re -visiting a small tribe in Nepal that had been incredibley pure and distinct from the so called modern world I was filled with a silent rage to observe a television capturing the attention of all but a few.I choked at the sight of plastic bags clogging a near by stream.The local potter was in abject poverty due to the popularity of of bright red plastic cups and bowls .T-shirts replaced the native costume. I wept and then I considered my emotions....for whom or what did I wish to hold these people to their ancient ways....For whose pleasure? Mine or theirs? Who was I to say "oh I can have television and plastic but you can not!" Whose way is right or more valuable. The old way of life was hard for these people.Modern gains have a price ...there is a loss involved but who can measure the cost yet?

Can I say that other than self preservation the only other reason to have regard for the planet is Love?...incredible joy at the wonder of it ? In my eyes only I would find the planet more beautiful without us...we have bought so much terror and suffering to the other life forms on it. The slash of the lions claws and jaws as he rips out the throat of the gazelle is a sharp sudden quenching of the bright spark of life that beats in the deers breast...terrible but wonderful...intrinsic to the perfect balance of life nessesary for this planet.I am awed and inspired.

On the other hand a human keeping a bear alive in a small ,wire cage where it can not stretch out to sleep where the hot wire in the mid day sun scorch his flesh,where 3 of his legs are rotted stumps sealed with hot tar and a festering,surpurating wound with a tube to tap the bile keeps him howling with pain .....all over the world humans keep their OWN kind in similarly dreadful conditions.Guantanamo Bay exists...designed by a country held up as an example to us all!

I do not say human beings deserve a fate...but I feel our planet would be nicer without us.This is my moral judgement .I can not ask you to share this view.Only to consider it.

Incidently I consider myself a humanist first,womanist second ...not a feminist.I can not prove women are more democratic but scans on the brain done only last year show that a larger part of a womans brain(and more sections) is involved when performing this skill and also our communication centre is much larger and more intricate....this does NOT mean the skills are superior though ...only different!

Without going too much off track here (and creating tension) the major instance of Diplomacy failing was in the United Nations disscussions regarding wether The U.S.A should go to war with Iraq.....(sigh)

I hope my response is not too garbled! Cheers to you too!

[droskey]

dragonfly

Firstly anything is possible. You state that you believe that one day humans may be able to do without violence and war. I would love to share this belief....I think nothing in our past or present indicates this. Should it be true one day that humans shall live in peace and harmony with each other then I believe our species would be so altered as to be something other than human.

Well, dragonfly, I'm not a historical expert, so I'll have to check on some of my facts, but I think that there is reason to believe that we are becoming more peaceful gradually. I believe that if you go back a few hundred years or more, you'd find that wars were much more frequent than they are today. However, the scale was smaller. Technology has given us the ability to kill many people with relative ease. I think that this is one reason that wars are more infrequent today. The cost is just to high. Another reason is a trend towards homogenization of societies and better disemination of information. I'm just shooting from the hip here and I'd need to do some checking, but it is something to think about.

dragonfly, you expressed concern over people losing their cultures to the homogenization that I spoke about. You are more well travelled than I but I share some aspects of your concern. I think that we have to keep things in perspective, though. I don't think it is about absolute morality and right and wrong. It is more an issue of what are our goals as a society and how do we best accomplish those. When we insist that a particular group of people maintain their current way of life at all costs, we are in some ways putting an aesthetic goal above what might be best for the well being of that people. On top of that, we are removing their sovereignty to make decisions for their own lives. As a global society, we might decide that this is best overall. But it is important that we understand what we are doing. We are (arbitrarily?) ranking goals. Nothing more, nothing less.

dragonfly

I do not say human beings deserve a fate...but I feel our planet would be nicer without us.This is my moral judgement .I can not ask you to share this view.Only to consider it.

The thing about this judgement is that it is a human judgement based on human defined aesthetics. The world wouldn't be "better" without humans because "better" is a human concept. Nature doesn't make that distinction. This is where you and I may disagree if you tend to have metaphysical leanings.

Many of the goals that you have expressed are worthy goals in my opinion. I don't think that our society pursues them as aggresively as I would like it to. For intstance in the U.S. I would like to see:

1.) Management of consumption (implimentation of a consumption tax).
2.) More concern for environmental impact
3.) Foreign policy which respects foreign sovereignty but strongly encourages democratic movements.
4.) Submission to world standards through the U.N. (at least as much as possible).
5.) Democratic reform within the U.S. (specifically in the area of campaign finance).

There are others. But as a society, we must address goals and place them in a heirarchy. Some goals may be contradictory. But that is the nature of the game.

Cheers.

[droskey]

dragonfly

Incidently I consider myself a humanist first,womanist second ...not a feminist.I can not prove women are more democratic but scans on the brain done only last year show that a larger part of a womans brain(and more sections) is involved when performing this skill and also our communication centre is much larger and more intricate....this does NOT mean the skills are superior though ...only different!

I'm not familiar with the term womanist. What is that?

I'm not sure what to say about the brain scan stuff except that I would need to know a lot more about how the experiment was conducted, how data was collected, etc. before I could even make an attempt at trying to figure out what implications it had on the state of the world.

I would like to clarify my dispute with the whole "we'd be better off if women ruled the world" thing. I understand that the comments about getting rid of men were tongue in cheek but I was a little surprised that there was a tone of seriousness behind it. This bothered me not because I'm afraid that, as a man, I'm going to be locked up, but because I think it focuses on a non-issue and a purely speculative one at that. What would it mean if there were no men? It would mean that we are not talking about human beings. What does it mean when we talk about a world in which women are in charge? I don't have any idea what this means. If it means women populate all of the positions of head of state, I don't know that the world would look radically different. If we are talking about matriarchal cultures, then society would be different to be sure. But would that mean that there would be no wars?

Sometimes is seems like people forget that fully 50% of the worlds population has been female. Do we believe that these women have had little or no influence on the direction of society? I mean seriously, does anybody really believe that women haven't had a hand in how civilization has developed over the past 6000 years. Has it really been that men will just do what they want regardless of the desires of the other half of the population? I just don't think that that is the case.

I think that part of the reason this kind of thinking is so popular is because direct power is appreciated a lot more than indirect power. Men have traditionaly held positions of direct power. They have served as heads of state, generals, leaders and warriors of clans, etc. Women, however, have traditionally held the lion's share of indirect power through the raising of families. Societies values are transmitted primarily through indirect means. Girls are taught to be mothers and wives and boys are taught to be warriors and husbands, all that crap. This dynamic changes quite a bit in a openly democratic sociey in which everyone has equal say.

Cheers.

[dragonfly]

Hi Jacapo (I'm addressing the bulk of this post to you because I am responding directly to your comments in particular but I do not of course exclude anyone else)

I agree that "better" is a human concept and that I make a human judgement here because I guess I am human.Although I can step outside my own needs and desires and even my own feelings to a degree I can't escape that fact!.....but I can say I have met very few other humans who share my total belief that the planet would be "better" off without us.Despite this I love the diversity of the human race...I have cried real and foolish tears for the end of our planet in the impossibly distant future.

I have felt ridiculous and conflicting grief for all the rising and falling of spectacular cultures (many unknown).I have felt real egotistical horror and the insignificance of us all.....I have wanted to carress and cherish every small carved stone, every sculpture,every bowl and basin,weapon...wanted to see every dream ,feel others passing thoughts, stand in every dwelling,hear every song and story ever uttered knowing that one day it will all be cosmic dust..........still despite this bizzare sorrow I wish it were all gone (and me too)

At first I thought about our planet with small clusters of humans living in tribal communities (very idealistic!) but the fact is that over time the populations would increase ,expand and spread to fill the niche that we fill today so I could not see the point.

I would not say I have leanings toward the metaphysical...perhaps a small knod in the general direction.I know that philosophers divide reality into 2 halves of mind and matter and do not emphasise any distinction within the mind as a spirit or soul....and I guess I accept or atleast explore and keep my mind open to microscopic fragments of the more generally popular view of metaphysics to include some mysticism and occultism (but if you had seen what I had seen you might find yourself in the same position...might not!)

Incidently I mistakenly included in the concept of war general violence and aggression.I think human beings have always been quite a hostile and aggressive animal...I do not think we are more so than in the past. Just that our force of numbers and technological power makes the impact more global,certainly knowable. I actually think that the spread of knowledge rather than bringing peace increases our reasons for aggression.We are not a tolerant species.

I accept that my mentioning of the brain scans without supporting information was entirely unfair but I can not recall the name of the series (Discovery Channel) nor can I find the Article from Scientific American ...but I will try and find out the original source for you.

As to the term Womanist ...I coined it years ago in a direct response to the word feminist but I am sure that other women who share the same feelings as myself may well have developed the term before me.

Basically I believe that the feminist movement caused and is a source of incredible conflict between men and women and in the psyche of women themselves.Wether rightly or wrongly too many women came to interpret the term feminism with not being equal in human rights but wanting to equal with men ....in some cases to be the same.In turn the movement shifted and women began to expect indeed demand from men the same kind of relationships they had with other women.

The fact is we are different.We look different,we have a different phisicality,different chemistry,different brain,different function and purpose....different way of communicating...I do not need to elaborate further.It is destructive to try and emulate each other.We need to embrace , accept and respect that men and women have different roles biologically and socially.I seriously believe that the human race would benefit if women were able to find satisfaction with the nurturing and raising of children for the incredibly long time that human children need to be...this can not be done without the support of the entire network of our social strucure...that is extended families fully involved(and I include men too)

We can not have everything we want.Mothers and Fathers can not work long hours simultaneously in divided neighbourhoods with loose family and community ties and expect the human animal to thrive......I could go on for ever but basically until we return to a more tribal way of life ,rich in art,music and oral tradition where male and female roles are more distinct then we will all suffer and our ethical development will cease.(whoa I hope I don't get stoned after this!).I can't devote the space I need to explain everything but hopefully you get the gist.


I agree though that men and women have shaped the planet.I do not know if the planet would be "better" under the control of women.....We can be just as evil.It would be different. I think though that women have been and still are held by men in positions of unspeakable torment.This ill treatment would not come from women to men were the balance of power shifted. Our biological role of nurturing our children would keep us in check and the simple fact that physically we are not strong enough to do so.I have seen such horrors ....a bound foot,the final and forbidden stage of a sati (a 14 year old immolated on the pyre of her dead 60 year old husband!),thousands of women left to die in bloody pools of agony ,literally torn apart during child birth because their husbands do not want them tended by male doctors in such an intimate way(and hey there are NO women doctors!), the slow tortured dragging steps of tiny brown ankles suppurating with pus and sores due to the terrible metal weights locked above their tiny feet(child brides who in the years to come will develop dreadful thick scars if they do not die of infection first),women forced to beg for scraps in garbage heaps ,forced from the family home,never to see their family again because their husband died FIRST!How do I mention the painfilled eyes and tormented bodies of children chained to their beds for men to use as they wish in fly infested brothels....I could go on Jacopo but you are obviously a kind man and I have no wish that you should suffer.I am sure you have read enough.......it is an interesting fact that most of these suffering women and children still have a sweet faith in a God if not in man- kind.

(Also I thought your goals for the U.S were great....can't see it happening though!)