[Fwd: Iraq Dispatches: Inside Abu Hanifa mosque during attack

[James E. Henderson]

boblq wrote:

>There is likely no escape from the problem of being human. 
>
>  
>
War was not a human invention. It was devised to divide a species into 
small, somewhat isolated groups so that the entire species would not be 
destroyed by a single disease. Read Carl Sagan's "Shadows of Forgotten 
Ancestors". Many species have used it, along with the alpha to omega 
power hierarchy, but none have elaborated it to the extent that humans 
have. We've made our groups bigger and more complex, our hierarchies 
within hierarchies bewilderingly, gothically byzantine and, with our 
technology, our warfare deadly beyond imagining.

But war is still 'us' against 'them'. We still claim 'they' are the 
spawn of the devil as the result of deviant sexual practices. If we 
didn't demonize them, they would be just people, the same as us, and it 
would be harder to push the button that kills them. The two groups, 'us' 
and 'them', cannot be allowed to merge -- they must remain distinct -- 
for the process to work. It's been the same whether the human groups 
were bands, tribes, city-states or mighty nations. It works the same way 
for lions and wolves.

It evolved for survival of the species. We have reached the point in our 
development where it is counter-survival. The ideal solution, where our 
technology seems to be leading us, is to become one big group.

That will take a while.

>I am hopeful that we shall find a way. My optimism flies in the face of much 
>data except for one important observation. Slowly, often with backsliding, 
>the balance that allows for more freedom within order seems to be coming 
>into being.  The reasons for this are that the technological and economic 
>underpinnings of freedom and justice are being created to which I suspect 
>(and hope) James H. will testify (or critique). 
>
>  
>
The chances are good that we, or those who come after us, will evolve a 
way. What you've described is, in a sense, a form of evolution ... and 
we're not done evolving yet.

We'll be done evolving when we no longer survive. Our immediate survival 
requires that we fix our messed-up economic situation so that everybody 
will have enough. That will do two things: it will give us the luxury to 
permit freedom by removing the base causes of conflict, and it will 
encourage people to seek luxury and procreate less, as it has recently 
been reported that more prosperous Hispanic women are doing (marrying 
later, having fewer children).

Our long-term survival requires us to leave this doomed planet. We've 
taken a few steps in that direction and a few people are aware that the 
Earth will eventually become uninhabitable. We have the capability to 
begin an exodus now ... or will have, once we unscramble our economy.

>>>Think about it a moment. It has been about 100 years since there
>>>has been a major war on the North American continent. Why is that?
>>>      
>>>
>>Pacific and Atlantic ocean.
>>    
>>
>
>You miss the point, for which I apologize. I should have been more explicit. 
>Why is this continent not subject to wars in the way that Europe has been?
>I am not asking why we are easily defended from their wars. Oceans, I 
>agree, have been fortunate barriers against the importation of foreign wars. 
> 
>But I am asking why we do not have wars of our own. 
>  
>
One expert said that the Crusades resulted when one of the Popes got 
tired of the "Frankish knights forever fighting among themselves" and 
sent them off to fight where they could cause less of an annoyance.

But I'll refer you to a different 'expert' for this one: John Steinbeck 
in his book "Travels with Charlie" observed that the people of the North 
American continent have developed a single identity. They think of 
themselves as Americans. We did have a nasty little spat, supposedly 
over slavery but really over a number of matters, but both sides were 
still Americans when the dust cleared. Europeans have no such unity.

>>>We already have this problem with the ordinary police in our cities.
>>>Ask why the "peaceful" USA has the highest per capita incarceration
>>>rate in the world.
>>>      
>>>
>>It is obvious as we also have the highest crime rate.
>>    
>>
>
>Duh, Tautology. If we had no laws we would have no crimes. Do we 
>have people who are somehow more criminal than the rest of the 
>world? I don't think so. I think we have an oppressive system that 
>both encourages a certain segment of society to become criminal 
>and then penalizes them severely when they act as we encourage 
>them to act. 
>
>  
>
Our laws often create new crimes. It is called criminalization.

200 years ago, good medical practice consisted of surgery to stop excess 
bleeding, bleeding the patient when you didn't know what else to do, 
giving whiskey / brandy to stimulate somebody who was lethargic and 
giving opium to calm somebody who was excited. Since then, we've 
attempted to outlaw alcohol and have made drug sale, use or possession a 
crime; it is even a crime to have apparatus associated with drug use 
even without the drugs. A large fraction of our current prison 
population is there on drug charges, especially those marijuana related. 
We created those crimes with our laws.

>I am not religious. I am a devout agnostic. I don't get answers 
>to many fundamental questions. OK, call that a religion if you
>will, but it does not follow from a lack of belief in god or God
>that one should not care for one's fellow humans nor does it follow 
>that the only mechanism for that caring is an uncaring bureaucracy.
>
>I do believe that we need the secular equivalent of churches,
>sermons, and direct voluntary social  action. I hear lots of talk  
>about what politicians and governments should do by people who 
>walk right by the homeless every day and do nothing. 
>
>I refuse to accept the notion that caring for others is a sign of
>weakness and naivete. I suggest the real problem is fear. People
>of all political and religious persuasions are afraid of the underclass,
>perhaps because their own middle class situations are so precarious. 
>
>I just don't know though.  
>
>So ... I tire. My tirade winds down. 
>
>  
>
At the time evolution evoked language in humans, it gave us the logic to 
ask questions and religion to invent answers for them. Without religion, 
the unanswered questions would have driven us even crazier than we are. 
The answers didn't have to be correct in an absolute sense, but they 
were the right answers if they worked to relieve stress and to bond 
people together into their groups more firmly.

Face it. There is no rational reason to believe that some supreme 
being(s) are watching out for us, to grant us an afterlife of glory that 
will make up for some of the grief and pain we suffer in this life. If 
you're going to be completely rational, you're going to create a lot of 
stress for yourself. The innocent / ignorant true believer frees himself 
from those worries. He gives himself superhuman guidance and, as a 
bonus, he finds a way for his 'sins' to be forgiven. He can screw up and 
not pay for it!

Who will live longer and be happier? It's no contest.

Meanwhile, enough people have become proficient with the tools gained 
from evolution to invent the technology we enjoy, often destroying 
themselves in the process. The race benefits and advances.

Never regret being of a rational bent. There have to be a few of us for 
the race to advance.

The rest are sheep.


James