There is no `ecological balance of predator and prey' in these
encounters, its much more like siblings, competing for the exact same
resources.
*********************************************************************
Of course! (as in eureka!)
That's why we host entire stories about the prodigal son, and other
stories about brothers who compete for the estate of the father.
But I have to object to the Pacifist/warlike division. Why is it, in any
group of intellectuals, there will always be those who will call out
anyone who says that war is bad as some kind of hippie or pacifist. (and
then develop a whole text that proves pacifism to be inherently
stupid/slow to develop a culture and ultimately self destructive.)
War like people will advance quickly in times when resources are limited
and there is something to be gained by killing your neighbour.
But war like behaviour is not useful in other circumstances. People who
are exclusively war like do not advance in the areas of diplomacy,
cooperation and ally forging.
When facing a very large enemy, who will ally with a community that is
likely to bite them in the ass? No, let the barbarians take the front
line and let them fall first.
I have not forgotten your collapsed version of Chinese History in which
you assert that the Chinese civilization eventually succumbed to the
west's brilliant use of gunpowder (as a weapon rather than a party
favour)
*note* which is absolutely wrong- the chinese invented the first
military rockets. and gunpowder powered crossbows.
The chinese empire was incredibly advanced and it was because of their
strong domestic policies, their ability to maintain a huge, relatively
peaceful empire for so long that whenever they sent and expedition of
adventurers out to "see what was going on in the world" they really
could come back and say "nothing- there's nothing but disorganized
barbarians out there living in hovels.
This lead to a very insular society (and, as *I* generalize) this is
what eventually lead to the downfall-- the insulation meme prevented the
empire from accepting foriegn memes even when (eventually and after a
LONG time) they caught up and surpassed what they had.
So long story short-- "There's a time for-- a time for peace -- turn
turn " (maybe misquoted from The Yardbyrds)
I feel that there is a time for ruthlessness- of course. But I think I
(probably because I am Canadian) host different memes about war than you
(as an american) When America goes to war it's a big media event and it
is a thing that is suddenly "done". The president effectively "throws
the switch in front of the cameras-- there's some discussion of some
human tragedy like the Kurds (as if their tragedy suddendly *ping*
appears--) And War is "on"
My family in the UK still host anti-american memes because of the way
(to their perceptions) the US held off joining the fight against germany
until the very end and came swooping in. The war is won. The americans
go home holding a ticker tape parade being very vocal about the victory
for american values. But as my uncle would say "who did most of the
fighting? Us!"
Now, I don't believe my uncle's opinion is 100% right. His memes are his
because of his personal history as a soldier and his bruised identity as
a subject of the "Empire".
Do you think that media turns war into something else-- something other
than the logical expression of your community's needs and most effective
method of attaining them?
Maybe because sometimes it is *not* a logical expression of your
community's needs and a whole lot of lying has to be done?
+--------------------------------------------------------+
Ken Pantheists http://www.lucifer.com/~kenpan
+--------------------------------------------------------+