As we evolve, so does our violence.
If a few people have to live in peace and harmony, many others will have to pay the price through hardships, pain and suffering. I think the utopian concept of a whole world and all of humanity living in peace and the optimists striving to meet that goal is a very flawed concept. The more I think about it, the more it becomes clear to me that nature did not mean for Peace to be.
Let's start by looking at the small scale of things. Look at creatures in the wild, small ecosystems, where we start seeing the semblances of a society. Is it peaceful ? Yes, in a lot of ecosystems we do see the serenity of a perfect ecosytem. But is there zero conflict ? Of course not. Each life form preys on the other to survive. To live and propagate, one species must cause the death of another. Even flora do this, by trying their best to utilize the resources around them, and deprive a competing species of it. In the long term view of things, an equilibrium is attained. But local wars are fought. Battles are won and lost. The equilibrium is established. Sooner or later a change occurs. A new species arrives either by mutation, migration or other means. A disturbance in the equilibrium is created. It takes a while before equilibrium is established again.
Humans are not very different. Atleast I don't see humans transcending this phenomenon. We are all creatures driven by survival. And each of our species, sub-species, races are all driven by survival. Our concern for the wellbeing of our fellow creatures on the planet is peripheral. And if we do care, its cos we know its good for us. One can observe the same phenomenon if you view the boundaries along regions, nationalities and religion. Competition, survival, conflict and an establishment of an equilibrium. I think this is inevitable. Equilibrium is what we perhaps mistake as peace. Note however, that equilibrium is never fair. Some species or group will always dominate over the other. It may so happen that with the passage of time and of opportune events, the tables may turn and the values of the variables in the equation of equilibrium may drastically change, but it is essentially the conflict that lies in between these forces that establishes the equilibrium in the first place. Conflict in the context of human society, could be many things: tribal violence, war, diplomacy, politics, economics, trade. But conflict is the mechanism that drives the system towards equilibrium. We cannot get rid of it. In fact its time to accept it and perhaps smoothen it.
War for example, is a very rough and inaccurate method of establishing peace. Although in certain situations, it might be the most efficient and effective means. Trade and diplomacy is probably better, because there is a minimisation of bloodshed. But then, why does bloodshed have to be minimised ? It is only death. And death ushers in new life. Death usually ushers in better life, because it is the unfortunate and the weak that have been decimated. The stronger survived. They deserve to. They have just followed the basic laws of nature. They cannot help it. America pre-emptively struck Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't buy that it was a war against terror. Its a war to preserve the American lifestyle. They need oil and cannot tolerate the kind of fear that struck them on that fateful Sept 11. It would be interesting to see what kind of equilibrium will be established.
Have we also noticed that as we have evolved, we have only managed to learn to kill more efficiently, be violent more explosively, destroy things and life faster. In fact, our scientific research, based on funding statistics, we spend way more on defense and military than medicine and conservation. Why ? I think there is a deep ingrained subconscious undertanding that military strength will protect us better than peace. Medicine too, I actually wonder sometimes, how fair is it, we just make it more difficult for any species to prey on us since we have advanced means of protecting ourselves and repairing damages. So in the long run, its not difficult to envision a planet thats almost completely human. We'd manage to make things to feed us and basically have samples of species in zoos or museums or something. That would suck. But can we escape it ? Is our huge brain/body ration a curse ?
Thoughts ?
Let's start by looking at the small scale of things. Look at creatures in the wild, small ecosystems, where we start seeing the semblances of a society. Is it peaceful ? Yes, in a lot of ecosystems we do see the serenity of a perfect ecosytem. But is there zero conflict ? Of course not. Each life form preys on the other to survive. To live and propagate, one species must cause the death of another. Even flora do this, by trying their best to utilize the resources around them, and deprive a competing species of it. In the long term view of things, an equilibrium is attained. But local wars are fought. Battles are won and lost. The equilibrium is established. Sooner or later a change occurs. A new species arrives either by mutation, migration or other means. A disturbance in the equilibrium is created. It takes a while before equilibrium is established again.
Humans are not very different. Atleast I don't see humans transcending this phenomenon. We are all creatures driven by survival. And each of our species, sub-species, races are all driven by survival. Our concern for the wellbeing of our fellow creatures on the planet is peripheral. And if we do care, its cos we know its good for us. One can observe the same phenomenon if you view the boundaries along regions, nationalities and religion. Competition, survival, conflict and an establishment of an equilibrium. I think this is inevitable. Equilibrium is what we perhaps mistake as peace. Note however, that equilibrium is never fair. Some species or group will always dominate over the other. It may so happen that with the passage of time and of opportune events, the tables may turn and the values of the variables in the equation of equilibrium may drastically change, but it is essentially the conflict that lies in between these forces that establishes the equilibrium in the first place. Conflict in the context of human society, could be many things: tribal violence, war, diplomacy, politics, economics, trade. But conflict is the mechanism that drives the system towards equilibrium. We cannot get rid of it. In fact its time to accept it and perhaps smoothen it.
War for example, is a very rough and inaccurate method of establishing peace. Although in certain situations, it might be the most efficient and effective means. Trade and diplomacy is probably better, because there is a minimisation of bloodshed. But then, why does bloodshed have to be minimised ? It is only death. And death ushers in new life. Death usually ushers in better life, because it is the unfortunate and the weak that have been decimated. The stronger survived. They deserve to. They have just followed the basic laws of nature. They cannot help it. America pre-emptively struck Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't buy that it was a war against terror. Its a war to preserve the American lifestyle. They need oil and cannot tolerate the kind of fear that struck them on that fateful Sept 11. It would be interesting to see what kind of equilibrium will be established.
Have we also noticed that as we have evolved, we have only managed to learn to kill more efficiently, be violent more explosively, destroy things and life faster. In fact, our scientific research, based on funding statistics, we spend way more on defense and military than medicine and conservation. Why ? I think there is a deep ingrained subconscious undertanding that military strength will protect us better than peace. Medicine too, I actually wonder sometimes, how fair is it, we just make it more difficult for any species to prey on us since we have advanced means of protecting ourselves and repairing damages. So in the long run, its not difficult to envision a planet thats almost completely human. We'd manage to make things to feed us and basically have samples of species in zoos or museums or something. That would suck. But can we escape it ? Is our huge brain/body ration a curse ?
Thoughts ?
posted by Roshan Rammohan at 2:27 PM
1 Comments:
Life (on earth atleast) is zero sum.
Post a Comment
<< Home