Sacrifices

[Brian H]

Brian H wrote:

Those 4 should really be OSHA’s poster kids promoting workplace safety. But to see the world without FF, google Third Industrial Revolution. :shut:

OSHA rules that war is unsafe for soldiers, and must cease forthwith! 😆 %-P

As for Rifkin, what he wants is an Industrial Devolution. Maybe he should debate the ShamWow Guy. They’re birds of a feather, on opposite sides! :cheese:

“”The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the
worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
– Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation”
http://green-agenda.com/

[Rezwan]

Aeronaut wrote: And sometimes you really do have to go beat the tar out of an extremist who never attempted diplomacy and shows no willingness to work things out to mutual benefit.

For the extremists today, there were many steps along the way in which policies were adopted that seemed expedient at the time, which ignored human rights or due process, and instead empowered tyrants so that someone in the west could make a profit. Along the way, many extremists were nurtured and funded, again by those profiting in the west. Now you’ve got all these extremists, and folks in the west don’t admit it but they’re happy because it justifies “beating the tar” out of them and additional collateral damage. What they’ve beaten the tar out of is reasonable people. Only extremists can handle all the western firepower. And they thrive on it. And also, there are some stands taken by reasonable people that are labeled extremists because people on the “non extremist” side want an excuse to dismiss them. It all really works nicely to the benefit, again, of the powerful who have no intention of working things out to mutual benefit. Lucky for them the extremists are such useful justifications. And the extremists for their part are fortunate to have such greedy, callous posterboys in the west to justify their hold on power. The reasonable folk on all sides are all hostage to this. But go on. Keep drawing the extremist rationalization for war card.

It’s like the rapist card. There have been times when guys offered to walk me home from a party late at night. “It’s not safe out there.” Really? Well statistically I’m more likely to be raped by someone I know – probably someone who offered to walk me home from a party. I’ll take my chances with the night. I hate guys who play the fear card. Rapists are their henchman, making the world unsafe in order to justify their services as people who can walk you home and try to take advantage of you themselves. Who needs that? You can just see them there, acting like they’re doing you a favor, conjuring up images of you being raped, playing on your fears. Sorry. I don’t buy it.

Besides, the only time I’ve had to deter potential rapists has been in broad daylight or in offices. When they see you walking on a street alone at night, they offer money.

I have strong feelings about this. Hope I haven’t been offensive.

This oil-fueled/fear/extortion/extremist-nurturing/holy/deuteronomy20/romanticized-armageddon-wish-fulfillment war is bigger than all of us. We shall have to nip it in the bud in these forums like the global warming stuff. No place for it here.

[Phil’s Dad]

Rezwan, I understand the passion of your previous response. I was, quite consciously and directly attacking something you believe in [the oil spill video]. That you respond by pointing out my own failings, which are many, is no more than I should expect.

Let’s put aside accusations of preening – I started it in an emotional moment, mea culpa, no more. My point about the video (which media I fully support) is to go for a positive theme rather than bashing the other side.

A very great deal of research indicates that a positive message carries more weight with a new audience. Negative messages work best only when the audience feels it has to make imminent decisions. This can not come until well after FF-2 at least.

The question of trust verses self interest/war has been debated since Socrates and Glaucon, through John Lock, Thomas Hobbs, Hume, Kant and Marks right up to the family get together.

You are right to say “Pretending there’s nothing you can do about [war] is disingenuous and usually the refuge of people who are profiting from it.” I advocate the very opposite “…constant vigilance and constant resourcefulness…” in the pursuit of peace. Of course if war is somehow not the normal state such measures are needed less.

But I confess now some confusion. Where is the trust in the scenarios you present here?

And sadly it seems I have yet again chosen a taboo subject. :zip:

[Aeronaut]

Rezwan, thanx for the excellent analyses. I’d no idea how many opportunities there may be to break the cycle. As for the natural state, please consider Genesis as a catalog of human frailties.

[Rezwan]

Phil’s Dad wrote: Rezwan, I understand the passion of your previous response. I was, quite consciously and directly attacking something you believe in [the oil spill video].

I’m not a believer, I’m a user. Haven’t I explained my philosophy of leveraging whatever presents itself? Eric dreamed up the oil spill video, and I was supportive. You, on the other hand, are being judgmental. “Attacking”, you say. You are free to come up with another video with a very different approach, and I will likewise be supportive.

FYI, first law of brainstorming is to be supportive. In improv, you say “YES” to things, even if you think they’re stupid. The opposite is called “denial”. Feel free to transform the improv, take the emergent work in new directions, add new stuff. But negating/denial is just a waste of time.

My point about the video (which media I fully support) is to go for a positive theme rather than bashing the other side.

So you bash it because you don’t like bashing? Oh! Wait a minute “the other side”. Ah, now we’re getting somewhere. The video is somehow threatening? You see “sides” in it? I didn’t see that. It was a simple choice video. What do you want – oil based economy and the costs that entails – or something new, energy from stars? Very simple. I wasn’t reading much else into it.

A very great deal of research indicates that a positive message carries more weight with a new audience. Negative messages work best only when the audience feels it has to make imminent decisions. This can not come until well after FF-2 at least.

Pretty words, my friend. Let’s see something specific – I await your positive script with bated breath.

Will try to be constructive of your effort.

But I confess now some confusion. Where is the trust in the scenarios you present here?

What scenarios?

[Rezwan]

Phil’s Dad wrote: My point about the video (which media I fully support) is to go for a positive theme rather than bashing the other side.

I notice a lot of dualism, either/or-ness in your use of language. “rather than”, “other side”.

Puts me in mind of that Chris Christian song.

Just sit back, don’t try to answer all the questions.
Just sit back, but don’t let the answers be ignored.
Just sit back, and try to love one another
‘Cause the way you love your brother is the way you love your Lord.

What we need to do is put the “other” back in “brother.”

Or change the line to “the way you love “the other” is the way you love your Lord”.

No! Not change it! That’s dualistic negation. We’ll just add another verse : ) Many verses in the universe.

[AaronB]

Let me preface me comments with this bit of info. As you may know, I’m an Air Force captain working at CENTCOM HQ. I sit within spitting distance of the Casualty section, and I’m acutely aware of the KIAs, injuries, suicides, and other assorted “sacrifices” made by soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. I’m familiar with the families and friends of those who were killed and wounded, and how they are forced to sacrifice also.

Armed conflict between nation-states, religious factions, family clans, terrorist organizations, gangs and individuals is a never-ending part of history, and from my perspective, it always will be. However, we can minimize the opportunities and reasons for conflict by ensuring enough resources and opportunities for all. In a world of resource scarcity, people will fight to get what they need, or to protect what they already have. When people are forced onto a lower rung of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, their morality and behavior quickly follow suit. Desperate people do desperate things to include the willful destruction of their environment and fellow men (and women and children).

Sacrifice can either be proactive or reactive. Action can be taken preemptively or forced upon you. I see the world’s growing population, resource depletion, and environmental damage as the approaching “perfect storm”. Mix that with short-sighted governments financed by self-serving banks empowered by a complacent and ignorant general population, and you have a recipe for disaster. Why? Because the foresight and desire to sacrifice in order to make needed changes are not happening. I’m speaking generally, of course. There are many individuals and small groups who are aware of the problems, speak out on them, take action and make the necessary changes in their own private lives, but institutional, universal problems will not be solved when the majority is dead set on rushing off a cliff.

I joined this project because I became aware of the problems with the money system and world energy situation. Realizing that both systems would soon force a worldwide reduction of the standard of living, and consequently an increase in conflicts, I began to look for solutions. This project stood out to me as a real opportunity to solve the energy crisis, and I made (and continue to make) personal sacrifices to help it along. Either way, we’ll make sacrifices. One way is proactive, and the other way will be forced upon us. The latter won’t be pretty.

Loving your neighbor is part of the solution, but it’s a lot easier to love your neighbor when he’s not stealing your stuff or eating your cat.

[Phil’s Dad]

I’m not really sure where this is going. There seem to be two separate threads.

1/ AaronB’s well informed statement

AaronB wrote: Armed conflict between nation-states, religious factions, family clans, terrorist organizations, gangs and individuals is a never-ending part of history, and from my perspective, it always will be.

seems to me just a better way of expressing “War is the natural state;”

I fully support his view (shared, I think, by everyone here) that safe affordable energy and the resources it frees up will reduce the reasons given for war. Reduce, not eliminate. So we must continue to work constantly for peace.

2/ The other thread is about whether we do the cause any good by “ambulance chasing” man made disasters. I think not. If that is judgemental so be it. There are times when sound judgement is the best thing you can bring to the table.

But, Rezwan, you already have your positive message. You said, among so many other excellent examples;

(https://focusfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/364/)

Rezwan wrote: I do want to live in a world where we transition easily from sleek urban areas with the option of jumping in a supersonic chopper to hawaii, or hopping on a horse and riding all day to the next town…

I mean, this corporate American western civilization is a bit boring. I’d like to see more anachronism and greater expanses of wild land where that could happen.

So, I have a number of fantasies of alternative futures and landscapes. None of these is very viable in the current limited resources…

There is your story. Roll cameras.

And in the same thread you said

Rezwan wrote: I hear you on the holier than thou thing…So, the environmental movement doesn’t resonate with me because its focus is on punishment and guilt,…

And no whiners.

Queue the video

[Brian H]

Good posts, Aaron and PD. But I think it is false to attribute all, or even most, wars to “scarcity”. In historical times, raiding other tribes to take their women was not due to shortages of same at home, e.g. And those pushing for a Global Ummah are not deprived of anything much except willingness to tolerate any rule or regime or religion except their own.

Neither Hitler nor Genghis Khan were noticeably deprived, nor were their subjects.

There is only one way to resist such tyrannies and ambitions. If you want peace, prepare (well) for war.

OTOH, I do have hopes that the near universal wealth and surplus energy and prosperity which FF can deliver will distract wannabe despots from adventurism, and enable their prospective victims to defend themselves competently.

[Rezwan]

Phil’s Dad wrote:

Armed conflict between nation-states, religious factions, family clans, terrorist organizations, gangs and individuals is a never-ending part of history, and from my perspective, it always will be.

seems to me just a better way of expressing “War is the natural state;”

War is not “the natural state” by any measure and I don’t know why you are so happy to claim that.

You are confused between “conflict” and “war”. This explains why the west is so trigger happy. Like to resolve all their conflicts by dropping bombs on people.

Use of the article “the” indicates it is a dominant stage, it’s not, although conflict is pretty standard. War does occur. It can be said to be “natural”. But not “the natural state.”

Conflict is a (not “the”) common state. Letting it escalate to war is not that frequent. Family clans may argue over inheritance, but they don’t firebomb each other’s houses. Most of them use the handy court system. Just because a few have been known to go ballistic doesn’t make it the natural state. Gangs may assert their territory rights but they don’t have drive-by shootings every day. In fact, you’re more likely to be killed by a family member in an argument that is settled by a gun, than be killed by a gang member.

But just because murder occurs, doesn’t mean it’s the natural state. And even here, in America, land of gun lovers, you get what, 18,000 gun deaths a year, most of them are suicides. Out of a population of 300 million. The natural state is cancer and heart failure. If on the individual level war=murder, it is still not “the” natural state. Very few individual conflicts end in murder.

2/ The other thread is about whether we do the cause any good by “ambulance chasing” man made disasters. I think not. If that is judgemental so be it. There are times when sound judgement is the best thing you can bring to the table.

It’s not sound judgment so much as limiting and stifling. Ambulance chasing is a fine line of work with a long and glorious tradition. It does plenty of good.

And in the realm of brainstorming, why limit and censor other people’s expression? This is one way of looking at things that might resonates with people. Not with you, but you’re not the only audience. You go watch your arthouse flicks, others will watch ambulance chasing thrillers. Popcorn will be sold. The world is big with room for many views. Not all conflicts need to be resolved. We don’t need consensus. Diversity is fine.

But, Rezwan, you already have your positive message. You said, among so many other excellent examples;

(https://focusfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/364/)

Rezwan wrote: I do want to live in a world where we transition easily from sleek urban areas with the option of jumping in a supersonic chopper to hawaii, or hopping on a horse and riding all day to the next town…

I mean, this corporate American western civilization is a bit boring. I’d like to see more anachronism and greater expanses of wild land where that could happen.

So, I have a number of fantasies of alternative futures and landscapes. None of these is very viable in the current limited resources…

There is your story. Roll cameras.

Cool! Except this isn’t a story. Just some text fragments. You need a beginning, middle, end, some sort of narrative arc and some clear tie-in to fusion. See if you can’t flesh this out into a more complete script. Also, this baby has high production values – where would get the footage? CGI budget on this is high.

And in the same thread you said

Rezwan wrote: I hear you on the holier than thou thing…So, the environmental movement doesn’t resonate with me because its focus is on punishment and guilt,…

And no whiners.

Queue the video

Yes, and now I’m experiencing your comments as holier than thou whining. Worse. War-justifying holier-than-thou anti-brainstorming creating-lots-of-impractical-work-for-other-people whining.

[Rezwan]

Brian H wrote:
There is only one way to resist such tyrannies and ambitions. If you want peace, prepare (well) for war.

OTOH, I do have hopes that the near universal wealth and surplus energy and prosperity which FF can deliver will distract wannabe despots from adventurism, and enable their prospective victims to defend themselves competently.

I agree with this, but would frame it differently. There can be no true peace without justice. In the realm of conflict resolution, people do try to get away with whatever they can, try to meet their own needs and, if unchecked, trample over others. So it’s up to everyone to defend their own rights. Stand up for yourself.

That’s why we have a first and second amendment. Speak up for yourself, and be able to back up your words with force, if necessary. Rarely gets to part II – that’s the failsafe (or failure) – and if you’ve gotten there, it’s probably due to an imbalance of power (the resource/hand-you-were-deealt issue), or you were probably pretty incompetent at part I, or you really wanted to go to part II because you’re the flaming sociopath in this world, you want it, don’t you? All that killing. Outsource it to other countries and lick your lips while watching the news.

According to the book “The Optimistic Child”, the most important social skills are Assertiveness and Problem solving. (Assertiveness is a “useful midpoint between passivity and aggression”).

I’m all for people standing up for themselves. If you do this often enough, early enough and skillfully enough you can head violence off and have a really nice, functional world. Of course, some things are beyond your control.

Sociopaths – 2-7% of the world population. I’m aware of that. It’s still a minority, (not “the” natural state, that would be 80% sociopaths). And even many of those sociopaths don’t engage in war because it’s not in their best interest and they can get more done by running successful corporations.

[Phil’s Dad]

Rezwan wrote:
War is not “the natural state” by any measure and I don’t know why you are so happy to claim that.

Where did I say I was happy about it?

[emmetb]

Rezwan wrote:
According to the book “The Optimistic Child”, the most important social skills are Assertiveness and Problem solving. (Assertiveness is a “useful midpoint between passivity and aggression”).

I’m all for people standing up for themselves. If you do this often enough, early enough and skillfully enough you can head violence off and have a really nice, functional world.

The most important social skill is altruism. The ability to identify with others that are far removed from yourself. How wide a circle are you willing to draw?

The absolute extrema of this is directed panspermia:
http://www.physorg.com/news184915200.html
To dedicate our enginuity and our resources to ensure the survival of the simplest and hardiest of life. A beatiful way to recognize our general insignificance and our greatest significance at the same time. Only very few people would raly behind that idea. Certainly not the most aggressive ones. While the rest of humanity is busy fighting over the last remaining resources. It might just be this kind of altruistic act that leaves the biggest imprint on history, on a cosmological scale.

[Brian H]

Rezwan wrote:
..
Sociopaths – 2-7% of the world population. I’m aware of that. It’s still a minority, (not “the” natural state, that would be 80% sociopaths). And even many of those sociopaths don’t engage in war because it’s not in their best interest and they can get more done by running successful corporations.

“Minority” is irrelevant. They congregate preferentially in the “manipulative” professions, like marketing and politics. They have natural advantages there, like the ability to emulate any required emotion, rationalize any attitude or proposition, and freedom from reluctance to “cross the line”. I think it would be a revelation to apply the Hare scale for psychopathy to politicians and their advisors. You’d come up with a much larger number than 7%. 70%? :cheese: As for “corporations”, there is a significant control factor there: you must achieve results, and psychopaths are notoriously weak at the day-to-day project goal-completion thing. (Too boring, which is the ultimate, and possibly only, pain for them.) That weeds out a lot of them before they get very far. Politics has a much purer focus on control and power, and is almost entirely focused on elevating those who can spin a good story and push the public’s buttons.

As for “justice”, to quote Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven, “Deserve’s got nothing to do with it!” BLAM The psychopath wannabe tyrant/conqueror plays the “deserve/justice” fiddle like a master.

“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” To those who pretend otherwise, as the viper said to his dying transportation, “You knew what I was when you let me ride across the river on your back!” :vampire:

[Aeronaut]

How did the sociopaths become psychopaths? Otherwise I agree with where they congregate. The 80/20 rule applied to the first 80/20 sort produces ~4% of a population controlling the rest.

[Author]

Posts