Tuesday, May 10, 2005

WAR, MAN AND CIVILIZATION


"One People, One Reich, One Führer."

You might wonder what HITLER is doing in a blog named scientific masala. Hitler is here for us to understand human psyche. It is amazing that the most important events of the past century have been associated to this man. He was a barbaric villain; there are no second thoughts about that. But, despite all that he motivated an entire nation from mediocre levels to that of a super power. It is incredible how one man can motivate people to hate other people. Human beings have a history of craving for power and glory.
Wars are fought for three reasons,
1. PROTECT TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY
2. INVADE, CONQUER AND
3. RELIGION

Now in the context of war let’s analyze the meaning of being civilized

civ·i·li·za·tion (sĭv'ə-lĭ-zā'shən)
n.

  1. An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.
  2. The type of culture and society developed by a particular nation or region or in a particular epoch: Mayan civilization; the civilization of ancient Rome.
  3. The act or process of civilizing or reaching a civilized state.
  4. Cultural or intellectual refinement; good taste.
  5. Modern society with its conveniences: returned to civilization after camping in the mountains.

WAR can never go hand in hand with the word civilized. A civilized individual does not fight. He does not pollute. He preserves. Therefore, war is generally not right. History has always talked bad about leaders who led their countries to war. Out of the three reasons above to wage a war territorial integrity is the best and the only plausible reason for war. In the animal kingdom, fights over territorial integrity are common but, animals seldom kill their own species. It is a rarity in the animal kingdom. Human beings are the only species that can kill their own and punish their own. It is kind of disconcerting at this point to think about what would happen if we evolve further. Science fiction writers have always associated increased levels of barbarism and brutality with increased intelligence. Imagine the human being subject to laboratory testing by a superior species. That day might not occur in the near future but if the laws of evolution hold true humans might evolve to a superior species. Our human race and dominance will become obsolete and we will become dead fossils like dinosaurs. This has been the topic of discussion of many science fiction movies like planet of the apes. Artificial intelligence taking over man is probably the most popular science fiction topic. Man made machines ruling over man himself. I find that an obsolete idea, but not impossible. Till the dawn of the next super species let’s learn to rule the earth in peace with our own species or the days of extinction are not far away.

MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU...




Posted by Hello

8 comments:

sen said...

You might have as well included the picture of BUSH.

Ganesh said...

This is where spirituality plays role.
I didn't mention religion here, becoz I believe I will outgrow religions at some point, but rather develop the spirit of Vedanta the universal religon
'Sarva Jana Sukinov Bhavantu'
Let everybody be happy.
I will later write about what Sri Arubindo has written in his famous 'Living Within' that deals exculsively with phsyicology and physiology
And he say super human being is final end of evolution but that being should be firmly rooted with essense of spirit of love.
Religon without Morality&Love is Dangerous
Science without Ethics/Humane spirit is also Dangerous

ROBBIE said...

I dont believe that there is an end to evolution. There cannot be, I am going to write a blog on it now that you came up with it...
Thank you for your comments ganesh. I hope my next blog will explain why I feel this way.

ROBBIE said...

and senthil I did not bring up bush because I want that to be the topic of discussion here... I am avoiding controversy hehe:P

Daedalus said...

I completely disagree with you reasons for war. There is only one reason for war: economics. Hitler was only allowed to come to power because the economic situation in the world was so bad. French revolution: war against the rich. American civil war: war against Northern economic domination. The Alamo battle: white slave owners fighting against anti-slavery Mexican government. Crusades: war to gain terrority for the Catholic church so it would have more subjects to tax. Bush I's war: war for oil. Bush II's war: war for oil and for growth of military industrial complex.

ROBBIE said...

Your point is well taken deadalus but for the blog I have written it is out of context to mention economics. I would appreciate it if you write one on that topic.

Anonymous said...

Leaving out economics? I suggest you include all reasons for war, not just pick and choose what fits your agenda.

You said, "A civilized individual does not fight." I guess that leaves out Darfur? Or are you picking and choosing? Whydid the US go to war with Germany in WWII? None of your criteria were met, I guess in your mind we should not have done it.

You said, " He does not pollute." Have you ever been in an automobile/airplane/bus/train? If so, you are a hypocrite.

Anonymous said...

good enviro find:

The public deserves some candor about Kyoto's, and Europe's, actual failure and the radical changes necessary if Europe sincerely believes that American involvement is "critical" in any next steps. What we are witnessing instead is a growing European Union effort for a U.S. bailout from the political corner into which its leaders have painted themselves.

In repeating the fable of a low-cost Kyoto, Mr. Dimas peddled a claim that has already proven spectacularly false back home. The specifics should surprise those familiar with Europe's righteous claims of a United States grossly out of step with the Kyoto-compliant world. In fact, Europe is not complying with Kyoto, and this failure will soon create significant internal political tension in the European Union to match that with the United States. Almost to a nation, those few covered countries aren't complying. Under Kyoto, the EU-15 committed to collectively reduce "greenhouse gas" emissions to 8 percent below 1990 levels. Internally, however, a deal was struck under which many EU countries were permitted emission increases. These would presumably be covered by over-complying states Great Britain and Germany, due to the respective "one-off" political developments of shifting from coal to gas and shutting inefficient eastern production. This is Brussels's vaunted "burden sharing agreement."»

«As such, 12 of the EU-15 project egregious violation (by between 20 and 77 percent) of a treaty invoked by many in the European Union to demonstrate U.S. irresponsibility. Consider the following projections for 2010 by member countries, as reported to Brussels, in relation to their now-operative Kyoto "Article 4" commitment of 8 percent below 1990: Portugal, over its promise by 77 percent, Spain by 61 percent, Greece by 51 percent, Ireland by 41 percent, Luxembourg by 31 percent, Finland by 27 percent, Denmark 26 percent, Italy by anywhere from 13 to 23 percent (following Italy's submission, the numbers discussed suddenly got worse), France by 19 percent, Austria by 18 percent, Belgium by 16 percent and the Netherlands by 10 percent. Brussels masks these reported figures with clever rhetoric that does not withstand scrutiny nor crunching of the numbers that member states publicly submit, if with little fanfare. In early May, Spain became only the second EU country to (grudgingly) admit it will not comply.

These are not mere technicalities, but the reality behind the European Union's anti-U.S. rhetoric, and the stuff of political problems as talks presumptuously turn to a "second phase" of cuts. This is also why Italy has refused to consider the inane, operative EU posture of "Now that we have broken one promise, it is time to break an even bigger one!"

Europe's flagrant lack of adherence to Kyoto is wildly belied by the remarkable rhetoric aimed by official Europe at the United States. The EU claims the mantle of "leadership" on Kyoto while finding no apparent shame in the fact that the "rogue" United States, using the same baseline, would be tied with Ireland only for fourth-worst in Europe, at 41 percent over. Canada projects violation by 54 percent. These facts should roil a debate dominated by scolding the United States for being so grossly out of step with the rest of the world, acting alone — with 155 others — by refusing to make an unrealistic promise. »