Who or what are you likely to defend, or attack?

[tar]

There are those things, people and ideas we consider our own.

There are those things, people and ideas we consider to be the pervue of others.

 

Sometimes mutual ownership is reasonable. Sometimes it does not work. Sometimes you have to trade one thing in, or loose it, to acquire another.

 

Sort of a simplistic starting point, but if you look at the stuff you defend, and the stuff you seek to eliminate, and the stuff you have no interest in, and multiply it by about 16 billion people doing that same thing over the history of humanity, it explains a lot.

 

The agreements we have come to, the institutions that have been built, the wars that have been fought.

 

All in all, I think we are doing a rather nice job of it.

 

After all, there are about 8 or 9 billion wills at the moment, that would like to see things go their way.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited April 19, 2012 by tar

[Dekan]

All in all, I think we are doing a rather nice job of it.

 

After all, there are about 8 or 9 billion wills at the moment, that would like to see things go their way.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

To make an obvious nit-picking correction - there are only about 7 billion individual human "wills" on the planet so far.

 

But this doesn't detract from your basic point - all these billions of humans are managing to get along fairly well. So well, that most people enjoy peaceful lives. Their lives haven't been ruined by a huge global nuclear war. Even though such a war seemed almost inevitable by the invention of nuclear weapons. This invention seemed to presage humanity's doom. As was envisaged by Science Fiction writers in the 1950's and 1960's. In those decades, weren't we all waiting for the inevitable atomic war to start? Primitive blood-lust looked sure to prevail.

 

But the war didn't start. And now it probably won't. Not at least on a global scale. There might be some limited nuclear wars. For example between India and Pakistan. But those countries only have small fission weapons. With yields in kilotons. Certainly no multi-megaton fusion H-Bombs capable of wiping out entire cities. So the war-damage will be limited and local to those countries. Of course, fallout will spread further, but it won't kill on a really large scale.

 

So I think you're right - humans are doing a rather nice job of running the world at present. We've avoided world war. We're consciously restraining our individual wills. For the common good of humanity. What other species could do it? I defend human beings, as the best species in the world.

[tar]

Dekan,

 

Almost as if we know somehow that we have common interests, greater than our selves.

 

Ties in with "why people believe in God" in an underlying, deep meaning way.

 

I am an Atheist myself. Believing that the specific, "personal" attributes that people assign to God, so to think that God is on "their" side, are selfish, untrue attributes to give to a universe so massive and eternal as it is. However, if one is to formulate a conception of God, that would be on the side of everything, then there would be no distinction between good and evil, and having a will at all, and making any "selfish" judgements would be somehow contrary to the nature of this "total" being.

 

My personal conclusion thusly, is that as a human, I have through the emergence of life and evolution "separated" myself, from this "total" thing, as to have a "human" perspective on it, and can know it, because I am exactly NOT the total thing. And a certain pride and feeling of accomplishment can be felt toward life on Earth, and toward "being human" in particular.

 

Good and evil can then be based on what is good for the continuance of life in general and human life in particular, and MY life to be even more specific. So at some level, any "religious", or "world" view has to be selfish. Just depends on where you draw the line between your self, and "the rest" of the universe.

 

 

Regards, TAR2

[Bill Angel]

The original question was who or what are you likely to defend or to attack. I've thought about that issue a lot, off and on, as the most significant activity in my life has been my service in the US Military (but not as a combatant). As an American, the thing I think most important to defend is the right of myself and my fellow citizens to sustain their personal freedom in their beliefs. To paraphrase someone notable: "I may not agree with what you think, but I would defend to the death your right to think it".