Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

Scott G. Beach · 2004-06-05 22:28:28

I have drafted a Martian constitution that contains provisions intended to minimize the probability that warfare will occur on Mars. For example, settlements would be separated by a one-kilometer-wide buffer zone. Consequently, there would be no wars over disputes about exactly where an intersettlement border is located.

In contrast, Cobra Commander has drafted a Martian city-state constitution that contains provisions for declaring war.

I am currently reading Howard Bloom's “Global Brain.” On pages 98 and 99 Bloom writes about the Yanomamo. “[Yanomamo] men who slaughter the largest tally of humans from competing tribes are rewarded with the greatest number of wives and father far more children than any other villagers. Timid Yanomamo men or those who loathe bloodshed have very few kids at all. Experience with laboratory animals and guard dogs like pit bulls and Dobermans shows that aggression is a highly cultivable trait.

“Among some Eskimos, on the other hand, aggression is frowned on.

“One result: the Yanomamo are constantly at war. Eskimos experience a very different fate: they are blessed with relative peace.

“Just as the Yanomamo breed aggression in, the Eskimos breed it out.”

In the process of colonizing Mars, we could follow the Eskimos' example and undertake to breed aggression out. People who want to emigrate to Mars could be evaluated for aggressive tendencies. If any applicant for a Martian immigration visa is judged to be too aggressive, his or her application could be rejected for that reason. This selection process would tend to minimize the probability of warfare occurring on Mars.

Throughout human history, we have used warfare to keep human populations at ecologically sustainable levels. Now that we have birth control pills, condoms, and family planning services, we can control our own population without warfare. Warfare is obsolete and should be abandoned.

Aetius · 2004-06-05 22:58:04

That's good. I'd also like you to start breeding very attractive women, too. My pirate colony in the Asteroid Belt will be able to sell them for a good price. All we demand from Euthenia is our pick of slave girls, and...well, anything else we feel like taking from you.

Your eugenics project was spectacularly successful. The people of Euthenia are incapable of violence. They dutifully render me and my raiders tribute, without any resistance.

A wise choice.

Trebuchet · 2004-06-05 23:38:40

What a touching, naive sentiment displayed in that post. An entire planet full of people whom you could conquer with a butterknife.

Blah.

Do you think that the call of the warrior can be so selectively deafened? Do you think the Eskimo are 'unaggressive', when they hunt large angry whales at close range with sharpened sticks in kayaks, or tangle with polar bears, or otherwise survive in the Arctic? Aggression is in the heart of humanity for a reason; it works, it is survival. Because there are two alternatives for survival, war and slavery, as Aetius points out.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-06 01:19:21

I have drafted a Martian constitution that contains provisions intended to minimize the probability that warfare will occur on Mars. For example, settlements would be separated by a one-kilometer-wide buffer zone. Consequently, there would be no wars over disputes about exactly where an intersettlement border is located.
In contrast, Cobra Commander has drafted a Martian city-state constitution that contains provisions for declaring war.

My people look forward to violating your borders with impunity to put an to the preaching.

In the process of colonizing Mars, we could follow the Eskimos' example and undertake to breed aggression out. People who want to emigrate to Mars could be evaluated for aggressive tendencies. If any applicant for a Martian immigration visa is judged to be too aggressive, his or her application could be rejected for that reason. This selection process would tend to minimize the probability of warfare occurring on Mars.

How precisely would you go about determining who is too aggressive? Likelihood of attacking other people? General proclivity toward angry outbursts, is someone who has never hit another person in anger but regularly breaks keyboards disqualified? Must one be a meek and submissive worm to bother applying? Would such people possess the drive needed to develop a new world?

I know you mean well, but the path to hell is paved with good intentions. The world you would create would be miserable and doomed to eventual failure. You seek to impose far too much control, to mold human behavior to your will, it is antithetical to any concept of freedom. Such attempts are a sure way to bring out aggressive behavior. People are not robots, aggression is a natural human response.

Mundaka · 2004-06-06 03:21:04

clark · 2004-06-06 15:15:32

You can't breed it out because it all centers around breeding.

Two men, one woman = violence.

It's a very old story. In an enclosed space, more so.

Besides all of that, violence is not the result of genetic prediosition. Some people are hot heads, some less so. Dosen't mean that people won't act out, even if bred to be less predisposed to violence.

You're better off focusing on other ways to keep the peace.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-06-06 15:29:49

I think breeding 'agression' out of people would be a good way to bring about and end to the colony. Being agressive is often a good trait. Being asertive and willing to stand up for your self all come from being agressive. Agression, leads to competition, competition causes advancement.

Thinking that was won't occure on Mars is naive', or to think that war won't occure between Mars, Earth, and by then prehaps the other colonies.

Scott G. Beach · 2004-06-06 16:25:43

Cobra:

I agree that “aggression is a natural human response.” However, there is a huge difference between two men getting into a fist fight and an entire society spending hundreds of billions of dollars annually to manufacture weapons.

The Hutterites are the most successful people on this planet and they are pacifists. They do not spend their time and money building weapons. And they steadfastly refuse to participate in the organized killing of other people. For example, when two Hutterite men refused to participate in the First World War they were arrested by the Feds and then tortured to death in Federal prison.

We have a choice. We can plan to transform Mars into a world of peace and prosperity or we can plan to turn it into a place where people live under the constant threat of thermonuclear terror.

Mars could become a world of peace and prosperity if we (1) carefully regulate our own population and (2) follow this rule: People who want to take weapons to Mars shall not be allowed to go there.

Trebuchet · 2004-06-06 17:28:14

That isn't a choice, that's a false dichtotomy.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-06 18:52:44

The Hutterites are the most successful people on this planet and they are pacifists.

And most people have never heard of them, they have produced no great works of note and have not advanced human civilization. An anomoly, curious but hardly a model for a shining future of peace and prosperity for all mankind.

For example, when two Hutterite men refused to participate in the First World War they were arrested by the Feds and then tortured to death in Federal prison.

Well how God damn noble of them. If someone were torturingmy people I'd fight to stop it. I'd hope someone would do the same for me. Again, not an example we should emulate without some hard questions about the wisdom of following such a course.

Mars could become a world of peace and prosperity if we (1) carefully regulate our own population and (2) follow this rule: People who want to take weapons to Mars shall not be allowed to go there.

What about that first generation of Mars-born citizens? Do you deport anyone showing aggressive tendencies? Do you kill them? What if they don't want to leave, who's gonna make 'em?

Forcing meekness on yourself is not the path to prosperity or peace. It is the path to slavery and death. Pray that your conquerors show mercy on you.

Mundaka · 2004-06-06 19:17:02

Scott G. Beach · 2004-06-06 22:37:42

Clark:

You wrote, “Two men, one woman = violence.”

Your ethnocentrism is showing. In some places, Two men + one woman = polyandry.

You also wrote, “Some people are hot heads, some less so. Doesn't mean that people won't act out, even if bred to be less predisposed to violence.”

I agree that there will be violent incidents on Mars. That is why my plan for The City of Euthenia contains “a police station and jail.” However, if we pay adequate attention to the dynamics that drive people to engage in warfare then we can build a Martian civilization that does NOT waste trillions of dollars building war machines and slaughtering millions of people.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-06-06 22:40:24

I think history has shown it is people who are afraid of weapons in the general populace that often commit the most henous acts. Hitler, Stalin, Mao se Dong, Rosie O'Donald(just kidding)

Robert Heinlein said it best, and amred society is a polite society.

Mundaka · 2004-06-06 23:47:16

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-07 05:16:49

And what will you do when the violent offenders refuse to obey the police and allow themselves to be taken to your jail? Threaten them with pacifism?

Unless you are admitting that there is a place in society for violent force?

And that's where these things always end up, with the government being the sole bearer of arms at the expense of the people.

clark · 2004-06-07 09:03:44

First the laughs:

Well how God damn noble of them. If someone were torturing my people I'd fight to stop it. I'd hope someone would do the same for me.

Think about that Cobra. :laugh:

I'll trust the people -- after all, I live in a neighborhood that is virtually swimming in guns, and I feel perfectly secure walking unarmed to the store at two am. If you attempt to harm me during that walk a dozen houses full of armed people will come to my immediate aid. If you don't bother my neighbors they are no threat to anyone.

I have some neighborhoods here in LA you can try and walk to the store at 2AM. These are neighborhoods that are swimming in guns. See how far you get Mundaka. :laugh:

There is something else going on that allows you to feel safe. It's not the guns, but the idea that others will help you if you need it. The point being, it really is the people, not the guns.

Your ethnocentrism is showing. In some places, Two men + one woman = polyandry.

Damn! Let me zip up my pants. Better? In some places, they call it finger... er, nevermind. Even in societies that engage in polyandry, men fight over women.

However, if we pay adequate attention to the dynamics that drive people to engage in warfare then we can build a Martian civilization that does NOT waste trillions of dollars building war machines and slaughtering millions of people.

So what are the dynamics then? Breeding, or environmental factors that cause or increase the liklihood of negative behavioral traits.

Ask yourself this, do you want to live in a situation where someone can say, "you don't get to have a son, or a daughter because this test says you might be too violent."

It would seem the logical conclusion of this little program would also be to deny such individuals (the violent ones) any opportunity to adopt children, or have any hand in the rearing of children. Further still, it may behoove society to remove these individuals completely from where children may be present so as to prevent the children from becoming tainted with violent tendencies, or learning violent behavior traits.

Look ahead to where this goes. It ain't pretty.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-07 09:12:30

Violence is not somthing that can be eliminated from humanity... ever. Its in our nature to be violent, so like so many of our other unpleasent drives, it must be checked by somthing. Nothing except the threat of violence in return is sufficent to deter and nothing but the use of violence a sufficent protection from our darker impulses. Violence can be done either for good effect or bad, it is moraly neuteral and depends on the person, and so we have armed police and hopefully armed neighbors and an armed military as the most effective way to apply violence against people or groups of people seeking to do us harm.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-07 10:27:51

There is something else going on that allows you to feel safe. It's not the guns, but the idea that others will help you if you need it. The point being, it really is the people, not the guns.

Actually, it's which people have the guns. California's laws are far more restrictive, and since the people that obey laws aren't the problem in the first place...

All this social engineering cannot work if it overlooks this one simple, incontrovertible fact. The universe is governed by force, nature is violence.

Palomar · 2004-06-07 10:32:01

First the laughs:
Think about that Cobra. :laugh:

*LOL!

You're a real pip, Clark.

Moral ambiguity gets loads of scornful laughs from me.

Seems to me you spend your time laughing at the wrong people and ideas, IMO.

--Cindy

P.S.: As for Scott's ideas...well, he's entitled to his daydreams.

Bill White · 2004-06-07 10:57:26

There is something else going on that allows you to feel safe. It's not the guns, but the idea that others will help you if you need it. The point being, it really is the people, not the guns.
Actually, it's which people have the guns. California's laws are far more restrictive, and since the people that obey laws aren't the problem in the first place...

Heh!

Think about this:

If free speech were outlawed, only criminals would complain.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-07 11:04:10

Think about this:
If free speech were outlawed, only criminals would complain.

So who else wants to hang out in dark alleys and bitch about government policy at passersby?

clark · 2004-06-07 12:18:42

Seems to me you spend your time laughing at the wrong people and ideas, IMO.

I'm glad you think so. It generally indicates I'm on the right track... IMO, of course. :laugh:

Actually, it's which people have the guns. California's laws are far more restrictive, and since the people that obey laws aren't the problem in the first place...

Yes, yes. Quite right, of course. What was I thinking Cobra, California is just an "easy-access-to-assault-weapons" to utopia and peace. Urbanization and lack of opportunity, coupled with cheap saturday night specials is the problem. Machine guns only compound the issue.

So who else wants to hang out in dark alleys and bitch about government policy at passersby?

Isn't that what we're doing?

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-07 12:31:48

Yes, yes. Quite right, of course. What was I thinking Cobra, California is just an "easy-access-to-assault-weapons" to utopia and peace. Urbanization and lack of opportunity, coupled with cheap saturday night specials is the problem. Machine guns only compound the issue.

??? Machine guns, you say...

The factors you cited all play a role in violent criminal behavior, but they are not the sole cause. There always have been and always will be violent individuals for a multitde of reasons, some discernable only to themselves. This can't be "bred out" as Scott seems to be suggesting, it must be confronted when it arises.

So, we can prohibit the tools of violence, in which case only those violent criminal types will have them, or we can accept reality and allow people to choose what means they feel are needed to protect themselves. Only two things can stop "aggressive" behavior, deterrence and at times, counter-aggression.

Ian Flint · 2004-06-07 12:33:03

Nothing except the threat of violence in return is sufficent to deter and nothing but the use of violence a sufficent protection from our darker impulses.

I agree to a point, but I think you are oversimplifying things.

Here are some things I have learned/heard over the years:

1. (Don't remember where I heard this.) The law abiding citizen worries about the harshness of the punishment while the criminal worries about the likelihood of getting caught.

2. (I'm sure this was more poetic when I heard it.) A satisfied person is a peaceful person.

So, here are some examples of how "the threat and use of violence" can be reduced and still keep others from using violence against you:

As far as crime and punishment goes -- since criminals are only worried about getting caught, drop the death penalty (because it doesn't work as a deterent) and increase the number of forensic analists.

As far as foreign relations goes -- instead of imposing trade sanctions on a country because you don't like what their dictator is doing (this only hurts the innocent civilians), increase trade with that country so the people will begin to like you more and their dictator less. This will make them want to change their country to be more like yours.

Of course, there will be the occasional need to defend yourself from a crazy person, but as a rule these things will work.

Remember, the best way to protect yourself from an enemy is to make him your friend.

clark · 2004-06-07 12:37:46

Look, I agree.

You want to own a weapon, fine. However, I would like to strike a deal- one I have submitted myself to. I would like people to learn to handle, operate, and respect firearms for their capabilities. I don't want people running around the backwoods not knowing how to handle their gun, just like I don't want to live in a neighborhood where the parents don't know how to handle the gun so little Billy dosen't get a hold of it and play William Tell.

i wish people had common sense, but that tends to be in short supply these days, so unfortunetly, I want big brother to hand out liscense that basically say, "you know how to handle and operate this piece of equipment safely." I'm not asking for much, am I?

I live near an ocean, so I learned to swim. Basic common sense, for my own saftey and that of others (some poor slub dosen't have to drag me out of a rip tide because I'm an idiot now).

I'm all for deterence, and don't get me wrong here, I'm pointing out the problems with breeding programs. It's a step in the wrong direction (in real life anyway). Eugenics has a bad rap for a reason, and I see no reason to bring it back to life to make a kinder gentler people.

There are easier, safer ways to approach the problem.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-06-05 22:28:28

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#2 2004-06-05 22:58:04

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#3 2004-06-05 23:38:40

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#4 2004-06-06 01:19:21

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#5 2004-06-06 03:21:04

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#6 2004-06-06 15:15:32

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#7 2004-06-06 15:29:49

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#8 2004-06-06 16:25:43

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#9 2004-06-06 17:28:14

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#10 2004-06-06 18:52:44

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#11 2004-06-06 19:17:02

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#12 2004-06-06 22:37:42

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#13 2004-06-06 22:40:24

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#14 2004-06-06 23:47:16

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#15 2004-06-07 05:16:49

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#16 2004-06-07 09:03:44

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#17 2004-06-07 09:12:30

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#18 2004-06-07 10:27:51

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#19 2004-06-07 10:32:01

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#20 2004-06-07 10:57:26

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#21 2004-06-07 11:04:10

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#22 2004-06-07 12:18:42

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#23 2004-06-07 12:31:48

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#24 2004-06-07 12:33:03

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#25 2004-06-07 12:37:46

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

Board footer