Why would one choose to be a soldier?
 

A touching blog entry from an officer stationed in Iraq. I have stolen the money paragraphs below so that you'll want to read the whole thing.

http://thunder6.typepad.com/365_arab...3/the_sat.html

I like this guys stance on things , " thin line between life and caos "
Bruce sent me this , it needs passing on ,

Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a living.This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum is worth reading.Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one man'sexplanation of why men and women in the armed services do what they do for a living.
This IS a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never served think of the military.

Senator Metzenbaum to Senator Glenn:
"How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?"

Senator Glenn:
"I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps.
I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions.
I was in the space program. It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line.
It was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the daily cash receipts to the bank.

I ask you to go with me ... as I went the other day... to a veteran's hospital and look those men,
with their mangled bodies, in the eye, and tell THEM they didn't hold a job!
You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans
of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee... and you look those kids in the eye and tell them that
their DADS didn't hold a job.
You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends
buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags. You stand there, and you think about
this nation, and you tell ME that those people didn't have a job?
I'll tell you, Howard Metzenbaum; you should be on your knees every day of your life thanking God that
there were some men - SOME MEN - who held REAL jobs. And they required a dedication to a purpose
- and a love of country and a dedication to duty - that was more important than life itself.
And their self-sacrifice is what made this country possible.
I HAVE held a job, Howard! What about you?"
For those who don't remember - During WW II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorneyrepresenting the Communist Party in the USA. Now he's a Senator!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English thank a Veteran.

..and yet we end up betraying them. 5 or 10 years down the road we will cut veterans benefits to the point where we will impact those who left pieces of themselves in Iraq. Even our current administration, while publicly praising the armed services, is acting to sacrifice VA services to fund the current conflict and prevent sacrifice by the civilian population/

If you don't think we are capable of this, look up the term "Hooverville".

While the altruistic intentions of soldiers are most honourable, it seems so sad to me that sometimes they are not fighting for freedom, or progress, but for one country's self-interest, for oil or power or money. They risk their lives for a lottery - many wars don't work, lives are lost without progress. They think they're fighting for something - but it is something quite far from the truth. I would never blame a soldier for a government's mistake, but if no one enlisted, we wouldn't lose our soldiers to unwinnable wars.

And you would probably have had to type that in German if that were the case.

So?

I agree that many current operations are business oriented and nothing more.

However, Cat, I suspect that your last response was a pose. I can't believe you'd be blase over England being annexed to a third reich controlled Germany.

So?

Are you fucking kidding me. That's the legacy of the antiwar side: it's confused fascism with style. They teach history in your school?

OK, you wouldn't only be typing in German, you'd be subjugated to a violent government, living a desperate life, and millions of your friends and countrymen would be "disappeared" in purges and/or starved to death to maintain control. Are we having fun yet? Did you read the paragraphs I pulled? Any mass graves near you?

If you can't tell whether your side is the side of good you should probably either move or take more interest in your representational government.

are you serious? those of us who have made a career in the military understand something you don't - this is not a "sometimes" thing. the only reason we have a military is to promote our "self-interest". we exist to kill people and blow shit up, to achieve some goal that our government has decided was worthwhile. sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong - that isn't the soldiers problem. the soldier's problem is to accomplish the mission and stay alive. end of story.

the military does not exist as a peacekeeping force, that is why there are major problems every time someone in washington or new york, decides that is how they should be utilized. very few people in the military want to be global cops. they want to train most of the time and maybe once or twice in their career do what they are trained to do - kill people and blow shit up.

and as far as your So?

it probably wouldn't be such a bad thing for you if the fascists had taken and kept England, hell you would have more things to complain about, protest, and think of all the material you would have to support your idea that there isn't a real positive point to life.

Thought that might provoke.

Planet = cake.
Someone sliced the cake up, and divided it unequally. There is now constant battle over ownership, trying to readdress the balance. One country has lots of slices while many countries have to share the smallest slice between them. Long are the days of empires; it is more financial now than geographical. Nevertheless, disputes continue.

America currently has the biggest slice. 'America' could be called 'China' or 'Russia' or 'Germany'. It doesn't really make any difference to the rest of us. The economical and thus power imbalance will remain regardless of who is on which side of the fence.

As a superpower, America has flaws. Not just a small-rip-in-the-jeans type flaws, but major, devastating policies regarding the environment, munitions etc etc etc. But you can't blame America - whatever it was called, there would be the same overconsumption, security paranoia, constant battle to stay on top. I doubt a German superpower would be that different.

The mass graves, desperate lives and violent government are not unique to Germany Undertoad. Take a look at your own (and Britain's) history, and current activities.

You know enough about me by now to know I wouldn't be advocating fascism/violence/hatred etc etc. Use your intelligence when you respond and go and read 1984.

Finally, some honesty. You're right - I was tip-toeing. Fuck me, this is true and representative of the military - they want to 'kill people and blow shit up'. This I see as a problem. But most people don't. What the fuck? I mean really, what the fuck? Insane, the lot of you.

Yes, true. And I'm grateful they didn't, because my life is easy. It's great. I have all kinds of choices. BUT MOST OF THE WORLD DOESN'T! And that will always be the way; some will have and some won't. If only some would have less, then some of them could.

Take a look at your own (and Britain's) history, and current activities.

http://cellar.org/pictures/killings.gif

http://cellar.org/pictures/killing2.gif

We don't make the chart. I suppose we have to try harder.

Are there any mass graves near you?

Now let me address this "cake" theory, because it's a very serious mistake IMO. When you look at the history of the world you see that innovation and progress create wealth, not consume it. For example, with the invention of the integrated circuit chip we have taken the simplest of raw materials (such as sand!) and turned it into machines capable of some really remarkable things.

What we do in these cases is to increase the size of the cake that is cut up. The world's wealth is NOT some sort of "zero-sum game" where the powerful steal the pieces that the less powerful then have no access to. It is NOT NOT NOT true that if one nation has a bigger slice of "cake" that poorer nations have less "cake".

How it ACTUALLY works is that the powerful nations of the world are those who have CREATED the greatest amount through approaches that maximize innovation and human effort.

A hundred years ago, life in the world required 50% of the population to be involved in agriculture, just to produce enough food for all of us. Today, it only requires 2% of the population to be involved in agriculture. The reason is that innovation has increased the productivity of the average person and the average farm.

Now GPS is going to do that again by making it possible to run tractors at night without people on them. The people who used to farm can do other productive things. Voila, wealth is CREATED.

This made me laugh. Like what? Watch TV (the average American watches more than 4 hours of TV each day) Sell cars(uneconomical, dangerous, unnecessary)? Kill people?

Oh by the way, mass or intensive farming kills people. Yep, you know the chemicals they put in it (preservatives, colourants, texturisers) - they are bad for you. They create new diseases. I wonder if there are any statistics for death-by-chemical you can put on your chart?

So? If I found a cure for cancer I wouldn't keep it to myself. Who cares who created it. In advertising we learn not to be precious about ideas. One man for the good of mankind, or does that not apply when there's wealth to be created?

By mass graves I assume you mean wartime/genocide. No. I don't think I've ever seen one. But the poignancy and emotion you probably experienced when you went to visit a piece of ground is not lost on me. Do you really think I'm unsypathetic? I probably care more than you, UT, because I'm AGAINST WAR. It's very, very simple.

Yes, "simple" is exactly the word I have for your view of the world.

Look at the chart again and see how many deaths in the 20th Century NOT INCLUDING WARS. Those are the people you don't care about. The people in the mass graves in Bosnia are the people you don't care about. How they got there is no concern of yours as long as they didn't get there in a war. How compassionate of you.

Cars are how people in the US get to their productive workplaces. The US is the most productive nation on earth. "Productivity" is the measure of creating the most out of the least amount of resources.

If your workplace is not productive that's too bad. Most people do things for a living. A lot of Americans work hard all day and then come home exhausted to watch TV all night. You want to fault these people? Fuck you, on their behalf.

Cures for cancer is what we work on when we're not farming all day. Almost all cures have come in the last 100 years when productivity became important. Almost all cures have come from productive nations even though the VAST majority of humans still live in UNproductive ones.

you will never understand, because you don't want to understand. i have yet to meet anyone in the military who says "i want to kill someone as soon as i get a chance." i have met too many to count who want to do their jobs well, their fellow soldiers, protect themselves, and those that are on their side of whatever conflict is at hand. (in that order). by definition, doing those things requires other people to die. but you go right on believing the military is fully of bloodlusting psychopaths if that makes you feel better.

you live in a pipe dream where you think world peace is achievable if only the nasty capitalists would share whatever they create with everyone without regard for profit and military force is pointless because we can all just talk through our disagreements until we all come to a common understanding what is in the best interest of all.

Oh come on, someone give me a decent argument, please. Yes I am simple. Yes I care about other people. 'Productivity' means creating more than we need (hello! can someone please do their homework - the industrial revolution caused overproduction hence advertising hence people buying things they don't need hence time and money being spent on SHIT instead of saving lives). Jesus you people are difficult to get through to.

A lot of American's work hard all day? Doing what?!! Is it anything useful? Can you honestly say the world is a better place because of YOU? What do you do?

Well that's possible the most ridiculous thing I've heard. What do you think I'm doing here?

Well I have, and they DO. They are excited by big guns and loud noises and battlegrounds. Lets not forget these are KIDS. They don't know what they're getting into until their mates brains splatter their armour. It's not bloodlust it's curiosity - but it's stupidity to want to realise this curiosity.

Of course it's a pipe dream. I doubt things will ever change. But what's the point of discussions like these if we can't say what we think is RIGHT. Such fear of peace that leads us to war. We can't settle on sharing and happiness and sameness because it's boring. War is exciting!

And then GlaxoSmithKline sell them to developing countries for more than the cost of a year's labour - so most of them don't see these cures anyway. Then they DIE. Does that bother you as much as the mass graves? We can stop it now!

Well nothing at this moment, but two weeks ago I was part of a development team working on a device to increase Internet security. You may have heard of the Internet, it's a new thing that lets everyone in the world exchange knowledge and information. Some people find it useful, but I'm sure since you spend all day just arguing over it, it's not an advance in humanity. Oh well!

Sure, you could steal the drugs to solve today's problems. But then who'll you steal the drugs from for the problems they encounter in 20 years?

Because the phrase "developing countries" is polite speak for "not able to feed their own citizens" and that some of these "developing countries" have been "developing" for a century now.

uh yep. i help people live a happy retirement. i help them send their kids to college. i help people save for their home. i help people with their estate planning so that their families will be less burdened upon their death. i help people to have peace of mind.

your question is sort of like one part of the body asking another who is more important to the whole. stupid and pointless.

did you get that from the movies or from your time in the military. you don't get it. you don't spend time with the people in order to get it. you are so condescending that when you do meet them you probably just filter everything they say through your idea of what they really mean.

the pedestal you're used to standing on has slipped. it is jammed so far up your ass that you can't see that there is a difference between loving your job, or calling - and being a bloodthirsty thug. you use the same line of reasoning that marichiko did before her implosion. you think the government is criminal, the military is bumbling, and you talk to one or two soldiers who surprise, surprise, fit your expectations, so therefore the military is a ship of fools eagerly seeking death and destruction.

Well then, I guess they weren't counting native Americans and slaves.

I guess you're right Tony, since the 1 to 2 million slaves bound for the US who died probably died outside the 12 mile limit, they probably don't technically count as American deaths. However, the death toll among slaves in the US was about %5 per year. I don't know what the death toll was among free citizens in the same areas, but the US was responsibile for the difference since we condoned slavery for a few hundred years.

I don't see the US listed at all on your chart, since it is post-1900. If you were to group native Americans and African slaves together, we would problably look like the Congo and Nigeria, with a steady number of deaths from 1700 through the Civil War.

Yes, we did finally address the cause of our shame. And the thanks for the task go to the servicemen who fought. But we also have to remember the Confederate soldier, 3/4 of whom did not own slaves. In their eyes they were not fighting for slavery but for 'states rights'.

Soliders take an oath the the Constitution, not the President, Congress, or the Supreme Court. They have to trust their civilian leaders to fit their missions to that oath, and to give them the support that they need to do their jobs.

For the uber-patriotic who have stars-and-stripes in their eyes, this is always sufficient, the wars are always just, and their treatment is always fair. The rest can take comfort in Kipling , who had a more cynical appreciation for the relationship between soldiers and their superiors (in name only).

So far, all the points I would've liked to have made on this issue have been made. Except one:

Worse than that is the feeling that, once a war has been started, even people who know better must pretend that it is worth it, "for the troops".

Still worse, to nullify the sacrifice of those who have already died by returning to a policy of appeasement and circle-jerking.

There's an example. Once lives have been sacrificed, we have to pretend that the war is justified, or their sacrifice is "nullified".

nonono. it's either justified or not. i think it is, you think it isn't. once lives have been lost, however, we do the dead a disservice by not finishing the job they started. i guess i kind of play into your idea, but that's not how I see it.

It was subject to a vote of our elected representatives and represents the will of the people. What would be ill-advised "for the troops" would be a rapidly-changing policy subject to the whim of political winds.

That's how Vietnam happened. The fact that soldiers have died in support of a cause doesn't add any additional justification to the cause. The soldiers didn't start the war, and the people who did start the war didn't sacrifice.

Point of order, most of the ships were not American ships and most of the slaves were destined for the Caribbean Islands to work the sugar plantations, not the US. Not my shame. I had nothing to do with it. :eyebrow:

Sorry, if the rest of us have to carry generations of bloodguilt for the sins of our great great great grandparents, so do you. There will be no equality until everyone who has an oppressed ancestor gets their moment of outrage. I can't wait until they get to the Irish, I'm gonna let loose.

If I ever figure out the rest of my ethnic background (tough when you're adopted), I'm getting on those bandwagons too. This fight's not over, boyo.

What can you say to that? Deep ignorance, adamant opinion, stubbornness. I don't stand a chance. It doesn't matter if I'm right, you are too deeply conditioned, too proud, too caught up in your and your country's identity to be able to listen with any clarity. There are too many emotions bouncing around to enable proper discussion.

The internet? You do a fine job here UT, I must say, one of the best sites on the web. But if you look at the wider perspective - do we really need the internet? All a person needs is food water shelter. The internet is a bonus (and in some cases, an obstruction). We are too reliant on technology as it is - what happened to real human contact? What happened to visiting your mother instead of e-mailing her? Why can't I talk to a real person at my bank instead of an automated digital voice. Yes, I reap the benefits of the internet age, it makes my life... convenient. But give me a field a cow and some chickens any day, I don't mind doing the hard work, especially if it means as a consequence the rest of the world can enjoy (enjoy?) clean water.

Accountant? Life assurance salesman? Ugh.

I've thought about that, but these people I speak of (probably only about 2 or 3, to be fair) have been very nice, polite and gentlemanly. They are not bloodthirsty, as I've already said, just curious about themselves and life. They go into the army for something to be good at, to assert their manhood, feel better about themselves... the same reason anyone does anything. They are not evil or cruel or 'baddies' - they just lack the intelligence to realise the reality or consequence of their actions. They see themselves as one man, made larger by common interest, but do not (and cannot) truly understand the weight of that decision. I hope you can read this without prejudice, without replying with something like 'well how do you know, you've only spoken to three soldiers'. Just listen and see if it makes sense to you.

I think I've answered that one. But I don't see why you've put me on a pedestal. I'm just a young person trying to make sense of the world.

Bang on. This is the eternal problem with these kind of debates. If one adopts an anti-war stance the predictable response is 'oh, so you're saying they died for nothing eh? Tell that to their parents you heartless son of a ....'

:rolleyes:

It would appear we have some pretty deep disagreements about what makes an advance in the human condition.

Let me see if I understand your positions so we can continue to talk about this:

- There are few true improvements in the world, and we were just as well off in caves.

- Nations become powerful by chance - or worse.

- Commerce is meaningless by definition.

- Most modern human activity is a waste of time and most human choices incorrect.

- If people want to kill you, you can convince them not to by establishing a caring and non-violent society.

Help me out here by clarifying. thx

*OK*

I am totally stuck on the word 'improvement'. If you mean 'improvements in the world', you cannot mean 'improvements for the human race', because this is often at a disadvantage to other things in 'the world', like the environment, or non-human animal species. Also I don't really know the ultimate human goal - or if there is one - so I cannot accurately define an 'improvement'. I don't mean to be tenacious or 'philosophical', I'm just trying to understand you properly. For now I am going to assume you mean evolution ie survival of the human race, including advances in medicine and physical science.

The single biggest improvement I can think of is water distribution - getting clean water pumped to billions of outlets so we don't have to walk 50/500/5000 miles to the nearest spring.

Everything else (electricity, gas, oil, the wheel, tv, telephones...) have all been used to facilitate travel, war, mass commerce and perceived convenience. Why do we need to travel? People travel and think they're going somewhere. They think the place they're going to will be different! Of course, superficially, it is. But ultimately, people are the same wherever you go, they just have different habits (religion, culture, social set-up). If you think this means they are fundamentally different, you are so mistaken. Even well-travelled people don't seem to realise this. Ok, travel in itself has led to important knowledge about the world, plus it's quite fun, so I'll include that one too.Edit - Which would incorporate electricity, oil, the wheel.

As for the caves, I don't really know anything about that way of life. All I know is that to survive we need food and water and shelter (warmth). Nothing else. Not knowledge, not different countries, not computers.

I don't know the answer to this nor do I care. It doesn't matter who got there or how. All that matters is that the situation now does not work for half of the world's population. You're right - America has produced some of the most important inventions/discoveries as has England/Europe. But if it is truly for the selfless advancement of the human race it doesn't matter who created them.

Obviously 'commerce' has a definition and a meaning. It also serves a purpose. I merely question the ultimate worth of this purpose. There is enough space on this planet for each family unit to survive on their own small patch of land. What is the problem with that?

Yep.

No, absolutely not. It will never work.

Hope this clarifies!

That only works if your great - grandparents lived in this country when it happened. Mine didn't. On either side.

That doesn't mean that what happen isn't wrong, and it doesn't mean my ancestors didn't partake of what was later decided to be some foul shit in their own country.

But I REFUSE to be guilty about what my ancestors did generations ago. This "you owe me for 300 years of opression" is bullshit, and is the cry of person who is looking for an excuse.






edit: clarified the middle paragraph

Well stated

I think where you are coming from is that if humans would be happy living simpler lives, we all would consume less, which would lead to a more functional planet.

Where I am coming from is that as we innovate, we consume less and find better functionality as humans.

To be rude about it: in your world we all agree to turn the thermostats down and learn to like being cold. In my world we set the thermostats how we like and the resulting economic pressure creates 300% more efficient furnaces.

You have a basic pessimism about human nature. I've come to picture you as being as negative and cynical as that guy in "How To Get A Head In Advertising". I think life is better than you think it is and that this is at the root of some of our differences.

I understand your point. I still can't see we why we can't have real wood fires in place of thermostats, though. It's like choosing the best method of battery farming: this is the most efficient way, but it is still battery farming. But I'm never going to convince people to lose their convenience products, so I suppose the economical competition is a good thing in the 'real world'.

Possibly, yes, I think you're right. I am that person to some extent. Perhaps I am pessimistic because I am yet to find someone who understands me fully (it is of course a possiblity that this is because I am talking shit). But these feelings preside; they feel like truth to me. So I'll persevere until I find an answer.

Ooh, real wood fires is a non-starter. They're an ecological disaster! My heat is generated through electronic heat pump, through energy generated by ecologically-friendly nuclear. I can set the thermostat to whatever I like and feel good about it. Until the bill comes.

ok, so you are in favor of a lifestyle from more than a century ago. if we agree to this do we need to keep women's rights or can i just drag my wife around by the hair as i see fit?

minority rights - would it be ok if i get someone whose skin color is different than mine to do the physical labor? obviously they wouldn't be able to the tasks that require higher intelligence, but i could find something for them.

i'm down with woodfires for heat - but does that mean it is ok if i strip all the trees i can find for fuel?

my wife likes gardening so we'll be ok there, but when will i know if i can retire? is someone else going to feed us until i die? actually can i still expect to die in my 70/80's or should i aim more towards my 50's now?

now if i get an infection, should i treat it with leaches, arsenic, or prayer?

if someone in my town steals something, is it ok if i just shoot them, or should the sheriff do it?

if you'll answer these questions we can get started on our way to your perfect society... or you can acknowledge that you have an unreal, overly-romanticized view of how things were in the "good old days" before all this nasty capitalism took hold.

The problem inherent with this is that humans are flawed, and most humans are destructive rather than creative.

In the end, do we really consume less as we innovate? To use an example: Lets say that we use 1 acre of trees to build one log cabin. After innovations in concrete and steel, we use less wood (say 1/2 acre) but in using other materials, we're not using less overall, just different amounts.

Now, since wood was at a premium (since there were acres of trees cut down for cabins) and we're using less wood, the New Improved cabins are cheaper. Since they are cheaper, more people can afford to buy them. So now, instead of having 10 all wood cabins (using 10 acres of woods) we have 20 hybrid cabins (using 10 acres of woods + additional materials like concrete and steel).

Do you get what I'm trying to say here? Sometimes innovations (nuclear physics become nuclear power *and* nuclear bombs) set us further back in many ways. Can it be a case of two steps forward and one step back?

Cat alluded to this in one of her posts...with the internet, if we all used it solely for information dissemination...what it was created for....that's not a bad thing. Unless we're disseminating terrorist plans worldwide. But since we don't use it solely for that purpose, are we better off as a society?

There's a part of the movie Contact, where Palmer Joss is being interviewed on Larry King, and he posits that question.

Are we really better off socially? Emailing mom instead of calling, or better still, going to visit? Are we better off moving far far away from family? Some that don't get along with their families might say "hell yeah!" but I mean generally, as a society.

you cannot stagnate. you must move forward or move backward. the problem is that for each move there will be someone who perceives it to be forward and another who calls it backward.

Most everyone in the world does little to nothing to advance mankind. Most of us are simply part of a large support structure. We maintain the status quo. From this large mass of people and products come, every now and then, someone who actually advances mankind. Unfortunately, that is what innovation takes to make. We cannot know, for example, that a silly attempt to play chess would result in software structures that underpin the entire computer industry and the internet. And yet so many advances result from absurd and time wasting things such as games.

One problem with America in the depression was that so many were not out there doing convenience products. As a result, so little new was also being developed. IOW we can never know what or where the great next breakthrough will come from. And so we all do our jobs every day just maintaining the status quo. From this comes the rare, new or innovative idea.

Open heath fireplaces were good when wood was so plentiful, when there was so much clean air to dirty, and when your neighbor was miles away, and when your front yard was full of trees. The Ben Franklin pot belly stove was a classic example of major innovation. Try heating with wood sometime. Appreciate how much more efficient, cleaner, and more convenient the Ben Franklin stove is. It was a classic example of innovation. How long did everyone use open hearths until one man finally discovered something so simple? Welcome to how innovation happens. Painfully slow.

Now to muddy the waters. Rape and infidelity are such destructive events. And yet genetic research has demonstrated how rape and infidelity were also so helpful and necessary in the advancement of mankind; the 'mixing of the gene pool'. Why is one event so destructive from one perspective become so productive from another perspective? Please don't get hung up with the emotional baggage associate with 'immoral' sex. Deal with the overall concept.

The point is that innovation is so difficult to obtain. We put thousands to work if only to get one person who advances mankind. We tell others how they are doing so good. But really, it is a rare person who advances mankind. And then we must add perspective to the analysis. Not only is innovation so difficult to see under your nose, but, many things necessary to advance mankind's future may actually appear to be so destructive in the short term.

Why would anybody want to be a soldier? It depends on top management whether you are really working for the common good. After all, did the so called good nation do any good why bombing Vietnam back into the stone age?

A soldier typically is doing nothing to advance mankind. Often he is just maintaining the status quo. One need only see the movie Band of Brothers to appreciate so much pain and sweat to but protect the status quo. How could you tell them they did not advance mankind? But then we need most people to only maintain the status quo so that the rare advancement can come from the so very few. We have no other proven way to advance mankind. Most people do nothing but daily maintain the status quo.

It doesn't clarify it for me because you don't seem to be advancing a position. To be honest, what I have gotten from your posts in this thread is that everyone is parading around in an artificial reality with "conveniences" separating us from our true human nature and Emperor's clothes protecting us from the the cold reality of "the truth." I'm not calling you a homeless bag lady but that's only a couple of degrees removed from homeless bag lady talk.

And to say that you're pessimistic because "no one understands me" is lame. So you can't be optimistic untill someone agrees with you?

To me, that sounds like "my delusion can beat up your delusion."

tw's point is well-made, but I don't think it's accurate. Most of the time we're only maintaining the status quo, but it's through tiny improvements that each of us make daily that the larger "improvements for mankind" happen. We are constantly looking for easier, faster, more comfortable ways of getting through our daily lives; eventually, someone comes up with a new, striking way that attains broader use. Enough people got tired of the jarring they got from riding wooden wheels on dirt roads that one of em finally came up with tires and asphalt.

The individual soldier is part of a larger unit that is working toward some goal ("take the hill" or some such) which is, in turn, part of a larger plan. While the soldier's bellycrawl across a field isn't advancing the overall state of humanity in and of itself, it is part of an advancement.

And the advancement could be on many levels other than warfare. There are numerous products in use today that have a military history, particularly things like waterproof fabrics, transportation advancements, communications, etc.

I think we're always moving forward, I'm just not sure our destination is what we think it is.

But you make my point. How many millions of crappy wooden wheels were made on how many millions of miles of pot holed roads before one little person in the millions came up with a rubber tire or asphalt? Everyone else was simply doing the same thing repeatedly. To better appreciate the concept, try Clayton Christensen's "Innovators Dilemma".

The soldier crawls on his belly only because the political negotiators could not do their job. He takes a hill. Status quo. Either he is only taking back the hill, or it will change hands when the political negotiations finally go back to the conference table. Why do we kill so many people in war? Because the politicians failed to do their job AND because the political situation now had to be changed by massive death so that negotiations could start anew. Now maybe due to war, some innovations may arise. The soldier has absolutely nothing to do with innovations or changes that occur at much higher levels. He is just doing the status quo.

There is no innovation by a soldier on his belly sacrificing his life for some hill. He is nothing more than a victim of top management (the politicians) who failed to do their job.

Yes, some people do add a little something to the mix. Maybe out of 100 people on the assembly line, someone finally comes up with an easier way to attach a widget. One thing that was always a problem for me (due to my upbringing, my peers, and my background) is that most people are adverse to change. It is not as bad as it was in the 1970s when literally most all innovation was stifled. But too many Americans don't even want to understand what compound interest is ... as their credit card debits skyrocket. This being a recent example that I tried to teach three separate people - and all did not want to know.

This discussion group is devoid of such people which is why The Cellar is a rather interesting place. Out there on the street, on a bus, in a coffee shop, etc - and mostly with 'born and breed' Americans, this adversity to change (as well as to math and science) is quite wide spread ... and getting worse. Most of us don't really innovate. When we crawl on our belly to take a hill or *use* a new technology, we *feel* we are being innovative? Nonsense. That is what top management tells us when they need something accomplished - because reality is sometimes so difficult to comprehend.

The Steel Industry is another classic example. Those MBAs swore how they were innovating because they were spending big bucks buying and using computers. Nonsense. Where were the new steels? Where were the electric arc furnaces? They bought computers to do the same old thing and called that innovation? Yes, many of us fail to understand how anti-innovative we really are. Again, "Innovator's Dilemma" only touches on one aspect of this mindset. Very few among us really innovate. Most of us just maintain the status quo every day - our productivity only increasing when the very few innovators provide new tools for our hands. We didn't innovate. They did.

The thing about innovation that always fascinated me was that with almost every major invention in history, several people independently arrived at the same inspiration and were working on similar prototypes right around the same time, without ever communicating with one another. It's like mankind was "ready" for that new direction.

The Renaissance was a period when suddenly artists were drawing with a more realistic perspective of the world. Did this just happen independently in the art world? Actually, artist first had some new tools. They were using a concave lens to reflect the image on their canvas, and then sketching that image into the canvas. One reason why breakthroughs appear to happen simultaneously in different locations is the sudden availability of new tools. So were those Renaissance artists really innovative?

Usually there is a series of inventions(discoveries) that make it possible for that invention to happen.
Quite often people work on a problem for years and years, then somebody else discovers a new material or process that is the key to the inventors solution. When a number of people are working on the same problem independently, usually it's the one that hears about the new discovery first, that wins.
Today news travels so fast, virtually everyone might hear, right away. :)

This is nothing to do with the 'good old days' nor is it romanticized - just common sense. IF current methods were ecologically sound, that would be the right thing to do. I could reel off a list of websites with pollution statistics, ozone destruction, oil and natural resource depletion and so on. The fact is we do not know the true impact of our relentless Dyson-powered suction of all this planet has to offer. We use more than we need; that is not contestable. There is bound to be a payoff at some point.

I am not rejecting all human advances; in fact I think these things should continue. But does it make sense to use them when we do not know their impact? Maybe.

Precisely. Not all innovation is in the right direction. As a planet we have billions of dollars invested in munitions development (destruction) and substantially less in (creative) research institutions.

Nice to see someone capable of seeing the bigger picture. But why is it such a struggle to maintain the status quo? Is it so good it warrants dying for? It strikes me as ironic that we die to fight for life. We don't need to fight for it, it's here already.

Yes, pretty much.

And what if she's right? The drunk you meet in a bar is wrong because he's drunk in a bar?

No, I just feel like I'm hitting on something, slowly, and I want to advance it, but no one can help me because they don't appear to understand the first bit! You know, they don't get my hypothesis, so how can they further the experiment. That is frustrating - even if I turn out to be wrong, you must understand my apparent pessimism.

Finally, some awareness. Thank god. We do not need to 'do' anything to progress, it will come to us. People think in very similar ways - makes you think it is all interconnected somehow. There are no heroes or great innovators, nor do you need to destruct in order to create. It will happen of it's own accord. To assume you (or man) is in control of natural progress is insane.

What experiment do you propose? I have not gotten a clear enough handle on your hypothesis to address the idea of an experiment to test it.

Progress comes through change and change comes about through force of will. The interconnectedness, I would say, comes from the commonality of our basic needs. We all need the same things so we all think the same way (at some level). However, similar does not necessarily mean connected - I would say it means "caused by the same thing."

Here are two links with some stuff about basic needs which may or may not help you add some clarity to your hypothesis:

http://www.envisionsoftware.com/arti...Hierarchy.html

http://www.EnvisionSoftware.com/Arti...RG_Theory.html

It was a metaphor. Besides, I think you have got my point:

No, change is not related to will. I can will something to happen but it will not change. And change can happen without my knowing or doing anything about it. Stop thinking you're in control.

Your articles suggest there is an order and timeframe to 'self-actualisation'. No. It happens when you stop thinking and just be. Then all unresolved needs or wants are met in the moment, even if you're starving or dissatisfied

I agree with this last sentiment, and I believe that the connections are psychobiological.

Jacquelita has a dog who is quite different from my dogs. I was scritching behind his ears the other day. I found that if I scritched in the same way I sometimes scritch one of my dogs, he had the EXACT same reaction, first making happy sounds that seem like he's enjoying it, and then at some point giving a little tiny yelp as if he didn't like it any more.

I was surprised that this new dog's behavior was 100% identical to my one dog in every way. Even though this dog is otherwise quite different from my dogs and has lived an extremely different life.

Are the dogs connected. They HAVE met! But no, their response is "built in" genetically. Humans have similar reactions, but our response is filtered through consciousness and so we don't recognize where our reactions are coming from. More of our behaviors are instinctual than we like to let on.

Inherent in the human condition is predicting the End Times; and along with it is usually some form of blame. It's the notion that if we don't change our behavior, Something is going to get us all.

The Something changes, but it appears to be common through recorded history. Of course we see the Apocalypse story in almost all religions. But when religion doesn't serve any longer, we need new Apocalypses to focus on. In the last two generations it was nuclear holocaust, which was then extended to nuclear "winter", the notion that even if mutually assured destruction (how apocalyptic is that!) was not successful, the resulting climate change could cool the environment and freeze us all.

Maybe it's hopefully instructional to see the competing versions of Apocalypse. They should get together; if global warming is bad, just set off a few bombs and start nuclear winter, eh?

So is the new Apocalypse environmental dysfunction?

One of the advantages of being on this big blue marble for a few decades is that the patterns start to become recognizable. I recognize this general type of alarm. I remember sitting home from school sick, watching daytime TV in 1975. A group of very serious wonks came on to talk about dwindling resources and how it was certain that if we didn't change how we operated and become conservationists we would be out of oil in 30 years.

Well we didn't change how we operated. We still use more oil than ever. And it's 30 years later right now, and gasoline is still cheaper than 1975 prices after adjusting for inflation. (Price is the universal signal of shortage, an extremely strong market force.)

There are still a few people saying that the Saudis are low on oil -- but the number of wonks on daytime TV claiming the Apocalypse will be running out of resources, is significantly lower. The number of wonks has not changed, the prediction of Apocalypse is still there, but its source is different. The proof remains mysterious and pseudo-scientific, and the idea requires a lot of evangelism to remain in the public mind.

Gah, hippies.

If you are content you have no reason to innovate. ipso facto

This was what I was getting at when I suggested that one of your "givens" is that nations become powerful by chance or worse.

Why did the west become so rich and powerful? Why is its status now challenged by the new economies of the east?

In the east we have a hint: identical peoples living right next to each other and one set of them is unbelieveably rich whilst the other is unbelieveably poor. Why is South Korea hundreds of times richer than North Korea? Why is South Korea a source of a huge amount of innovation while North Korea's innovations are on the order of how to keep a people alive by encouraging them to eat grass?

In the mideast we see another: Israel surrounded by unproductive neighbors. A bunch of nations so unproductive that the only export they have is oil, where Israel with no such natural resources has become even wealthier only by having a driven people and rules that maximize productivity.

It's not just chance. It's through establishing a set of rules that encourages people to be innovative and to work together well and be productive, maximizing human activity.

Sometimes the rule changes are easy to see. You look at graphs of measured human activity and see how the rules affect it. Sometimes they are not so clear; in fact part of the problem is having too many rules. Human behavior is complex. But if a nation has certain properties it is very likely to be more productive than its neighbors. Amongst these properties: a tax structure that encourages productivity; a strong work ethic; and the lack of subjugation of women, which reduces the possible productive and innovative workforce by half.

I see. Is your point is that the human condition never changes? Are you saying that all the stuff that passes for change (knowledge, technology, etc.) has a net impact of zero on the human condition?

Did you just say that in order to advance we don't have to do anything?

That is absolutely insane.

Innovation happens because humans engage in a basically never-ending quest to discover more about themselves, and their environment, and to manipulate it. If we stopped when we were satisifed, we'd be picking ants out of an anthill with a stick rather than communicating on a world-wide computer network right now.

I don't like ants that much.

They're even worse than pickles.

(If I missed some attempt at sarcasm on your part, please be more clear by using fake BBCODE tags in future. I sincerely hope that I missed some attempt at sarcasm, because even if I don't often agree with you, I have thought you to be at least reasonably sentient.)

Will alone does not bring about change.

Will becoming action brings about change.

If wishes were horses we'd be cleaning up a hell of a lot more horseshit.

Horseshit. How appropriate.

I am concerned with the initial thought formation that, once advanced, becomes our drive to action. We do not innovate because we ponder and poke at life - I'm sure you know yourself inspiration can often come at the most unlikely times, or in moments of great boredom. The point is you do not have to be actively or consciously seeking progress for it to occur as a thought pattern. Where do ideas come from?

I would suggest there is a 'network' not unlike the one we are accessing right now that is available to anyone who chooses to login. Just that not many people know it is there and some people are still resisting it (just like the internet!) This network is the common thought process of mankind, hence change or innovation does not originate in one persons brain but as a result of picking up on a collective consciousness which you cannot access through will but through receptivity.

Said minus sardony, just for you wolf.

When you say you "would suggest" do you mean to say you ARE suggesting?

Can you access this network?

Can North Korea?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Although lines go down when they think they want to go to South Korea.

So the only way that people can tap into the collective unconscious and come up with society advancing ideas is not to move forward at all?

If that's the case, all innovation should be coming out of the welfare rolls (I don't think that JK Rowling is proof of this) rather than people who take an active part in creation?

Or I'm really missing your point.

The latter.

The moving forward comes later after the thought formation. You can do anything! Attempt to move forward or just sit still (these are m.e.t.a.p.h.o.r.s) and the thought will come (or not) regardless. You know when you're struggling to remember something and it's really annoying? As soon as you forget about it you remember. In the same way ideas can occur without expressly 'doing' something. They don't JUST come when you're idle, but they CAN come without movement.

I hope this explains it.

Sorta. But I still disagree.