The Clash got me thinking. Mick Jones pointed out in an interview that (The Clash song) "Hate and War" was just the opposite of everything the hippies were preaching at the moment (love and peace), a point so blatantly obvious that I felt inadequate for not realizing it.
Hate and war, the only thing we got today. And if I close my eyes, it will not go away.
But they weren't talking about starting revolutions or political uprisings, they were telling it how it was. They didn't wish for the unattainable goals of world peace and universal love, they just pointed out all the hate and war that was happening around them.
So, this got me thinking. Are world peace and love really unattainable? ...Yes. It seems to me that for every advance in medicine and healthcare that extends the human lifespan and reduces the rate of preventable deaths, there needs to be a sort of balance if not only for the purposes of population control and stability. Therefore maniacal tyrants wipe out entire groups of people, and wars take down the population a bit.
Uh, this isn't flowing as well as I thought, and I can't seem to express clearly what I'm thinking (nor do I have useful links), so I'm gonna try to wrap this up.
Is war the oldest human institution? It seems to extend long before the formation of written language, and the formation of cities. It seems natural enough (hmm, nature is harsh when it comes to predator and prey at times, but are there cases of animal warfare? ...like a colony of ants systematically united against another colony, or monkey groups in warfare? Any Biology majors out there?)- as natural as anger, but it just seems (to me) that human society should have progressed past this primal instinct.
Hate and war, the only thing we got today. And if I close my eyes, it will not go away.
But they weren't talking about starting revolutions or political uprisings, they were telling it how it was. They didn't wish for the unattainable goals of world peace and universal love, they just pointed out all the hate and war that was happening around them.
So, this got me thinking. Are world peace and love really unattainable? ...Yes. It seems to me that for every advance in medicine and healthcare that extends the human lifespan and reduces the rate of preventable deaths, there needs to be a sort of balance if not only for the purposes of population control and stability. Therefore maniacal tyrants wipe out entire groups of people, and wars take down the population a bit.
Uh, this isn't flowing as well as I thought, and I can't seem to express clearly what I'm thinking (nor do I have useful links), so I'm gonna try to wrap this up.
Is war the oldest human institution? It seems to extend long before the formation of written language, and the formation of cities. It seems natural enough (hmm, nature is harsh when it comes to predator and prey at times, but are there cases of animal warfare? ...like a colony of ants systematically united against another colony, or monkey groups in warfare? Any Biology majors out there?)- as natural as anger, but it just seems (to me) that human society should have progressed past this primal instinct.
I think it's safe to say that misunderstanding (or divisiveness, self-preservation, or one-upmanship) is the oldest human condition, the fruits of which are not only war but that jerk who cut you off in traffic, the moron who won't shut up in class, and the creditor who doesn't care why your payment is late.
ReplyDeleteI do think the bit about population control is a bit off, however. I think it starts with the fact that people in general are always going to be divisive, which creates things like war, which have the side effect of reducing the population. I don't think there's a need for that sort of thing, and if we could get around the whole war thing, I'm sure we could solve something as dinky as finding a place for everybody to live. Of course, I'm not holding out for either one.
Gotta go; the banana bread's done.
/we have to deal with it
//it is the currency
P.S. - Once you post a comment, there is no link to get back to the main page. I find this incredibly frustrating for some reason.
ReplyDeleteI realized that too. If I cared a little bit more, I'd find a way to link back to the main page (maybe in the side column?).
ReplyDelete