View Single Post
Old 01-20-2010, 12:59 PM   #31
mathewjgano's Avatar
Dojo: Tsubaki Kannagara Jinja Aikidojo; Himeji Shodokan Dojo
Location: Renton
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,225
Re: Hormonal & Psychological Responses to Combat

I'm a little confused what the arguments are here. Would someone please correct me where I appear to be incorrect. Assuming I'm following accurately, again, I think the difference lies primarily in semantics. How many people there are who have actually killed doesn't refute the idea that it's "natural" for people to kill each other. It's also natural for them to protect each other, but the point is that both are a part of human nature. I would submit the constant string of wars throughout history is evidence of this somewhat natural behavior. No influences other than human ones directly cause wars between humans. As such I don't see how war can be described as anything other than a part of human nature. This doesn't mean one has to do it or that it's somehow justified, simply that it's an extension of the fight part of the Fight or Flight paradigm.
A very simple set of questions refutes Hillman's Book Eric....How many Human Beings on this Planet have personally Killed another Human Being during their lifetime? 5%? 10%? 50%?
I submit to you the number is in the single digits...
If you pull back far enough, many statistics start to look less significant. When you look at more specific settings, suddenly you find a greater willingness, and even a readiness, to kill. Again, if part of the argument is that war (organized violence) isn't a part of human nature, I don't see how that can be valid. You might say light and dark are natural states related to a light switch. Even if I never turn the light off, darkness is still one of the natural states associated with the switch, isn't it?

What the single largest producer of casualties in War Time....Answer... Technology
And who consciously created those technologies, often with that exact purpose? "Guns don't kill people: people do," expresses something pertinent here doesn't it?

If War is a natural state and men don't mind killing that much" Why do Armies Spend Billions of Dollars removing their soldiers further and further away from the consequences of their actions through the use of technology?
I don't get the logical implications here. Cruise missiles are regularly used to assassinate people...and they regularly kill innocent people while doing so on top of it. They protect our soldiers by removing them from (some of) the consequences of their actions, yet the purpose is to kill people.

  Reply With Quote