A major point that my life experience has forced upon me is this -- for peace to be possible, basic facts, that connect to the interface relations between groups, have to be established so that these groups do not erect lying patterns of fiction, that make it impossible for them to communicate, and that cause them to dehumanize each other in intractable ways.

I kind of feel you're not getting to the root of the question, rshowalter.

When people are forced into a situation where they are required to act in contradiction to what they think is morally right (for example, extermination camp guard), they may be obliged to choose between death or honour. What would make someone choose death in these circumstances?

All I can think of with sufficient force is the peer pressure exercised by one's own tribe , which would ostracise anyone who did not follow the rules.

Nevertheless, this kind of blind faith in one's own standards probably requires the existence of forces working in opposition to them.

Leading me directly to the conclusion that the dream of eliminating the (subjective) cruelty and suffering perpetrated by man on his fellow man (and woman) is a chimera.

infodogg as I understand it, participants in the Nazi mass murders were mostly volunteers, or people given many chances to opt out (though the alternatives might have been the same combat other soldiers faced.) There seems little support for the idea that the German guards were FORCED to do any of the evil they did.

When you say that "the dream of eliminating cruelty and suffering perpetrated by man on his fellow man (and woman) is a chemera" you're surely right.

But the more we understand, and the less surprised we are by what people actually do, the better we can cope. If cruelty to outsiders is natural human behavior, there will always be some of it in the world. We can hope to arrange things, with work and care, so that the amount of it is reduced, and the damage done is reduced, as well.

I'm not convinced cruelty to outsiders is instinctive in humans but I'm certain suspicion of outsiders is. All it then takes for savage cruelty to become a possibility is for some authority figure to identify them as being responsible for some ill of society.

Humans can be very cruel to members of their own tribe as well. I'm thinking here of child abuse and domestic violence. Are these behaviours that are somehow "natural"? They have been around throughout human history and are not purely modern phenomena.

I recently saw a documentary in which a group of chimpanzees viscously attacked another group which had intruded into their territory. Their human-like behaviour was truly striking. Perhaps violence is in our genes. Perhaps our only real hope of reducing such behaviour lies in the slow process of evolution. Any one for genetic engineering?

As you say, the jump from suspicion to cruelty may be a short one - and given suspicion, it may not even take a leader to trigger cruelty, after suspiscion becomes fear.

Suppose the suspected one persists in hanging around? And suppose, when someone tries to push him out, he resists. You have a fight right there. And if the "suspected one" happens to win that fight, and the next, and the fight after that, just watch suspicion change to fear. If the suspeced one loses, on the other hand, just watch the dehumanization proceed.

Could I have the name of the documentary? I'd be interested.

You can find more examples of violence, and hateful action than you have time or stomach for - plenty within families (who SAYS family members don't sometimes dehumanize each other?)

All the same, the amount of human behavior that is kind, friendly, sensitive and helpful is enormous as well. If people didn't do a lot of things, just to be nice, just to be cooperative, most of the complex cooperations that do work in the world, would not.

If violence is natural, the inclination to be kind and decent is natural as well.

We need to find ways to emphasize to kind and efficient, and minimize the angry and destructive.

We DO find ways to do so, very often.

From any of OUR perspectives, there isn't TIME for anything else.

A story caught my eye this morning,

a korean woman had a child to an American Serice Man in the Fifties. The Womans family determined to kill her - they hung her - the child watching, was torchured, then sent to an orphanage. Eventually taken by an American couple she had no identity, no birthdate, and was not allowed to grieve, nor was she given a socialworker 'friend' to ensure she was ok. At sixteen she was married off to a person who abused her. Here is a case of a child/woman who lived without being allowed to relate to herself, establish identiy, or be accepted for herself. The book may be called 'Ten Thousand Sorrows.'

There must be countless stories like that.

At many places, and at many times, a woman seems to be entirely subordinated to her sexual function - to sexual rules - and her death or torture seems less important than those rules.

The feminists have plenty to fight about - plenty that is worth fighting for, both for decent lives for women, and for decency for men.

There are reports, based on brain visualization, about how complicated, how ornate, how intimate, how compete human love, when it is real and warm, actually is. And how much a work in progress it is -- how much COURTSHIP and attention it takes.

How can men, and societies, that treat women so, hope for real love?

Isn't it happening in the 'in group' yet they reject the 'outer group' especially where this involves taking a measure of respon$ibility.

Family & Political Correctness: http://www.jannah.org/sisters/redriding.html

http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/104.html

That's my last Duchess painted on the wall, Looking as if she were alive. I call That piece a wonder, now: Frà Pandolf's hands Worked busily a day, and there she stands. Will 't please you sit and look at her? I said "Frà Pandolf" by design, for never read Strangers like you that pictured countenance, The depth and passion of its earnest glance, But to myself they turned (since none puts by The curtain I have drawn for you, but I) And seemed as they would ask me, if they durst, How such a glance came there; so, not the first Are you to turn and ask thus. Sir, 'twas not Her husband's presence only, called that spot Of joy into the Duchess' cheek: perhaps Frà Pandolf chanced to say, "Her mantle laps Over my Lady's wrist too much," or "Paint Must never hope to reproduce the faint Half-flush that dies along her throat"; such stuff Was courtesy, she thought, and cause enough For calling up that spot of joy. She had A heart . . . how shall I say? . . . too soon made glad, Too easily impressed; she liked whate'er She looked on, and her looks went everywhere. Sir, 'twas all one! My favour at her breast, The dropping of the daylight in the West, The bough of cherries some officious fool Broke in the orchard for her, the white mule She rode with round the terrace--all and each Would draw from her alike the approving speech, Or blush, at least. She thanked men,--good; but thanked Somehow . . . I know not how . . . as if she ranked My gift of a nine-hundred-years-old name With anybody's gift. Who'd stoop to blame This sort of trifling? Even had you skill In speech--(which I have not)--to make your will Quite clear to such an one, and say, "Just this Or that in you disgusts me; here you miss, Or there exceed the mark"--and if she let Herself be lessoned so, nor plainly set Her wits to yours, forsooth, and made excuse, --E'en then would be some stooping; and I chuse Never to stoop. Oh, sir, she smiled, no doubt, Whene'er I passed her; but who passed without Much the same smile? This grew; I gave commands; Then all smiles stopped together. There she stands As if alive. Will 't please you rise? We'll meet The company below, then. I repeat, The Count your Master's known munificence Is ample warrant that no just pretence Of mine for dowry will be disallowed; Though his fair daughter's self, as I avowed At starting, is my object. Nay, we'll go Together down, Sir! Notice Neptune, though, Taming a sea-horse, thought a rarity, Which Claus of Innsbruck cast in bronze for me.

-- Robert Browning

I think this one is Great. A dramatic monologue and also the aristocratic, unapologetic explanation of a poikilothermic murderer. You read this poem as partial victim of the Duke's chillingly warped sense of reality. This is not Evil revelling in itself- but Evil masquerading as Righteousness... Deliciously creepy. The brutal arrogance of the supremely egotistical Duke and his veneer of consummate refinement are brought out masterfully in that telling line- "..and I choose/ Never to stoop." The 'inconclusive-ness' of the piece leaves the reader in horrified suspense (a pretty innovative decision on Browning's part- the use of open-endings as a technique had yet to catch on). A virtuoso performance by a fascinating character,an exquisitely handled script, and a title that is a dangerous revelation in itself.

Pavithra Krishnan

From: Rosanna.KING@dfee.gov.uk

The debate about lowering the concent age seems to have these concercerns at its heart. To protect the rights of the younger generation from abuse I believe a minimum concent age of 18 for hetero and homo people should be established. And a 21 year age limited for exploitation in so called industries of rape tutuiion, or porn which ever term you prefer.

Possibly from the BBC (radio) i part heard docco re China. In China there has been no recognition of homosexuality. The western term 'gay' is being introduced re men. Yet for women their is no equivalent word for Lesbian. Raises a question regarding the timelyness of labels in relation to other social aspects. simmilar to the English usage 'confirmed bachelor' not having an equivalent re spinster.

The decline and fall of the Roman Empire.

The sucess of Empire Expansionism was to integrate the second generation into the 'inner-group', whilst their slave parents were generally 'outer-group'.

If this is so, then, via ONE generation there was transition from an old cultural set of values, to recognition and acceptance of, a new set of values.

East Germany.

The minds of some young Nazi East Germans are said to contain a WALL.

[A wall divided Berlin]

Their value system of the 1930's has been fanned.

They see migrants into East Germany as a 'threat', whereas a female German politician said they should be seeing the migrants as enhancement.

A trial is current, reflecting the death of a black man beaten to death in a park by three NeoNatziSkinHeads. http://europe.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/08/24/germany.trial/

The exact spot has been marked, and the German Chancellor laid a wreath.

The East Germans were never 'educated' out of the negative propaganda of the 1930's. This has still to be done. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/sep2000/germ-s13.shtml http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/aug2000/nazi-a30.shtml

Ownership is an issue in industry/commerce.

The acceptance of 'change' via the use of workers to determine problem(s) and devise solution(s), rather than appeal to an outside authority (time&motionExpert) is now regarded as a best approach. A business co. may be brought in to reveal the problems of a company via questions to : TopManagement, Employees, and Customers. The revelation of triangulated view points assists in devising new directions and repairing 'holes' in their systems process. http://ccs.mit.edu/papers/CCSWP189/ccswp189.html

The Australian President of the Medical Association for Prevention of War, Dr. Susan Wareham, talks about the the suffering the Iraqi sanctions inflict on the Iraqi population, particularly the children. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s207626.htm

Murder, rape and other "atrocities" make complete biological sense.

Hm, OK. So what?

Exactly.

Re: 45-47 - GREAT POSTS !

The conversion of people from group "outsiders" to "insiders" makes all the difference - in the difference between seeing new workers as sources of enhancement, compared to threats, and in all sort of socio-technical negotiations in business.

Plenty of engineering, and the "social engineering" of business looks best optimized in terms of dehumanized, stark abstrarctions that put the proposer in the position of the "power" and put many who would have to implement in the role of "outsider." And such schemes, that may "look optimal" very often fail - because they violate basic patterns of human feeling. The efforts required to humanize, and find ways of conection and inclusion, are very often essential for function. If the effort to implement change is done by "outsiders" or "enemies" of the people who have to learn and participate in the change, the technical arguments aren't likely to be listened to, and aren't likely to succeed.

The tasks of fitting things to human associations, and human institutions, is a very different task from the task of optimizing a logical or mathematical problem. Both are often absolutely essential. For difficult innovations, connections between the two patterns may be difficult, delicate, and crucial for success.

And inventor who was trained and self trained to produce the starkest possible definitions of abstract optimality, and work from them, may therefore produce work that looks "technically perfect" and "wonderfully promising" and yet that work may be sterile, unless the jobs needed to take the starkness, and fit it to the perceptions of real human beings, can be done. I have been such an inventor, and have had some difficulties that trace to just that cause. How easy it is to elicit a fight with a suggestion for radical change - even a radical change in something small - even if the suggestion is in some sense "perfect !"

Re: 48- 51 - More GREAT posts.

Murder, rape and other "atrocities" make complete biological sense.

Acts that produce grave damage (for instance, the Iraq sanctions) may make complete "logical" sense.

So, for decency, and if people care for moral and aesthetic values, people have many jobs, that must engage both heads and hearts, finding ways to fashion social arrangements so that people are dealt with, and deal with each other, as human beings.

And the question "are people being dealt with inclusively, as human beings rather than objects?" occurs again and again.

There are costs of dealing with people as human beings, of course.

But the costs of NOT doing so, though the may be hidden, may be much larger, not only aesthetically, but operationally, as well.

Hayate I believe you make the mistake of attributing to aboriginal cultures a level of equanamity they no more had than any other cultures.

Tell a Lakota the Anishanabe are his "brothers" or the Cheyenne that Crows and Apache were kindred and you'd surely get some interesting answers.

You excuse Apache and Commanche violence by blaming their contact with the Conquistadores. The main thing they got from them, I'd argue, was the horse. They already knew about rapine and slaughter from the Aztecs.

Roger Williams was long dead in 18th C BTW. He left plymouth colony to start Rhode Island because of the Puritans obsession with religion. That was in roughly the 1640s.

Cultures can and do evolve, devolve, wax and wane it's true. Blaming everything bad that befalls less evolved cultures on the more advanced is a bit more than simplistic. Your posts are often sparkling but your Caucasiophobia often blinds you to more apparent explainations.

There's nothing really good or bad...tis thinking makes it so."

And folks you've dehumanized may turn around and hurt you !

There's plenty that's really good, or really bad, so long as you have a way of keeping score that you're sticking to.

Some approaches generate fights, and the necessity of inflicting pain. Other approaches generate complex cooperation, often both pleasurable and productive.

The approaches that generate fights are, by and large, bad . The approaches that generate peace are, by and large, good.

>>The approaches that generate fights are, by and large, bad . The approaches that generate peace are, by and large, good.<<

Care to expand? Funny how "fights" on a species level are so commonplace. Could they be "good"?

Callidice , fights can be good, if they answer questions in a "biologically useful" way, and if they are cheap enough, in context.

For example, in selective breeding, eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap. And so, in very many animals, there is sexual competition by males, with winners and losers. Some of this winning and losing is resolved with fights, some with conventional, nonviolent competitions.

From an evolutionary point of view, the conflicts are "good" and the costs are what they happen to be.

But the "good" from fighting comes with a definite biological cost. And the requirements of fighting sometimes drive evolution in directions that seem inefficient.

In human affairs, there are conflicts, too, and sometimes they are solved in some sort of "fight"- generally fights according to conventional rules.

Most interactions aren't this way - most human interactions that work are cooperative and peaceful.

But at a few nodes in the logic, fights may be forcing.

I'd never call fights "good" in any absolute sense, but they can be necessary expenses in some contexts. When that happens, it is important, and I'd say, wholly good, to limit the magnitude of the fights, so that the damage, always finite, is fairly small.

For example, in paradigm conflict, when questions of fact need to be established, there may have to be "fights." They should be little and conventional fights, set up to minimize the damage to combatants, and to get right anwers.

>>I'd never call fights "good" in any absolute sense,<<

What "fights" what "good"? Would you not describe the cutthroat existence of bacteria in a Petri-dish as a "fight"? Would you deny that the human animal has more than a few connections biologically with the world of creatures with less cells?

"fights" are "wrong" are they?

Nepotism - Employing the in/inner group

http://www.rochester.edu/FacultyHandbook/UniversityPolicies/Conflict.html http://www.rochester.edu/FacultyHandbook/UniversityPolicies/Conflict.html

Callidice asks "What "fights" what "good"?"

That depends on how people choose (and we're social animals, so that means, choose together) to keep score. It is in a sense arbitrary to say that death is bad, that pain is bad, that effort intended to a achieve a purpose, that fails, is unfortunate.

But in that sense all human ethical beliefs are arbitrary. Somehow, as people make sense of the world, patterns of ideas converge in our heads - and, for most people within a culture, with a common experience, these ideas usually converge in ways that permit consensus.

I was using "good" and "bad" in this arbitrary sense - a sense I can use, and others often choose to use, to guide choice.

Callidice asks ..... "Would you deny that the human animal has more than a few connections biologically with the world of creatures with less cells?"

No, of course not. But human beings are complex, and heirarchically structured, and at the level at which our minds work, there are aspects of us hat go above and go beyond what is to be found in "creatures with less cells."

Possumdag's post on Nepotism shows that human beings, heirarchically structured and complex beings as single animals, live in a larger, and perhaps even more structured society -- in the cited example, a social structure where institutions issue guidelines and rules - to guide conduct, so that bad results, that might occur in "a state of nature" do not occur, or are less likely.

I'd argue that most, or all, of the arrangements that permit complex cooperation between people who are "outsiders" to each other require the guidance of rules, implicit or explicit, from such social structures, and that when rules fail, human results may be bad, even horrific.

An observation re nepotism is that many jobs are given to those known to the inner circle of those with power to appoint, either family members, friends of the appointee or people who fit the culture of the inner group.

The fact that guidelines are developed re nepotism are an acknowledgement of it's existence. A question is - even with guidelines and policies - do people prefer to appoint from the inner rather than outer groups. Most job appointees assist a supervisor or manager with a set process.

In 'monitored' appointments the guidelines may be deferred to, and 'the best and most appropriately qualifed and experienced person' may be allocated the position .. but ... does this ideal actally happen?

Zimbabwean problems re the economy. The shift or distractor is the removal of the farms from white farmers who provide the country with exports and income, to the populus who may return to 'gardening' the land. http://www.africa.com/news/?aid=hfu741ma Is this shift a temporary distractor to enable Mugabe to maintain dictatorial power. Inflation is currently 60%, and the country is recovering from a wartime engagement. Truth has been a casualty of dictatorial policy.

inner inbetween outer

differences ?

That's a huge question. How do people learn to percieve another as "one of the group" or "an outsider?"

That could merit a LOT of study, from a lot of careful academics, that could be useful, for human feelings, for business, and for peacemaking.

One thought I have is that affiliation may come fairly hard, and may, in its most "natural state" come from "shared and important things" and the animal inclination may be to turn away from people who don't "share something important" especially if they "disgree" about something important.

Tolerance of difference comes hard. It must be learned, and nurtured. It can easily be suppressed.

Intolerances of difference can be passionate and heartfelt. Pretty early in a child's life.

I've spent a good deal of time watching kids, a lot of them between 4 and 7 years old. When they have a difference about what a word means, or what "the right thing to do" is about something they are invested about, how fast a fight can flare!

A tremendous effort, teaching young children, goes into teaching open mindedness. Teaching kids to get along, and share. Teaching kids not to fight. Enormous effort goes into setting up situations where kids are expected to play together, and get along, so that the kids learn to. The people involved have to worry about this, and care about this, and exercise their minds and hearts about this, because this socialization of children comes hard.

But it is essential for civilization.

Tolerance for difference isn't easy for people, and maybe the neurological reasons are basic.

The idea patterns in our heads are hard won - people in social groups jabber at each other, thousand of words a day, talking about "this and that" getting the furniture of their minds the same. And that means, in uncountable ways, they can cooperate easily.

For someone who has NOT been included in all that "social construction of reality" communication is harder, and involves unforseen "bumps" where misunderstandings stop communication, and discomfort an confusion must be sorted out in the minds of the different people involved. That takes both more imagination, more disciplined knowledge, and a more open minded stance about one's own "reality" than people show spontaneously.

And if a person is part of a group that values "rigor" -- a military group, an academic group, an academic training system, such as a graduate school, --- rigidity to tight standards may be valued, and insisted on, in ways that exclude people who are different, either in their person, or in their systems of ideas.

Look at a business, as a social group. How rigidly any busines group can draw the line between "them" and "us." And for lots of function, anything else would be unworkable, even unthinkable.

But complex cooperation requires cooperation between "outsiders" who are still, somehow, in ways that work, treated as "insiders." Treated as "insiders for a particular purpose" in the sense of treated as valid, full, human beings, at an interface, enough for cooperation.

The skills, and feelings needed for this don't seem to be natural at all, but cultural. And sometimes, these feelings break down, or (in the case of Nazi Germany, or many other "rigorous" groups, in many other times and places, these feelings and patterns are suppressed, so that a group takes the stance of predator with respect to the other groups it interacts with.

"Nice" comes hard.

And sometimes "nice" is not the objective of a group. Military traing takes in "ousiders" treats them brutally (the first day of military training is sometimes as brutal as the people in charge can make it) to "whip them into shape" as a homogenous group of "insiders" for a specific, often warlike purpose, to the exclusion of all who are in any "significant" way different.

Academic training can be similar. Especially when the idea of "rigor" is valued. If you go to a dictionary, and look up "rigor" many of the definitions are not only about discipline, but about cruelty.

Inflexibility, too.

Committments that produce the ability for complex dealmaking, complex cooperation, and peace, have to stand against patterns that are set up strongly for exclusion and rigidity.

Rshowalter:

Cheers for the interesting thread. Anyway, all these problems could be relatively easily overcome if people were to accept the basic spiritual (NOT institutionalised religious) message promoted by all the great teachers of history - that there is an eternal dimension to life, and the speed of our progression to a condition of absolute bliss is dependent on our manifestation of the qualities of love, non-violence, tolerance etc. In other words, the rejection of all concepts of 'insiders' and 'outsiders' (and the abolition of all military and other violence-based institutions).

This model combines self-interest with altruism, a win-win situation for everyone. It is also possible to argue the same case from a purely materialistic (i.e. non-spiritual) basis: at the end of the day, what we all really crave more than anything is companionship, respect and love from our fellow human beings - and common sense should tell us that what we want for ourselves we should give to others.

On the fundamental question in the thread title - I believe that EVERYBODY is essentially good (indeed, perfect), but we all make lots of mistakes on our journeys towards ultimate enlightenment.

Just some thoughts, hope they don't across as too pompous!

" ... at the end of the day, what we all really crave more than anything is companionship, respect and love from our fellow human beings - and common sense should tell us that what we want for ourselves we should give to others. ... "

So, you're saying that everyone wants to belong to the ingroup. Yet when ideas that challenge the redundant knowlege of the ingroup arise, then, the messenger is shot, along with the message!

It seems 'strange' that science people, ingoups, don't welcome 'new knowledge' when it more perfectly fits and assists their needs in relation to problem solving.

Back to Plimsole: the company had sailors on contracts which they could not break. That ships went down, was the factor that eventually encouraged the company to think about 'not loosing them' ... insurance may have increased contract prices. That people were lost and died was of no consequence to the Shipping Companies .... a sunken ship was evenually recognised as bad planning rather than misfortune.

(That lives were lost when ships sunk was of no consequence to Commerce.)

Failure to adopt new paradigms may be a failure to contain loss of life .... but ... again ... this may be put down to luck and misfortune rather than planning and quality performances.

Is there an 'inbetween' land, between the inner and outer groupings. Who lurks in the nether regions and when are they either accepted into the fold or cast to the wolves.

The scienists in NSW (Australia) are in netherland and outerland. Their response has been to group. To determine to seek publicity. To use media. To continue to promote and voice their ideas. They felt the current method of gaining professional acceptance was out moded and a sham.

A further matter to explore is the power of redundant knowledge and its empowerment. People who fade and die take with them their knowledge both useful (wisdom) and the redundant. Death in one way clears the decks of old knowledge to make way for the NEW and appropriate knowledge. Death in relation to this concept is Spring Cleaning. The old giving way (literally) to the new.

Tolstoy , I agree with the thrust of your ideals, though I've been a pugnacious person myself, on some occasions.

But if peace and comity are the ideals , we better look clearly at how to get them in the world as it is, with real people.

If essentially instinctual responses can easily lead to discord, exclusion, lies and wars (and I can't see the evidence any other way) then we'd best know it, and find the discipline and the wisdom to find ways, cultural ways, ways of both mind and heart, to get to complex cooperation and peace.

The joy and love in the world are perfectly real, and powerful.

But the horror and avoidable loss is, too, and I don't think looking away from that is the best way to reduce these things.

Right on, possumdag.

Possumbag - "So, you're saying that everyone wants to belong to the ingroup. Yet when ideas that challenge the redundant knowlege of the ingroup arise, then, the messenger is shot, along with the message"

NO - I am saying that everyone ultimately wants to belong to the 'whole' group ('the family of man') - and that all intolerant, messenger-shooting 'ingroups' should be abolished.

I accepted the down-side of (temporary) human nature in my posting, and am just trying to point a way forward.

Cheers.

PS - Rshowalter, just saw your reply to me, thanks for that. Anyway, I hope my positing didn't give the wrong impression, I am certainly not advocating a turning away from the horrors of life - just, again, a possible way to overcome them.

Tolstoy, like your namesake, you're great!

Rshowalter, cheers for that, the compliment is reciprocated. I'm going through a bit of a gloomy time just now, so all kind words gratefully accepted!

Tolstoy, I hope you feel better. I DO think you're great, and represent a kind of tough, inclusive hopefulness the world needs, and that I find beautiful. And I DO think you're beautiful.

I worry about making your fine and good ideals fit, gracefully, with some other needs. We need a sense of wholeness, a sense of oneness. But we also need a world small enough and simple enough to be our size. And not very threatening. So we need to be perceptive, to find ways to work out ways of having multiply structured, multiple level committments, so that, for a lot of purposes, we're both "outsiders" and "insiders" in various ways, and for various reasons. Negotiating that, so it works for head and heart, on an everyday basis, takes social perception, heart, and social inventions coming up with new conventions that work.

For example, in #70, Possumdag cites some socially inventive, creative people

"The scienists in NSW (Australia) are in netherland and outerland. Their response has been to group. To determine to seek publicity. To use media. To continue to promote and voice their ideas. They felt the current method of gaining professional acceptance was out moded and a sham."

That's a creative response, though the last line is hostile, though the argument for an alternative is good. They're fashioning, bringing into focus, a system of social invention-accomodations that make for new possibilities, new kinds of hope.

Seems to me, that with the world complicated, and people still "hunting animals" full of instincts that can misfire in ugly ways, finding hope, grace, peace, and prosperity takes plenty of heart, some guts, and a great deal of head. There's plenty of need for social inventiveness.

Some people with astounding gifts of both head and heart (and plenty of guts) are around on these Guardian threads. And they can write, too! A creative place.

Tolstoy, I hope your gloom lifts. I'll be thinking of you (and your namesake) and trying myself, to be more a person Tolstoy would approve of, and less of a reflex fighter.

RSO, what can I say apart from many thanks again, and a big hug - you have singlehandedly blown away the blues! This is not just because of your (over) kind words, but also your thoughtful and incisive points re. the world's problems and the means to overcome them.

Incidentally, I have no problem at all with people coming together in groups and associations, it is only the historically divisive, intolerant, and ultimately pro-violence ones (such as nations, 'races', most institutionalised religions etc.) which I was querying.

Also re. the last sentence in your Possumdag quote - I have always felt that it was perfectly all right to use strongly critical language re. ideas, just not about actual people; I accept I could be wrong here, and that I should maybe moderate my tone across the board. On the other hand, perhaps being ideologically 'pugnacious' (and you are being far to hard on yourself there) is the way to go after all....?

I also totally agree with you about the quality of gifts of a lot of the contributors to these Guardian talk sites (and I absolutely include yourself in this); in general I think that the Internet is already proving to be a force for enormous good (though with a few downsides) - pointing the way forward to a properly integrated, compassionate, barrier-free world.

Anyway, many, many thanks again, your comments really couldn't have come at a better time.

If human decency, and safety, in complex societies depends on cultural inventions and conventions acting against some basic dehumanizing influences with respect to "others" -there are many human consequences.

Here is one. Academic output that is "obscure" from the point of view of outsiders may be made so because of ordinary human instinctive responses to exclude others, and the obscurity may NOT be due to logical necessity. Outsiders asking for clarity may have a right to ask for it, and in the asking may cleanse and sharpen the intellectual output of the academic group.

If an academic group puts out painfully obscure intellectual product, descriptions after the manner of H.L. Menken may be fully justified. Painful obscurity, and pleasure in "difficulty" may be no more than ways to hide inadequacy from all concerned.

That's one more reason why the literary and writerly virtues are important.

from THE NEW YORK TIMES November 30, 2000 Horrors Behind Rebel Lines in Sierra Leone By NORIMITSU ONISHI

UMBUNA, Sierra Leone — The villagers crept out of the bush on a recent morning, and although the soil here is among Africa's richest, some arrived with hollow cheeks and shrunken limbs.

They were temporarily safe here in Bumbuna, a small town that offers a tiny haven in the heart of an area ruled by one of Africa's most brutal rebel groups. The tales they told offered some inkling of what life is like behind rebel lines, a peek into a broad region of thousands of square miles that is one of the grimmest and least accessible parts of the globe.

A brother and sister, William and Sirah Kargbo, said rebels in their village had taken 10 young women as sex slaves, forced the village men to work and give them food and, until earlier this year, chopped off the hands of those who disobeyed.

"If we don't contribute, they will take everything or kill you," said William Kargbo, 30, who taps palm trees for wine and has often been forced to carry goods for the rebels.

A woman, Jemilatu Bangura, 30, arrived with her son, Samba Diallo, who was 4 years old but looked maybe 2. Her village, like the Kargbos', is only 15 miles from here. But so isolated was Ms. Bangura that she did not know whether Sierra Leone was at peace or at war. She did not know that such a thing as the United Nations existed, much less that it now had 12,500 troops in her country.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Horrors like this are probably as old as history, and the inhumanity may be as natural as human goodness.

There are too many of them to be aberrations. But they remain horrors.

Culture, and the disciplines of culture, are essential for us to avoid Hell on earth, and offer hope, in some times and places, for human experiences approaching the heavenly. For all the horror, beauty is possible and real, as well.

An essential requirement is information, transferred effectively and quickly, among people. Without it, the possibilities for decency get rapidly less.

Rsho,

Hello again, hope you saw my thank you note above - still feeling much better!

In any case, I liked your paragraph "Culture, and the disciplines of culture, are essential for us to avoid Hell on earth, and offer hope, in some times and places, for human experiences approaching the heavenly. For all the horror, beauty is possible and real, as well."

As well as cultural and other interchanges, I think that it is important to counter and ultimately defeat ideological myths - such as the one which says that violence (always 'defensive' when it is being advocated) is sometimes necessary to make the world a better place. It is this illusion which is directly leading to tragedies such as the one in Sierre Leone (as well as similar conflicts in Chechnya, Serbia, Iraq etc,) you so graphically outlined.

All the best.

I hope sometime the world will have gotten entirely past violence.

There are plenty of cases where oppression so severe that it must be enforced and reinforced by violence dominates and makes hell of human lives. http://www.channel4.com/slavery/

There are 27 million slaves today.

The misuse and brutalisation of people as slaves or surfs has been a factor of past centuries to present.

I heard an interesting talk by a guy who's written a book on the 'Enlightenment...' that outlined the progress of thinking. England and Holland in the early 1700's were the places to be. In 1695 the political procedure of all printed matter in England having to have Royal approval lapsed and the use and availability of printed matter was cp to the use of the internet today enabling free discussion.

Voltaire, freed from the Bastille, went to London and interacted with the intellectuals in the Coffee and Chocolate houses. Ideas were discussed and papers written to advance knowledge and ideas. Voltaire wrote a book re his impressions 'letters from England' and was influenced by them.

The Bogey today is the clamps placed on free thinking and discussion by 'institutions' ... New Zealand has free thought, whereas Australia demands that all publically said by Academics are mediated via their Media controls.

That Academics be free to talk and discuss and push new ideas, or comment on community happenings, is imperative. The move from Tenure to Contracts is another means of 'undoing' freedom of expression.

Institutional 'inhumanity to man' stagnates progress. The Academic regime might be compared to a political dictatorship ... how does a multi-headed institution 'think'?

English historian ROY PORTER on his book ENLIGHTENMENT: BRITAIN AND THE CREATION OF THE MODERN WORLD.

The 18th century European Enlightenment has long been regarded as the domain of French thinkers such as Voltaire, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Diderot - rather than earlier British thinkers such as Newton, Locke and Hume.

After the French Revolution, few in Britain would have wanted to claim that the Enlightenment originated there. Edmund Burke's conviction that the ideas of the Enlightenment had led directly to the violent overthrow of the established order in France was widely shared.

ROY PORTER believes that this prejudice, coupled with a national distrust of intellectuals, has meant that the role of the British Enlightenment in the creation of the modern world has gone largely unrecognised... as he explained at the recent CHELTENHAM FESTIVAL OF LITERATURE.

Publications: Enlightenment: Britain and the Creation of the Modern World. Author: ROY PORTER Price: $60 Publisher: Allen Lane The Penguin Press. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/arts/booktalk/stories/s218994.htm + this also looks interesting http://www.abc.net.au/rn/arts/booktalk/stories/s170502.htm

The needs of institutions housing "communities of practice" to fit the needs of these communities of practice are real. For academic institutions, which compete intensely for academic reputation (decided on the basis of something like votes or surveys by members of the "communities of practice" itself) to ignore the strong prejudices and interests of communities of practice is too much to ask.

A university, confronted with a threat to its reputation, must be expected to respond vigorously.

So, for similar reasons, can a government institution, or a private foundation.

That can stultify debate, and institutionalize false answers for decades, if the university is the ONLY arbiter of academic status, under all conditions.

A key question is procedural - what do the "invisible colleges" owe to other invisible colleges that depend on their results, and what do they owe to the public at large, that pays for their maintenance and trusts their results? Currently, the operational answer seems to be "nothing" - at least whenever a question is raised that REALLY disrupts some established interest of the "invisible college."

Disruptive questions, including ones which carry the seeds of great progress, aren't adressed. The questioner of status quo is branded as an outcast. The practical effect of the shunning is attribution of insanity. The case that needs to be made is never made in a way that can stand.

This is in line with the thesis of this thread - it fits the patterns of natural "insiders" dealing with "outsiders" as enemies in an essentially military sense, on the basis of sponteneous responses that may be instictual for humans.

The solution, as in the case of other circumstances where more effective complex competition is needed, than a "state of nature" permits, is the establishment of conventions, and/or institutions, that can deal with situations that produce bad results in the "natural state of man."

The issue matters most under conditons discussed in "Paradigm Shift - whose getting there? <xpat "Paradigm Shift .... whose getting there?" Fri 28/07/2000 21:55>

Here are #242 and #243 from that thread:

When progress is delayed due to paradigm conflicts, the loss, in retrospect, are often huge. In the case of Semmelweis, millions died horribly and much sooner than they might have. Other cases are almost as bad. Sometimes progress is delayed for generations. Sometimes the human dramas involve very ugly behavior, and real tragedies.

But though the stakes can be high, and acceptance of correct answers can be long delayed, the questions involved in paradigm conflicts are starkly simple. In the cases of Semmelwies, and McCully, the questions were:

1. When going from patient to patient, does sanitation matter, or not? (It matters.)

2.Does homocysteine relate causally to artheriosclerosis, or not? (It does.)

In the recent revolution in fluid mechanics, the question was

3. When a flow becomes turbulent, are the laws of Newtonian physics adjourned, so that only statistics applies, or does causality continue? (It continues.)

In my case, the key question is

4. Do the axioms of pure math have a domain of definition, or not? If they do, and you are outside that domain of definition, can you do experiments (symbolic and model-physical system matching) or not? (This isn’t settled in the profession - but YES YOU CAN.)

These questions are simple, and have simple answers. But these questions are not simple in human terms, for the people most concerned with them.

When these questions are nested in a mass of cultural-social-emotional construction, they may be invisible, or emotionally charged to a prohibitive degree, and resolution of them may be humanly impossible.

For example, to see Semmelweis’s point, doctors had to rethink what they were doing, and admit that they were inadvertently killing patients.

To see McCully’s point, a team of cardiologists who had organized themselves around one research subject (chloresterol) had to admit that another issue might matter as well.

In my case, procedures that have become embedded in three centuries of mathematical physics practice have to be re-examined.

My late partner, S.J. Kline, one of the few people who successfully worked through a paradigm shift (in fluid mechanics, after a fifteen year fight) put it this way:

"One cannot reasonably expect successful peer review of a proposition, or acceptance of it later, if people in the profession wince at the ideas in it so much that they look away. ..... Ideas, to work, have to fit in people's heads, and in their institutions."

Here’s another statement of the “abstractly easy” but “humanly hard” point that’s taken me and Steve so much time and effort. The key point, the “showstopper” point, is at least as much a matter of recognition as of formality. The measurable world and the axiomatic "world" of math are DIFFERENT. Mathematical models represent physical circumstances by a kind of ANALOGY. The arithmetical mechanics by which we form these analogies CAN BE TESTED FOR SYMBOLIC CONSISTENCY and CAN BE TESTED BY PHYSICAL EXPERIMENT. The analogy formation mechanism, itself, is entirely beyond the axioms of formal math as it is now taught. It is EXPERIMENTAL tests, not proof by axiomatic usages, that must be applied to evaluate the completeness and correctness of the analogy-forming procedures.

There’s a “territorial” issue that arises. At the stage where the analogy is being formed as a good representation, is “formal math” in the professional sense being done, or not? I put it this way”

The point isn't that I'm doing formal math. The point is that I'm not doing formal math, and for where I'm working, and what I'm doing, that's all right.

My objective has never been to short circuit peer review, but to get checking done, prior to peer review, that gets people past the wincing stage, so that our arguments, right or wrong, can stand on their own.

In abstract terms, the issues are easy. For the community of practice involved, this time, mathematicians, and people who have math as part of their conceptual equipment, the issue is not easy, because three centuries of practice and doctrine are called into question. Sometimes the issues are “only conceptual” - and quantitative implications are negligible. Other times, in neurophysiology, turbulent fluid mechanics, and some other complex coupled problems, the quantitative implications are huge, and explain the failures of past approaches.

You are very difficult to read for the layperson rso and maybe the people you have to try to convince are lacking in the lateral thinking required purely by the nature of the beast they are involved in, is it not unusual to find persons at that level who function in such detail in several disciplines and therefore the easiest way to protect themselves from something which requires a dimension of thought they are incapable of is to ignore it?

(just some nonsense from someone functioning on a lower intellectual level here :O)

#243: Questions of value of the results, questions of “who objects” are very interesting questions.

In the past, HUGE amounts of money, and values people would value in money, have been at stake, and that's true in the S-K case, as well.

It is worth remembering something very easy to forget. The core questions on which paradigm conflict hinge are SIMPLE . It is the human relations, and the psychology, and the social usages, that are hard.

Here’s an essential reason why they are hard.

Under paradigm conflict, new ideas, that are right, are “obviously wrong” to the working group of professionals who judge them.

“Obviously wrong” , for most people, means something like i--- “in tension with the current body of socially (and logically) constructed ideas and “working knowledge.” That tension can cause extreme emotional and territorial responses, including blindness to evidence, and enough tension to produce tics, shaking body parts, and generally averse, angry responses.

When that happens, abstractly simple questions aren’t practically simple for real people. And answering these "simple" questions is problematic for real societies.

(end of quote from Paradigm Shift - whose getting there )

In the course of this, the very same people who in the past might have behaved comparably to Semmelweis' tormenters may - I'm beginning to think, will, behave in public spirited fashion, with concern for technical truth. If my hope here turns out to be real, I'll owe a substantial debt of thanks to the Guardian, to the fora of the NYT, and to collaborators who have posted with me here.

tethys2 you might be right, but I don't think so. We haven't seen problems with clarity in such a simple sense. Steve and I have often enough gotten technical people (not laypersons) to understand what we're discussing - and sometimes to look at results.

There's a well documented and extensive history that bears this out.

Nobody's found counterexamples. Objections to the logic haven't been prominant or problematic either. Some people have plainly looked hard, and have understood.

The difficulty has been that the CONSEQUENCES of the results have been held to be horrifying. Uniformly and intensely horrifying to members of the invisible colleges effected. We've seen truly violent and intense averse responses.

Identification of a 350 year old oversight, even one that faces no counterexamples and solves big problems, is methodologically horrifying (as it would not be to "laypersons") to people who fear that their own intellectual furniture will have to be changed. That response is entirely reasonable - one reason I know that is that Steve and I had similar responses to the result ourselves - it scared us very thoroughly, simple as it is.

The position taken in the "Paradigm Shift" thread is that, for such impasses, one needs umpires, or some set of conventions, that make checking morally forcing even when the results are distasteful to specialists, once there is sufficient good evidence that the impasse involves real and important issues.

I think that adjustments are being made so that the checking occurs in my case. I wish Steve Kline were still alive to see the progress. We'll see how things progress.

I think there's a chance that people we're connected to do hang around after death .... if we 'call' them. They sometimes 'walk over and through us' at significant junctures in our progress, even when we don't 'call them' !

Inhumanity to man .... perhaps the American expectation that 'an other' should prepare and kill prisoners http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f05e1ab/2726

#89 xpat

I believe special people haven't left us. All that is important is what one believes personally, it doesn't matter if no one else agrees.

thethys2 , it matters if we have to live in the world, and if we are to hope to make the world better.

I was just referring to whether one believes that people can still be with you after they have died...... that was all rso

( & the name's not got a "th" at the start)

Interesting name The Thys .... very hip!

oh lol xpat.......don't you start!

rshowalter - Have you read Koestler? I know he had some fairly questionable ideas, but for me, his essay Ad Majorem Gloriam deals with this subject in an admirably straight, lucid way.

No. I'll look. Thanks!

Art and Sexual Selection by Denis Dutton http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/philosophy_and_literature/v024/24.2dutton02.html an essay discussing Geoffrey Miller's The Mating Mind discusses the use of evolutionary psychology as a way of looking at human nature.

This thread deals with whether "mankind's inhumanity to man is as natural as human goodness, while The Mating Mind deals with evolution of the mind, and especially aesthetics from a sexual selection perspective. But the connections to evolutionary psychology make the piece worth reading for reference to this thread.

Dutton's essay starts:

"Followers of evolutionary psychology have marveled in the last few years on the capacity of this discipline to throw new light on aspects of human life, both the obvious and the curious. The Swiss Army Knife metaphor of the mind as a multipurpose instrument fitted by evolution to solve Pleistocene problems with natural ease has great attractiveness. It offers a significantly more powerful way to view our specialized mental capacities than the older model that tries to see us as creatures with general abilities to learn whatever parents or society teach us. We're not usually as motivated to learn the calculus, or as adept at it, as we are in figuring out who's sleeping with whom in the neighborhood, and these differential interests and capacities are not socially constructed. Striking empirical findings, such as the statistic that a small child or infant is roughly a hundred times more likely to die at the hands of a stepfather than at the hands of a biological father, defy explanation in terms cultural imperatives but are consistent with evolutionary psychology and explained by it. And persistent average sex differences, like the superior detail noticing capacities of women and the better map-reading abilities of men, nicely fit with evolutionary psychology's account of Pleistocene adaptations. "

In Natalie Angier's Woman: An intimate Geography there's an interesting counterpoint in Chapter 18 "Hoggamus and Hogwash: Putting Evolutionary Psychology on the Couch"

Here's one of her lines: i"Evolutionary psychology professes to have discovered the fundamental modules of human nature .. " Of course, this is more than evolutionary psychology can reliably claim.

The thought patterns of evolutionary psychology may be fine sources of inspiration - but they are suggestive, not self checking.

We've used them to be suggestive, and to fit patterns in this thread. The suggestions seem to fit a good deal, and have broad applicability, but they could, and should, be subject to further testing of various sorts.

December 21, 2000 Japanese Veteran Testifies in War Atrocity Lawsuit By HOWARD W. FRENCH http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/21/world/21JAPA.html

excerpts:

TOKYO, Dec. 20 — Under the code of his secret wartime army unit, which experimented with chemical weapons on live prisoners and dropped bombs to spread plague bacteria through northern China, Yoshio Shinozuka should not be alive today.

..........

As a member of the Japanese Army youth corps, it was his duty to wash the victims with a hose and a deck brush before the operations began. "When I finished, the surgeon applied a stethoscope to his chest and listened to his heartbeat," he said, describing his first experience of such an experiment. "As soon as he lifted the stethoscope, the dissection began."

Mr. Shinozuka was the first of several veterans of the unit who in the last month have described their actions. They also testified that some prisoners had been deliberately frozen to death and some had been injected with lethal chemicals and germs to study the efficacy of those agents as weapons.

"But all these years I've thought about who received the germs I created, and how much they must have suffered. I thought about the bereaved, and about the survivors, people whose lives were forever damaged. I thought about the victims of vivisection, and I felt these acts must not be buried away, or else we are condemned to go from darkness to darkness."

These things were done by ordinary people, organized in ordinary ways in ordinary organizations, by societies that were humane, competent and perceptive to the "insiders" in their societies in many ways. It is too comforting to think of these things as done by "monsters." Once people become "outsiders" -- man's inhumanity to man may, indeed, be as "natural as human goodness."

Cultural conventions, and insight, may be the only defense we have against horror. If we know that, we can strenthen the conventions, and concentrate on them. And concentrate on the moral need to imagine human consequence of what is done. If that happens, people may learn to avoid much of the horror and inefficiency in the world.

I don't understand the 'misnomer' usage of the word 'comfort' in relation to the rape, abuse, and KILLINGS of women .... a japanese guy on radio, interviewed only this month said (wrongly) that the women were 'recruited' from the 'lower ranks of prostitutes' ..... he still would not admit to the 'serious nature' of this war crime.

These women have lived with the 'shame' of their torture for up to sixty years, and have never been adequately acknowledged nor compensated.

The BIG MOVIE on this is yet to be made ?

In the light of POST ONE:

" rshowalter - 06:11pm Nov 12, 2000 BST (#1 of 101)

But is this behavior so strange? Or is it the NATURAL state of people, dealing with outsiders, outsiders who they naturally dehumanize, and deal with as heartless, exploitive predators? Is it civilization and mercy that are the "unnatural" things - the things that have to be taught, and negotiated into being, and strived for?

I'm coming to think that it is just as natural for people to act "inhumanly" - that is cruelly, and in a dehumanizing way, towards OUTSIDERS, as it is natural for people to act warmly, and with accommodation and mutual support, for people WITHIN their group.

I'm coming to the view that, just as there is an instinct for language, and an instinct for becoming a part of a group, inborn in humans, there is an instinct to exclude outsiders, to dehumanize them, to withhold cooperation from them, and to treat them as animals, subject to manipulation an predation. I'm coming to believe that this treatment of outsiders is an instinctive species characteristic, evolved over the millions of years when people lived as gatherers and team hunters.

If this is true, we all have the basic instincts to be kind, sensitive, and good, within our groups, but at the same time are naturally "monsters" in our behavior toward outsiders.

If this is right, the role of civilization is to find ways of peace and effective cooperation where isolation, conflict, duplicity, and merciless manipulation, including murder, might otherwise occur. "

I'd comment here that the Japanese culture was a cruel one.

Lifting the Japanese from the preWWII perception of themselves - as against others - has still not been done ... especially with regard to the Of-Korean-Origin peoples who are 3generations Japanese. This is why the Koreans beating the Japanese on the Sports' field is so welcomed by the Koreans. It is a means of 'showing the Japanese' who is (sporting) master.

The women who were mal-treated, have never had the opportunity to do this, excepting a MOCK court case was held Dec2000 that condemned and found the war-time Emperor GUILTY of a war crime - with respected to the multi-raped women.

Possumdag

"I'd comment here that the Japanese culture was a cruel one."

As the recent TV documentary showed, the cruelty we associate with WW2 Japanese militarism was very recent - German prisoners of the Japanese in WWI commented on how well they were treated by the Japanese.

The needs of Japanese capitalism to compete with the western colonialisation of SE Asia led to the growth of a very cruel military regime, which dehumanised its own troops in preparation for the coming war.

It took only 10 years or so to turn Japanese soldiers from reasonable humans to monsters.

I think that can be achieved with any nation given the appropriate social conditions and training.

I am still amazed by how fast Yugoslavia degenerated from the holiday destination of the late 70s, full of friendly people, to what we have seen in the last decade.

That means we need to be suspiscious of HUMAN nature, and carefully concerned for the cultural patterns, both in terms of ideals and human arrangement, on which kindness, decency, and tolerable decency depend. What happenen in Nanking at the beginning of WWII should be remembered, and especially when people consider the (very great deal) that there is to admired about Japanese culture.

Similar things can be said about people in other cultures. If man's inhumanity is as natural as human goodness, and the evidence suggests so, it is safer if we know it.

Anyone remember the old psych study carried out years ago in which the subjects thought they were giving people electric shocks? The results were quite surprising in that a significant number of the subjects were prepared to go on delivering painful and near lethal shocks (or so they thought)to the actors. They did it on direction but no one had to hold guns to their heads to continue. I think it showed that a significant number of people will do anything if directed to by a higher authority. Or understood another way, a significant proportion of the population have no real moral priciples.

Erica Goode wrote an article, connected to that study, and I reacted to it in the NYT Science in the News thread, relating it to a question people often ask.

rshowalter - 07:26am Aug 29, 2000 EST (#1422 of 2535) http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f05e1ab/1689

It starts:

Erica Goode's IDEAS AND TRENDS piece Hey, What if Contestants Give Each Other Shocks? deals with issues of concern to most people I know, and shows a case where scientific information can give evidence on an issue about humanity, and one particularly troubling. During WWII, what did the Germans know, and when did they know it?

I key the argument to a great Rudyard Kipling poem http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f05e1ab/1693

and ended with a discussion of military and civilian responsibility and knowledge, keyed to the Germans, that I was proud to write. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f05e1ab/1696

Shortly afterward, there followed posts, written indirectly but usefully for their purpose, that meant a great deal to me, and were of practical help, in a circumstance where my humanity had been called into question.

That posting sequence represented something of a turning point in my life.

ERICA GOODE's article was Hey, What if Contestants Give Each Other Shocks? August 27, 2000, NYT

It includes the following passages:

"... psychologists, who carried out a variety of experiments at prestigious universities from the 1950's and into the 1970's, were fascinated by the power of situations to influence people's behavior, sometimes even overriding individual personality traits and the dictates of personal conscience.

"The experiments were compelling, and still enthrall undergraduates when they are taught in introductory psychology courses. In perhaps the most famous, Dr. Stanley Milgram's study of obedience to authority, the subjects meekly delivered what they believed were potentially fatal electric shocks to another person when ordered to do so by an experimenter in a white coat.

"In another, student volunteers at Stanford University who were randomly assigned to play prisoners or guards for a two-week stay in a simulated prison became so caught up in their roles that the study had to be halted after a week.

. . . . . . .

"By the late 1970's, ethical guidelines discouraged the use of most deception in psychological research, and required thorough debriefing of subjects. As a result, neither the Milgram study nor the Stanford prison experiment could be carried out today.

Ugly as these results are, it is good that we know them. It is very easy for human beings to behave monstrously, and very common.

We can "easily" think about Nazi responsibility. It is harder to think of our own. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f05e1ab/1847

Here's a key question, that I have come to think more and more important. The Russians agree about the basic importance of this question:

How do you make people properly appalled and ashamed of people willing to use nuclear weapons?

If this is an "unnatural" question, we have to arrange social patterns, and explanations, that make it a common question. If this question was as widely asked, and as clearly faced, as it should be, full nuclear disarmament would be a practical proposition.

". In perhaps the most famous, Dr. Stanley Milgram's study of obedience to authority, the subjects meekly delivered what they believed were potentially fatal electric shocks to another person when ordered to do so by an experimenter in a white coat."

That's an ORDER! Milgram (1963) - the classic study that showed that people would follow orders, even if it inflicted damage, or even death, on an innocent, pleading human being: http://www.fsu.umd.edu/dept/psyc/southerl/prism/bill.htm http://www.usafa.af.mil/dfpfa/CVs/Bertha/Psyhero.html http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~epritch1/social98a.html http://www.abacon.com/baronbyrne/chapter9.html http://www.psychology.org/links/People_and_History/

Thanks to Lunarchick of the NYT forums.

In the Science in the News forum of the The New York Times I posted this, and I think it fits here http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f05e1ab/1935

Here it is in part:

"rshowalt - 05:00am Sep 27, 2000 EST (#1648 of 2549)

"As a mathematician, I've used a pattern, that is as old as the perfection of scientific instruments, that may be called the "loop test." Things are supposed to add up. Proportionalities are supposed to yeild consistent results . . . . . . .

"How about "getting things to add up" in moral conduct? Isn't it necessary to our function as social animals, in practical ways?

"Nobody can say "it is all right, under some circumstances, to make a first strike with nuclear weapons" and have things add up, according to any SELF CONSISTENT ethical standard at all. Try it, and try sequences of reasoning, and you'll find that the consistency of your moral universe self destructs.

"In some of the literary forums, people talk about the death of culture, the death of any standards at all. I think it starts here, and think that it is profoundly important. Our culture has been corroding, degrading, eating into itself, and making the moral instruction of children foundationless, by staying committed to the proposition - a basic stance of our national policy, that the U.S. President can, and will, use nuclear weapons when he chooses, and that "morality is not applicable to the actions of nation states."

"Americans insist on that in international conferences and negotiations.

"It is a horrific stance. If morality doesn't apply to nation states, how does one object to Adolph Hitler, or Eichmann, or their like? Logically, one cannot. Even so, to justify the use of first strikes with nuclear weapons, one logically has to take this stance. The United States Government that we'd like to be so proud of does this.

"I feel that, even if the dangers with nucs were small (and they are HUGE) this would be too high a price for us to pay for keeping them.

". . . . . . . the United States of America insists that it has the right to use nuclear weapons when it chooses, and it has coerced silence on the point from the Russians and the rest of the world.

"If we're trying to get even rough senses of proportionality in morality, and if we presume to make moral judgements of others, how can we make this stick?

"And if we want to comfortably do the complex negotiating that our society needs to work, don't we need some moral common ground amongst ourselves, that people can agree on?

"We're paying far too high a price for keeping nuclear weapons, and for justifying our past actions, which may have been necessary during the Cold War, but are surely not justified now. We should get rid of them, and admit the obvious fact that they are reprehensible, shameful, weapons - the ultimate no-nos by reasonable moral standards. Things to be forbidden.

Pakistan and India can't use the nuclear weapons they have, or could reasonably be expected to build. If they understood that, getting rid of these holocaust makers would be doable.

Fear and the desire for self-preservation are what makes it impossible at the moment, IMO, to put this particular genie completely back in the bottle. For example, it is said that Iraq is on track to build a nuclear weapon. Would you care for Saddam Hussein to be the only world leader with a functioning nuclear weapon?

Nuclear weapons are certainly deadly, but a functioning weapon would not have to be world-destroying to be a sufficient threat. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki only affected Japan. A determined dictator would only have to have the power to destroy a couple of cities to wield power out of all proportion to the size of his country.

I absolutely agree about the useless missile defence programme, but I'm not convinced that unilateral disarmament on the part of the current nuclear powers is wise, though a 'no first strike' policy should be a given.

There have to be EFFECTIVE ways to outlaw nuclear weapons, for complete disarmament to work. I think there are.

A central issue is establishing a more sensible sense of what nuclear weapons are "good for". They work as extermination weapons, and they are good for nothing else. It would do Saddam, or any other dictator, no good at all to use "a few" nuclear weapons. If a nuclear attack is not successful at exterminating and enemy, and that enemies effective allies, it does the agressor no good, unless the agressor already has the victim at SUCH a disadvantage the the nuclear explosions are entirely irrelevant.

That's a fact, and if that fact were widely understood, the world would be far safer.

But there's a way to go before FULL disarmament. If the superpowers had only "a few hundred" nukes, instead of the thousands, then control would be far better - and the world would survive.

That's worthwhile.

Balkan Syndrome: the uranium scattered around from the war: is causing problems affecting the EC civillian population - Lukemia. For 'peacekeepers' are often civillians who went to work in a war zone to aid peace.

The use of uranium on bullets has effected 'Shooting Ranges' in the Uk.

"There are no ill effects" is the official line!

Common Sense - says there are effects. Yet logic seems to be lost when war-thinking-caps are worn.

The moral is ... don't get into a war situation the first place.

Another moral is CHECK what military people say.

Deception is essential for any reasonably effective attack -- that is an unchangeable fact of war.

It means that disciplined patterns of deception are inextricably linked to military organizations and cultures.

Soldiers lie. To be effective soldiers, they have to.

When things are inconvenient, or when careful accounting is in some sense embarrassing, military people, in both war and peace, decieve.

I don't think anyone can hold it against them, or call it "dishonorable" - but when a soldier looks you straight in the eye, and tells you something is true, where deception might hold a tactical advantage, it is not reasonable to believe her totally.

That means that outrageous lies get told, and propagated, and often grow and mestastisize in the retelling. Obvious stupidities such as "there are no ill effects from depleted uranium rounds" get perpetrated.

When journalists believe what senior military officers tell them, without reservation, as they do with monotonous regularity, shame on them.

Until you can outlaw fear, or find a way of making it unnecessary, there will be conflict. 'Perfect love casts out fear' we know - and in the ideal world we'd no doubt all like to see, that's what would happen.

But until then, we have to recognise that that is the basis from which people and nations operate. Along with greed, it's at the root of all conflict.

The chickens have come home to roost ... with lukemia and cancer ... and the Europeans don't like it, that is, don't like being lied to by the military .... but they did little about the same problem now a decade old http://www.independent.co.uk/news/World/Middle_East/2001-01/fisk100101.shtml

No one needs to doubt the primal, fundamental fact of human fear, and human fear of "outsiders." Nor is that fear irrational. But the better our conceptual abilities, the more we can apply "the golden rule", even to our enemies, the more complex cooperation is possible, and the fewer horrors are inevitable.

The fewer "enemies" there need to be, and the more limited the conflicts can be.

Rso - Hi there, and a very happy New Year to you (and everyone else)! Anyway, I am not sure why you think that dishonesty on the part of the military is not dishonourable (or, indeed, the mass murder which is their stock in trade).

It is only through a process of deep, millennia-old indoctrination that the violent agencies of nation-states have somehow managed to persuade people that they are exempt from normal moral codes. They are not (in my opinion, anyway).

Jenny, like RSHO, very good points well expressed. I can only say that (again, in my opinion) love is ultimately MUCH stronger than fear - and that is why I am a complete optimist! It is only a matter of time before mankind spiritually evolves out of its current, confused, partially pro-violence state. Let's just make it as soon as possible!

All the best

I've been looking at a number of citations involving the Semmelweis case. Amazingly rough story. And yet, the same doctors who were so inhumane in that case, were surely paragons of kindness and consideration in many others. I'll be posting more on this.

In the Is there such a thing as truth, and if so, how can we find a new Spiritual Path for our era? thread, Boog, in Re #192 quoted a full Newsweek article Searching For the God Within: The way our brains are wired may explain the origin and power of religious beliefs

By Sharon Begley

A wonderful article.

Begley ends with -

"If brain wiring explains the feelings believers get from prayer and ritual, are spiritual experiences mere creations of our neurons? Neuro-theology at least suggests that spiritual experiences are no more meaningful than, say, the fear the brain is hard-wired to feel in response to a strange noise at night. Believers, of course, have a retort: the brain’s wiring may explain religious feelings—but who do you think was the master electrician?

© 2001 Newsweek, Inc.

Well, whether the "master electrician" is God, or a VERY FANCY evolution, far more sophisticated than the current reductinist model, there are emergent properties involved that DO provide MEANING to human beings, and without which, humanity would be impossible. For a God, working with physical materials, how else could you do it? And if there is no God, mankind still exists, and insight into how the brain embodies and generates these collective yet intensely personal feelings might make it more possible for us to cooperate, both because we are the same, and because we are different.

If the question of religious feelings as natural brain function makes sense, then the question raised by the title of this thread, and discussed here, is an emotionally and practically important one.

THE UNIVERSALITY OF INCEST by Lloyd DeMause at http://www.psychohistory.com/

makes bracing reading, but if it is as credible as it seems to be, ought to give people sentimental about the "inherent goodness or mankind" pause.

When I read DeMause, I thought this --- if what he says is true, the catalepsy of some countries and cultures - their inability to show the economic growth one would expect, may be in large part due to having such a huge framework of lies and brutal usages, that there is just not the common ground, and respect for truth, that the complex cooperation of modern economic life takes.

Bracing indeed rshowalter. I had to go away and recover from that one.

I'm not sentimental about the 'inherent goodness of mankind', but I do think most of its evils spring from ignorance and a lack of love. This is an excellent illustration of both those. Nobody can wave a magic wand and make the whole world better, but if those who have that level of awareness in their own hearts take it upon themselves to decrease ignorance and increase love in what they do and how they interact with the world, things will slowly get better - slowly, as in generation upon generation, being the operative word.

Maybe, if people get better at persuasion, and with better ways at getting truth to be morally forcing when it really matters enough, we can get progress faster than that.

I'm with you at the level of the heart. I've come to feel, however, that practical morality can reasonably repay some careful study, and improvement, at the level of mechanics.

Good point.

right-on!

I posted this on There's Poetry -and I'm posting it here. It comes from the "hypothesis ...." thread in Europe, started by Beckvaa . It represents, we believe, a reframing of the notion of scientific theory, that, if it were adopted, might much reduce the probablility and seriousness of paradigm conflict impasses. In it, I refer to "my beloved partner." She, under a number of pseudonyms, has been my main co-author in this thread. We fell in love with each other (platonically so far - we have never so much as touched hands ) in the writing of this thread, and the basic idea in this thread was an idea that came to us, together, working as partners.

rshowalter - 09:44am Feb 4, 2001 BST (#95 )

My beloved parter and I dance together in our work as partners.

Here is something we did as partners. And it shows reasons why I love her as a partner, adore her as a partner, long for her as a partner, and think she's beautiful as a partner.

WE did this.

I couldn't have done it without her.

She couldn't have done it without me.

I'm proud of it, and think it is is important.

rshowalter - 09:44am Feb 4, 2001 BST (#96 )

I'll call it, for now:

An operational definition of Good Theory in real sciences for real people. "Partnership output of a beloved lady partner, not yet named, and Robert Showalter.

In "Beauty" http://www.everreader.com/beauty.htm Mark Anderson quotes Heisenberg's definition of beauty in the exact sciences:

"Beauty is the proper conformity of the parts to one another and to the whole."

SUGGESTED DEFINITION: Good theory is an attempt to produce beauty in Heisenberg's sense in a SPECIFIC context of assumption and data.

Goodness can be judged in terms of that context,

And I think by beloved partner is beautiful, something I first felt, thinking of her as a partner.

rshowalter - 09:58am Feb 4, 2001 BST (#97)

Here's a part were I did more work than she, though she was indispensible:

To make good theory, in complex circumstances, beauty coming into focus must be judged, and shaped, in a priority ordering - and even though the priorities may be shifted for different attempts at beauty, the priorities need to be remembered, and questions of "what is beautiful" and "what ugly" have to be asked in terms of these priorities.

She has been completely indispensible, and mostly responsible, here, and has been a world intellectual leader, here, for years:

Intellectual work, and scientific work, is an effort to find previously hidden beauty , and this is what moves people, and warms people. This need for beauty must be remembered, and not stripped away.

We feel that, if people paid more attention to aesthetics, and paid especial attention to the notion of ugliness set out here, we might have improved guidance for crafting a world of social relations where "man's inhumanity to man and woman" was less in evidence.

In the Europe folder, there is a thread

"We need an international missile system now - Why "son of Star Wars" is a good idea."

started by Beckvaa that discusses nuclear dangers, and refers to this thread. Especially insert #9.

In the History folder, there's another thread, also started by Beckvaa , If Jesus were alive today . . .

That refers, extensively, to this thread, and the expanded notions of "the golden rule" that it contains.

Some of the harshist, but perhaps most hopeful, insights my partner and I have come to are on this thread.

When we wrote the first and most essential part of it, the notion of "disciplined beauty" that we've come to was not yet focused, though we were moving that way.

Getting the ideas here more clearly expressed, more widely understood, might go a long way towards making complex cooperation more likely, and cruelty and ugliness less likely, for real people in the real world.

But I think the expression here, though improvable is pretty clear.

Comments on how the ideas might be clarified, or better connected to existing notions, would be welcome.

The same 'ugly' mistakes are repeated generation after generation, handed down so to speak, the victim becomes the perpertrator.

BREAKING THE CYCLE

Which are the successful frameworks that do break cycles ... which don't.

In the last few days, the Missile Defense thread of New York Times on the Web Forums ,,, Science has had interesting, hopeful discussions. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/727

I believe these discussions have been noticed by government officials.

This thread has been referenced.

China has about a thousand bactrian camels that live on the Mongolia-china borders where nuclear testing events happened. Were there to be an escalation of nuclear arms these unique animals would be under severe threat in relation to the furhter pollution of their habitat.

""The wild camels in the Gashun Gobi are members of the first stock of camels that were domesticated 4,000 years ago, and have been proven to be genetically distinct from the common domestic Bactrian camel. "" http://english.zhaodaola.com/travel/cruise/wan200616.html

ON inhumanity to man, the situation in China is of interest to me. There is the bid for 'The Games 2008' and additionally the safety of people in China - working and visiting later.

China is keen get the games, and sign any necessary international treaties regarding humanity. The reality is though that it sanctions torture of individuals via allowing police to detain and torture people ... in order to extract false confessions and dollars!! If China is incapable of setting 'quality standards' from the top regarding behaviour of the inhumaine variety ... then travellers into China have reason to fear .. especially with regard to 'The Games'.

Seeker, you're right. Rule of law is very important.

Beckvaa set up a thread, titled Men are naturally good in The Haven.

I've referred to this thread there, and rephrased some of my arguments.

I think this thread may have some of the most interesting ideas that have come from my partnership with Dawn Riley -- who knows a lot about sociobiology, evolutionary psychology, and such things.

Were certain kinds of ugly behavior towards outsiders adaptive for our ancestors? Are these patterns built into human instincts that can cause trouble now?

We argue yes. And also argue that, once this is known, social conventions, and applications of the Golden Rule that deal with complexity, and show a search for disciplined beauty, may make it possible to avoid, and reduce, some ugly, dangerous, expensive patterns that cause difficulties now.

Perhaps the most interesting single thing that comes from this argument is that it implies that ..

Lying to outsiders is natural.

Deception of outsiders is natural.

That might explain a lot, pretty compactly.

If lies are to be expected between adversaries, if we were to become less puritanical about the notion that "everybody lies" .... then it might be possible to sort out a lot of things in the world that are only partly "honest mistakes" -- things that are, in some significant part, the product of inclinations to decieve that are natural to human beings.

If lies are to be expected between adversaries, if we were to become less puritanical about the notion that "everybody lies" .... then it might be possible to sort out a lot of things in the world that are only partly "honest mistakes" -- things that are, in some significant part, the product of inclinations to decieve that are natural to human beings.

A point essential to complex applications of the Golden Rule .

Honesty is better than deception, and honesty, with careful thought and a few conventions, can be safer than people think. In nuclear arms negotiations, we need more honesty, more openness, and fewer lies.

Generally: To live to together, in peace and prosperity, and comfort, we need more honesty, more openness, and fewer lies. We can all stay well defended, and even become better defended, if we are more open, in ways consistent with disciplined beauty as we see it, and as we expect others to see it. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f1983fb/407

I referred to these things, in a place where I believe some people concerned with nuclear arms may be looking. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/750

Black and white is really not a issue for me with you. It is a big issue in the world, because of the way things are. Or if other people other want to see it that way.

Sometimes, at the change of an assumption (or the turning off or on of a deception) black turns to white - beautiful to ugly - moral to immoral - right to wrong. I think it helps to be able to see that switching, to savor it, and to question one's judgements of "black" or "white" on the basis of the aesthetics of outcomes.

If results (or matches to reality) are ugly - something's wrong. When we see ugly results in human interactions, we should look for wrong switching.

Lies are much more common than people are often willing to think. Including our own.

Helps to be able to see the yin and yang of things, both at once, as a matter of discipline, and the choose "the good" with a sense of what one means when one does the valuing, and the choosing.

The Golden Rule is a last resort. Sensitivity is more useful generally. I am not offended by the use of the left hand, but others are.

Given sensitivity, one knows how to apply the golden rule. Without it, one cannot.

As far as deception is concerned, --- it is a standard part of the grammar of conversation -- want to terminate a string of logic, an area of dialog? As a matter of grammar, say something evasive, something off point, something counterfactual. People do it, they do it all the time, and it is often very graceful. The "social lie" can, and usually does, mean no more than "Let's not talk about that."

There is a problem, though, when the deception is passed off, not as logical termination (something we'd be paralyzed without) but as TRUTH. -- then we may be leading people, quite intentionally, to conclusions that will HURT them.

If I were to pick a wrenching, damaging fiction - the one I'd pick would be the notion that

"I never lie .... "

and its close relative

"Liars are subhuman -- liars are the other."

The idea seems pathetic, amazingly counterfactual - yet people feel that, to call someone a "liar" is to dismiss him completely.

We are all liars - very frequently and unavoidably in the grammatical sense, and sometimes in the agressive, harmful sense, as well.

Notes on deception, and primate characteristics that make "mankind's inhumanity to man and woman" possible -- and understandable -- and might make ways of reducing that inhumanity more clear. We need social interactions that permit complex cooperation -- not mutual destruction.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science ...... Missile Defense http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?13@@.f0ce57b

"Stanley Milgrams experiment ought to be required reading for all trying to form judgements about the probable "rationality" of our current nuclear arrangements. ........ Here are other references relevant to how willing we ought to be to say

...."the authorities say trust us so we should surely trust them. "

The (11) references below (more, available through a hotkey) were gathered by Dawn Riley and posted on this (NYT MD) thread #317-322

Black and White; true or false; are dyadactic viewpoints. Sometimes arriving at truth is via an incremental process.

Looking at inhumanity there is often a 'commercial_gain' aspect. To designate minorities as 'other' offers the thought or actuality of gain to the 'in crowd'.

But the gains from complex cooperation can be greater, if people can actually find the sophistication and decency that make the cooperation possible.

Falun Gong

I'm surprised the Chinese Government haven't thought to set up a similar mass movement to the Cult Falun Gong ... giving outlet for spiritual needs and exercise to maintain the temple of the spirit. This would be strategically-logical and collect revenue.

The cult Falun Gong undoubtedly makes the organiser extremely rich ... and cult leaders with excessive bank accounts can and do propergate evil (if they so desire).

The methods employed by China to dissuade are examples of inhumanity to man ... excesses of torture and designation to psychiatric hospital-prisons.

Perhaps there's an official move to clean China up ... in an effort to make a clean bid for the Games in 2008.

This kind of inhumanity has been all-too common hisorically:

U.N. War Crimes Court Convicts Bosnian Serbs in Rape Case By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 9:38 a.m. ET .....February 22, 2001 http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-War-Crimes-Rape-Camps.html

"THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) -- A U.N. war crimes tribunal Thursday convicted three Bosnian Serbs standing trial on charges of rape and torture, the first case of wartime sexual enslavement to come before an international court.

"The tribunal convicted Dragoljub Kunarac and Radomir Kovac of sexually assaulting and torturing Muslim women at rape camps during the Bosnian war. Kunaric was sentenced to 28 years imprisonment, and Kovac got 20 years.

"The court said Kunarac was involved in a ``nightmarish scheme of sexual exploitation'' that was ``especially repugnant.''

".....``You abused and ravaged Muslim women because of their ethnicity, and from among their number you picked whomsoever you fancied,'' said the presiding judge, reading the first verdict.

"The third defendant, Zoran Vukovic, was convicted of raping and torturing a 15-year-old girl -- who was about the same age as his own daughter -- but acquitted him of most other charges for lack of evidence. He was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment.

"Presiding judge Florence Mumba went through the testimony of woman after woman who had given horrendous accounts of rape and torture in the Bosnian town of Foca, a city southeast of Sarajevo, after it was overrun in April 1992, when Muslims were herded into separate prison camps for men and women.

"The women, both in their testimony and in the verdict, were identified by numbers rather than names to avoid further shame.

"The defendants stood in silence, wearing headphones as the judgment was read in somber tones.

"Dirk Ryneveld, the lead prosecutor in the case, welcomed the verdicts and commended ``the bravery of the victims who came forward to tell their stories.'' Peggy Kuo, another prosecutor, said ``the length of the sentences shows that the court takes these kinds of crimes seriously.''

"Mumba said the defendants carried out their rape in full knowledge of the systematic attack against the Muslim population ordered by the Bosnian Serb leadership.

"They were not ``political or military masterminds behind the conflicts and atrocities,'' she said. ``However, they thrived in the dark atmosphere of the dehumanization of those believed to be enemies.''

I "The verdict in the Foca case follows months of testimony from dozens of witnesses, including 16 former rape victims who came to The Hague to confront their alleged former tormentors. The trial began March 20.

"The women told how Bosnian Serb paramilitary soldiers entered detention centers and selected women and girls as young as 12 for nightly gang-rapes and sexual torture.

"They were charged with about 50 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including rape, torture, enslavement and outrages upon personal dignity. The crimes carried maximum life sentences.

"The tribunal was established by the U.N. Security Council in 1993 to go after the alleged architects of the Bosnian war's bloody ``ethnic cleansing'' campaigns, including the former Bosnian Serb president, Radovan Karadzic, and his military chief, Ratko Mladic, who remain at large.

"However, prosecutors indicted the three irregular soldiers to spotlight the widespread use of rape as a weapon throughout the 1992-1995 war.

"Human rights groups have estimated that tens of thousands of people, mainly Muslim woman and girls, were raped in the war. The sexual assaults were designed to intimidate Muslim families into flight and force women to bear Serb babies.

"In their testimony, some witnesses sobbed and others shrieked with rage as they recalled being assaulted by up to 10 soldiers at a time in classrooms of the high school where they were detained, or in soldiers' private apartments -- so-called ``rape camps.''

"The women attested to the long-lasting gynecological damage and other injuries that resulted, in many cases, in permanent infertility.

. . . . " ``I remember he was very forceful. He wanted to hurt me,'' one witness said, referring to Kunarac. ``But he could never hurt me as much as my soul was hurting me.''

".....``I think that for the whole of my life, all my life, I will feel the pain that I felt then,'' said another woman, who was 15 at the time.

"Last July, Bosnian Serb lawyers opened their defense, seeking unsuccessfully to get the torture counts thrown out. They did not deny the occurrence of widespread rapes in Foca, but maintained the women who testified had been willing partners.

"The case has been followed closely by women's rights groups, who contrast the tribunal's progressiveness on sex crimes to other omissions, in particular Japan's reluctance to fully recognize the suffering of the ``comfort women'' who were forced to serve as prostitutes for Japanese soldiers in World War II.

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company

_____

Perhaps, slowly, the world is getting more decent. This behavior should be punished, and acknowledged, more often --- so that ways can be found to make it MUCH less likely.

The hardest thing, to many, is to acknowledge that these rapists were "normal human beings."

But they were.

Initiation of nuclear war must be, realistically considered, the ultimate war crime - the ultimate example of man's irrationality, and inhumanity to man. And man's recklessness.

I have the priviledge of posting a sermon, When the Foundations are Shaking by Dr. James Slatton of the River Road Church (Baptist) in Richmond, Va. - a church I grew up in, a church where my parents have both been deacons, and active in other ways. This church is much like the one Jimmy Carter goes to, theologically, though it is much richer, and more republican, and perhaps basically more conservative. River Road Church has resigned from the Southern Baptist Convention, for various reasons, but is well within the conservative Protestant tradition. I have deep intellectual, moral, and personal respect for the people at River Road Church.

I believe that most people of good will, including exalted ones, could benefit from the 21 minutes this sermon takes.

WHEN THE FOUNDATIONS ARE SHAKING ..... by James Slatton . . . . available in RealMedia, Quicktime, and Windows Media7 formats http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/sermon.html

I think any military leader, or political leader, who ever attends any kind of religious service, anywhere in the world, could relate to this work.

I think any member of the clergy, of any faith or creed, anywhere in the world, could relate to this work. I wish religious people in a position of leadership WOULD listen to it.

People of a more secular view might want to skip ahead to 9:27 in the sermon . Thereafter, it is a tribute to a Russian colonel, who kept nuclear war from destroying us all, during the Reagan administration. And a teaching of lessons that most people know, and live well by, that are important to the preservation of our world. I believe that people of enough good will to be human would be interested, and moved, by this part of the sermon, no matter how secular their views.

The world think the Taliban destruction of Afghan people and cultural history is an example of inhumanity to man.

The issue re Isalm : mohamed couldn't write .. so the books were put together after him, and don't contain, necessarily issues being touted by Talibanimals.

Taking from any book, and then applying to a real situation, requires judgements of context that don't come from the book.

The Taliban are fine examples of human beings, finding excuses for hateful behavior in books that deserve a more respectful, decent reading.

Or a willingness to SEE when things don't fit.

The story of Henry Kissinger, great shaper of american foreign policy, setter of style, hypocrite, and war criminal, has been developing for a long time, with some major contributions from the Guardian-Observer.

Here is a man who has lived in a COMPLICATED world - and often tried to do well. Looking at the stories I see - it isn't easy to even look.

But here is man who had much good, and much bad, in his character. Or so we must assume - the notion of Kissinger as monster doesn't fit all we know.

He seems to have acted naturally, by the standards of this thread, for good and ill. And so, too, did many around him.

Looking at the world, there are so many cases of "unthinkable" and "unexplainable" evil and negligence, that the mind and heart recoils. People recall such behavior among the Nazis, and recoil, as well they might. How could "civilized, aesthetically sensitive, cultured people" ALSO act so monstrously, and with such clear and sophisticated murderous intent.

I think it is probable that, in the United States, many respected men have been willing to risk the destruction of the world, and have acted in ways that have killed many innocents. They have done so in order to make money illicitly, and to cover that up.

I haven't proved it -- but it seems consistent with the facts, and with the facts of human behavior discussed in this thread.

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/1005 ends: "A strong circumstantial case for massive fraud and deception, involving massive violation of trust and law, is constructable now."

"It is possible to show, now, beyond reasonable question, that the means for this have been in place, and that, unless you happen to defer to the ethical purity of the people involved, massive fraud, including very large conflicts of personal interest close to the current administration, are consistent with the facts."

Concerns about Missile Defense, and nuclear disarmament, are crucial here. With Dawn Riley, I've done very extensive work on this, in many TALK threads, and in a NYT Science forum thread - Missile Defense . . . . . . . . set out in #153-162, Psychwar, Casablanca, and terror , with many hotkeys to that NYT thread.

A basic point is that classified military expenditures are NOT REALLY SUBJECT TO CLEAR ACCOUNTING --- and so are subject to the possibility of MASSIVE fraud. ---- enough, over 50 years, to subvert the whole economy.

. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/1011 " Now, we all know the standard usages of "front operations. . . . If one assumes those usages, what might be done with an enterprise such as the Carlyle Group , or a number of similar investment businesses?

"one could do a great deal. . . How much would a substantial change in military policy change the current market value of Carlyles equity (currently about 3.5 billion.) ? . . . . Relatively minor changes might cut that equity by 2/3 or more. . . .. James Baker's share of that equity may be of the order of 180 million dollars. The share of the current presidents father is likely to be substantial, as well.

"These influential people have very direct, and very specific monetary interests in military policy. They may have other interests and liabilities at stake, as well. . . . . Their interests are broad, and many --

H"ow fast, within such a structure, would it be possible to convey information untraceably, or move money nobody knew they had?

"How fast could you motivate a change in oil supply or price? How untraceably? How easily?

"How fast could you buy a baseball team? How untraceably? How easily?

Fast..... Untraceably. .......Easily.

This isn't proof -- it is leads -- with motive, means, and opportunity. A lot of "coincidences" could be explained.

Especially in the last two days,there are discussions with "almarst2001 --- who I believe to be an influential Russian, possibly Vladimir Putin.

Highlights: 925: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/1010 "China and Russia are afraid that the US is preparing a first strike, or preparing to to invade them -- because they can imagine no other explanation for what is being done.

"And so they assume the worst.

"They ought to imagine another explanation. A combination of a snafu, a "good" policy that involved so many lies that no one knew how to turn it off, and a fraud.

"From the point of view of Russia, China, and many other countries -- how comforting that thought should be !

"I'll be posting soon with more details -- enough to assist in the imagination -- an attempt at disciplined beauty to replace "explanations" that are so ugly and disproportionate that they don't seem to make sense to anyone.

_*_*_**_*_

953: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/1038

956: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/1041 "It seems that nobody has anwers to our most basic questions about nuclear weapons, then the world needs them. . . . Answers can be gotten by press people -- more might be accomplished Goals:

"Establishing FACTS beyond reasonable doubt - and explaining these facts very broadly.

and

"Crafting a fully workable, fully complete, fully explained "draft treaty proposal" for nuclear disarmament and a more militarily stable world. Such drafting would, at the least, make for stunningly good journalism -- that could be widely syndicated among papers. Useful as that would be, I think the drafting would serve a much more useful purpose. That purpose would be actually getting the points that need to be worked out for nuclear disarmament set out coherently - - to a level where closure actually occurs. That would involve a great deal of staff work done coherently, quickly, and in coordinated fashion.

"work . . . . done IN PUBLIC --- say if some Moscow Times staff, and people from a couple of US papers, some Guardian staff, and people from some interested governments, started an OPEN dialog together.

closing last night: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/1052

"Historically, presidents left a power vacuum in American nuclear policy, and people like LeMay and his proteges, and people in the CIA, and some contractors, filled it. And now, that conspiracy, long past any legitimate usefulness, and long since financially corrupt, is menacing the peace of the whole world, and imposing huge costs on innocent people.

Rsoh

To get back to your original issue posting, I feel it to be a spiritual truth that those who strive towards their full potential as human beings can develop rich spiritual lives, and their potential as agents of positive change multiplies.

But...

They also become more vulnerable to our darkest impulses, spiritual negation, evil, call it what you will.

In opening their hearts to the light, in creeps a bit more of the shadow.

As CS Lewis would say, the enemy steps up his attack.

Hence the disintegration and ruin of brilliant minds, and cultured, civilzed, aesthetic groups becoming barbaric.

Yes, and when it happens, one needs to take care, to reverse the bad decisions, cleanse what one can, and establish conventions (which have to be based on facts not fictions to be safe) that let the good things in humanity function, with reasonable limits on the bad.

In nuclear policy, it is as if the United States has made a sign change error, and joined "the Dark side." The United States is, in many, many other ways, better than that.

Still, the mistake, and the fraud, may destroy us all. It could easily do so.

Man's inhumanity, very often, is made possible by denial.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/ Australian Broadcast Corporation The World Today - Thursday 15 March 2001 Pakistan's women forced to sell sex to survive

[audio] There are many troubling problems facing Pakistan. Many of them to do with the position that women find themselves in. And not all of them so easy to talk about.

The full transcript includes this:

The United Nations survey of the country's notorious north-west province paints an horrific picture of widespread child abuse.

From "H-NET List on the History of Science, Medicine, and Technology" <H-SCI-MED-TECH@H-NET.MSU.EDU>

REPLY: Spurling on Nikolic-Ristanovic, _Women, Violence, and , War_

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 16:09:13 +0200 From: Stowell Kessler <kessler@rtz.dorea.co.za>

Dear Colleagues: It is, of course, questionable that such terrible atrocities against women and also men in war can be written about so soon after the events described in an objective way. But even so there is something to be said for doing it. If such quasi-emotional writings do anything they alert the other corners of the world to the ravages of war.

Because my own work is pressing I only wish to comment on one statement regarding rape in warfare.To say that the same motivations generate rape outside of the conditions of war is blatantly in error. War-vain glorious war gives silent approval to every sin on the face of the earth. It justifies acts against the "enemy" that are precisely anti-thetical to what is accepted inside the society. Homosexual rape in prisons is made more prevalent by placing men in a situation where normal sexually activity is precluded. War also does that. No doubt some men hear war giving them permission for this terrible act of hatred toward women. And I do not doubt that at least some have a propensity to rape outside the war zone. However the conditions of war like the prison create some very different kinds of pressures. I have served in a war and I have also counseled rape victims and abuse victims. In the Korean War I never experienced a situation in which rape was taking place. I think that the nature of the Yugoslavia situation were and are quite different. In my work I bend over backwards not to engage in oversimplification. Writing about the concentration camps in the South African War I often comment to the media and other interested persons that in the case of atrocities it is sufficient to narrate what happened. The reader can see the horrible nature of warfare and the atrocities of war.

If our purpose is to relate the history and also to interpret it, and interpret we must, we must be restrained and very ethical in our statements. And we must not make statements like this unless they are well documented in a non-selective research model. Otherwise the ho rrors we describe will be lost in a sea of our own lack of credibility. The truth is bad enough and in some respects we must allow the truth hold center stage.

Stowell Kessler (male)

The terrible things we do when we abdicate responsiblity for own actions to others. I dont know if its natural or not ...... I dont want to think it is. If love of self was acceptable in society then we wouldnt do these to ourselves would we? In many cultures (I dont know if it applies to all) to be 'yourself' has been/is unacceptable. I suppose we are all always want to put our interpretations of truth onto everyone else ............

rhs if you do know something we dont know if there is a conspiracy .... would I be surprised ...no....... would the knowledge of it make me feel impotent ... yes ... what a tangled web we weave..

We need to untangle many of the webs - and we can.

But there are patterns, so common that, in a sense, we don't notice them, that make thing very, very hard.

I can only take action, when there is SOME chance of success. I take risks, and serious ones, but I'm not suicidal.

You'd think, from where I am, that it would be EASY to move things forward. But in some very imporant ways, I'm facing "Chain Breakers" -- and very big ones. I need help, and in a sense, the help I need looks easy -- but it is harder to get than it looks -- much, much harder to get.

Do you know how few people, in the last year, have been willing to talk to me face to face? Or to use their real names? I need help. I'm trying to think out how to get it.

It would seem simple. Once, it hasn't been so long ago, I thought it made sense to talk to a major newspaper. I went to their office -- used a name that should have worked, -- some conversation ensued -- and I was thrown out -- to come back at a later time. When I did so, I was greeted by the Press Secretary of the woman who was then Secretary of State of the United States of America. I had come, in the hope of smoothing out the entry, with some flowers, as a gesture of thanks at a time when I felt a certain insecurity -- this government official, and the news people around him, were so threatened by the unexpected presence of these flowers that I was escorted to the door -- in something that looked for all the world like a mix of panic and aversion -- thrown out -- and nobody let me tell them anything. They didn't want to know. They were afraid to so much as hear the first word. Their reactions were stark with fear. Not so very long ago.

Such reactions, and themes and variations of them, are a common part of my experience, and they are personally hard to bear, and mean that I live in more danger than one might otherwise expect.

I neeed help, to be able to do things, like talk to people, that ought to be possible. Somehow, much too often, even by people who seem to care for me, I'm treated like a monster.

So much, that looks so possible, is barred for that reason. And the reactions that I get make me hesitate to do what might seem like easy things.

How do I break past the "forum" level of public discourse. It is harder than it looks, because in ways that count, nobody will vouch for me.

A poem on exactly that point, from my personal experience, is in "There's Always Poetry" in Guardian Talk. That poem, and two others of interest, are linked in the NYT Science News Poetry #265 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f1983fb/412

the poem is CHAIN BREAKERS.

For the Secular Redemption that is needed here, I need to get past some chain breakers that might seem, from a distance, unbelievable. These barriers, so far, have also been almost unbelievably severe. I need some help. I'm thinking hard, about how to ask for it, in a way that could actually work, in my world as it is.

I havent read your poems rsh. I admit I dont even really understand the problem.

People wont hear what the dont want to hear. I dont know how desperate this mission of yours is. You cannot take it all on your own shoulders. If your family find it hard to understand I think you're going to find it even harder to get others to take notice.

I suggest you try meditation and allow the inspiration to come to you. If its meant to be its meant to be. If not stop torturing yourself and your family and let it pass. Things have a way of working out.

"rhs if you do know something we dont know if there is a conspiracy ...."

How do I know what you don't know? Anyway, maybe life is looking up.

One thing is clear. Some problems beyond a certain level of complexity take staff work to solve. That's just how it is.

That is especially true, for situations where the pattern by which things are hidden is "hiding in plain sight under very complicated circumstances."

Ask the questions:

"Who benefits?"

It doesn't seem to me that there is any terrible hurry. Before "things have a way of working out" the people who "work them out" have to assimilate, and integrate what they know, and react.

exactly I just get so fed up with everything being a conspiracy and nothing being down to plain incompetence.

somebody somewhere I am sure is pulling together all the purported conspiracies and putting them into an even more convoluted conspiracy which they will publish as a bestseller at some point....just give it a sexy enough title

and I dont see what proper and improper have to do with it. Proper and improper from what or who's perspective??

People who share a paradigm, a way of thinking, can LOOK LIKE an illicit conspiracy (maybe it is helpful to think of people who share a paradigm as being part of a "licit" conspiracy.)

So there's always a "null hypothesis" associated with a conspiracy theory.

But when the issue is GROSS conflict of interest -- where people know that there are strong money reasons for distorting thought and decision --- the question of conspiracy, though it can be very impotant, isn't essential.

It may also be true that redemptive solutions may occur where people are allowed to "cover their tracks" when the evil that the conspiracy did is stopped, especially with adjustments that get the important things done.

I'll be thinking about "uncovering conspiracy" -- though, for me, by far the more important thing is getting the nukes under control -- and ideally effectively outlawed, in a workable way.

Ruth, wrote my last without seeing yours. Let me respond.

..." I just get so fed up with everything being a conspiracy and nothing being down to plain incompetence."

For example, if a significant number of very close associates of the President of the United States have financial stakes, in the tens of millions each, that hinge on the support of specific military expenditures that is, by very broadly shared standards, an improper circumstance.

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f1983fb/409

A lot can be done, pretty safely, in clear in this situation, because so much is "hiding in plain sight" -- and on the public record.

But it is also true that very much of it is BUILT so that it does not comfortably fit newspaper usages -- so you have to give the matter some thought.

Thing DO have a way of working out.

:) ok rsh

Of course I wont disagree that it is improper for the president to be influenced by his friends on matters of state but doesnt the american process have a system for critqueing military expenditure ........

The electoral system itself is so expensive only rich people with rich backers can become president anyway. And who are some of the wealthiest people in the world... people connected with the arms industry.

The nuclear issue has become so complex now that I wonder if anyone can actually control the outcome. You may know something different but I believe its out of the US control now. The US has had its chances to exert influence on the control of nuclear power and stopped short at every instance because of the influence of money usually for short term gain.

No one is given the medium term never mind the long term to sort out problems every thing has to be done now immediately or its not good enough. The people influencing nuclear proliferation at the moment have longer time horizons and know how to wait. Americans need to stop and think but I dont know if they're capable of doing that. The culture is so tied up with material wealth. The links to other longer traditions have been cut. I wonder if societies with longer traditions actually see that. They maybe think a Chinese American is at a heart Chinese or an Anglo American is at heart English but of course they are at heart American and inheritors of a different tradition.

:) by the way the more I think about natural good and evil if you accept those concepts the more I think its nothing to do with being natural more to do with failure to understand cultural differences. The Nazi rise made sense in the context of events leading up to it in the early 1900s. It was the failure of other European governments to see that rise in the context of German culture that allowed Hitler to act out his inhuman policies.

:)

Yes that's a point .. only the RICH can stand for president ... and to become rich might involve some sort of corruption or compromise back when.

We need more openness. Campaign finance reform, which is making headway in the US, would help.

even if there was a more open political system in the states do you think the size of the country and the diversity of populations could produce anymore choice than exists at present? I get the impression that the States is quite happy to allow the rich to inherit the earth because thats why most of their forefathers or even their current fathers and mothers went there. The freedom thing is a useful veneer to cover that basic commonality of purpose.

The 'evil' acts that pervade the world in the name of politics or religion are relative to the doers and recipients at the end of the day. We can look on in horror at the tit for tat evils in the Middle East or the absurdities in Afghanistan and use those examples to support a view of natural evil but I look at the vast majority of people in this world and see them trying to live thier lives and keep thier families alive. Most of those people are basically good people but their lives are never reported unless they're blown up by accident or used for propaganda by some regime or other. The majority of these people dont support the loonies in their midst or if they do its part of their culture and so from thier point of view evil is not involved.

Whats my point .... same as my last posting I suppose ... until as groups we are prepared to allow another group with different beliefs/cultures to coexist the acts usually carried out in the name of truth will continue... maybe as individuals we can be naturally good but as a group the sum of that good is evil. I know ....I'm probably spouting rubbish here ... just thinking aloud ! And I know I've spelt their incorrectly several times (talk about what really matters !! spelling wheres the thread for demanding spell check on the message board!!)

S I L E N C E

is a weapon of inhumanity ... silence is keeping people 'in the dark' ... having secrets, locking people out, keeping secrets secret.

Silence can be a weapon against other 'people' .. who may be taxpayers and voters --- and should have 'rights'

A doco on the German invasion of Paris WWII showed examples of inhumanity to man - torture. People died rather than implicate others.

The torture part of the plan to re-locate the resources of France (including labour) towards fueling the German war machine.

Memory of better times, own culture, need for future generations to have a better future, revenge for enemy crimes etc would be motivators to overthrow an enemy driven by a 'madman'.

Since the time of Confucious, in 550 BC, the idea of "the Golden Rule" has been enunciated --- and it may be as old as mankind itself, in one form or another. And yet, the Golden Rule has often failed. An essential reason, Dawn Riley and I believe, is that inhumanity to "outsiders" is natural, too.

And people are more fragile than is sometimes thought. The Nazis did degrade and exploit the Kapos as they did in the death camps. And they were able to do so. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/2410

. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.ee9baab/2705

There's tangible progress in the mutual practice of "the golden rule" between the US, Russia, and other countries

U.S.-Russia Relationship Warms Up a Bit by Jane Perlez http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/13/world/13DIPL.html

will follow up

Here is a partial follow up.

I've commented on recent news on the Osprey program in the NYT Missile Defense Tread -- and the first of my postings was accepted, http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/2576 while the following was not:

"I think the case, including Mr Augustine's involvement in it, connect well to concerns about deception, and imbalances of evidence presented and considered, with respect to some government matters, notably Missile Defense.

The Osprey issue hinges in large measure on an issue of vortex ring state , as Dao's piece makes clear. With Steve Kline, I've done a great deal of work on the engineering of vortex flow fields, particulary for mixing, and have several patents on the subject, and much successful technical experience.

The technical area involved does not lend itself, nor is it likely to lend itself in the near future, to adequate computational study for Osprey's purpose.

Nor is it clear now that ANY experimental fluid mechanical investigation can assure that Osprey passangers will be safe for vortex ring state caused fatalities.

The reasons were partialy reviewed in a recommendation letter Steve Kline wrote about me http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/klinerec and a visual sense of the difficulties in dealing with the matter experimentally can be gotten in reference to Van Dyke's An Album of Fluid Motion , referred to also in that letter.

Can the military-industrial complex evade clear answers, and, in practical effect, lie to the American people? I believe that this affair shows, rather clearly, that it can do so, and shows the essential means.

Casts of characters are chosen.

Someone of "total authority and integrity" lies, or evades in a way that has the effect of a lie, and does so in public.

And he is trusted.

It seems to me that this case illustrates, rather clearly in some ways, some techniquest that can be used for diversion and deception. Used to defend against inquiry. Used to set the stage for predatory behavior, or the taking of money under false pretenses. Used to cause mechanisms trusted to make sound balanced judgements "judge the worse to be the better cause."

rshowalter,

I think that most people have some "inherent good" in them. Yet, there are some "natural psychopaths" who are going to do terrible bad without remorse due to a terribly messed-up brain. At the same time, there are people such as the notorious Nazi doctor Josef Mengele who have what I would call "psychopathic leanings" who, given the right (wrong?) environment, are willing to commit atrocious acts. This leads to the Nazi atrocities as a whole. How could something like the Holocaust happen? It is true that in ancient and medieval societies, a lot of killing and torture wasn't exactly unknown. However, the people being oppressed or attacked generally often made good serfs or slaves. And, just as the germ theory of disease was unknown during those times, people didn't know about causes of heredity or worry about it excessively (except in crude agricultural experiments). I feel it really took the modern nation-state, subject to modern economic crises, coupled with pathological views of racial superiority and modern technology, to make something like the Holocaust possible. Modern mass communications (radio and newspapers) and modern education really helped in this regard, too, especially when they were tightly controlled by the state. Put all this in a blender, along with a "starter agent" of a minority of fanatical Nazis in the 1920s, and a populace that was largely willing to "give their program a try" in the 1930s, and you could have a Holocaust. (Anger at defeat in WWI and required reparations from it probably also helped the Nazis gain power.) Indeed, it took something wrong in Germans' thinking in the early 20th century to get the disease to germinate, but to really get it to blossom, the modern nation-state, technology, modern communication and education, and warped racial theories and rabid anger were needed, the latter also serving as a convenient scapegoat for Germany's problems as well. BTW, I'm not a Luddite; modern technology, education, medicine, etc. have brought many people wonderful things that have greatly enhanced the quality of their lives. I'm just trying to explain how these ingredients, when combined with a very sour economy and pathological thinking, could create a Holocaust. A Holocaust is the most horrible thing that an industrial revolution could produce; we found out in the late 1930s and especially in the early 1940s that indeed, it could be produced. And, it took a "modern, cultured" country with the technological know-how to carry it out. (Also, BTW, I don't hate modern Germany if anybody has drawn this conclusion.)

Catdude -- the point of this thread, especially the first part of it, is that people are BOTH good (to members of their own group) and EVIL (to outsiders percieved in some way as threatening.)

In the Nazi case the homogeneity of the response of a whole nation makes it hard for me to excuse the majority of Germans -- though it was a particularly evil and monstrous groupd of bad actors who converted a whole nation to the predator band that Nazi Germany was.

The apparatus of nuclear war is more terrible than anything the Germans contemplated -- and so I can't give a pass to the "benevolent" americans, either.

Even Hitler did SOME good things, and was gracious and attractive SOME of the time. So your point that

"most people have some "inherent good" in them"

rshowalter,

First of all, it takes a sensitive person to start this type of thread. And, it's true that the horrors of something like Nazi Germany and Japanese collaboration were met with the horror of atomic weapons to try to put a quick end to the war.

I know you may not agree here, but given the ruthlessness of the Axis, I feel that those bombs were less evil than, say, Nazis at Auschwitz dumping truckloads of children into a fire to quickly exterminate them because the gas chambers and crematoria were becoming overloaded.

If there is a God, I think it wants people to be happy, not miserable, despite the existence of misery in the world. I don't think we need to feel "guilty" about trying to find happiness, despite all this misery. However, in a small way, there are things that we can do to try to make the world a better place and ameliorate torture and suffering. For example, through my membership in Amnesty International, I feel I have done a small part in trying to stop torture and executions.

Maybe the day will come when we have such a good understanding of the human genome and environmental influence that we can truly "eliminate evil." (How much we should tamper with genes would, of course, open up a can of worms in itself to bioethicists and the public.) However, we can only work with what we have at our disposal at this time, and as I just mentioned, I think that it is morally okay to try to be happy, and that we should try to achieve this.

It can be most difficult for a person as sensitive as you are at first, but talking out the dilemma with others (as you are doing on this board) and helping others where you can will hopefully allow you to find peace.

I'm finding some peace, and some satisfaction -- I've been very concerned about nuclear weapons, all my life, and I've had something of an education in evil.

But it seems to me that things are getting more hopeful, that the number of reasons for ugliness and sufferering are basically few, and that things can be a lot more beautiful.

I've got some hope about finding peace -- real contentment. Some things, it seems to me, are going hopefully.

I believe that, if a relatively few things are understood (including the naturalness of evil - for human "hunting groups" ) we can make the world a happier and more graceful place.

And the last year of my life, since Dawn Riley took me in hand, has been, everything considered, the best and happiest of my life. And I've got a lot of hope that things will get better -- I hope for both of us, and ideally, for both of us, together.

You're sure right that "the pursuit of happiness" is vital. Thanks.

Fact is, I'm getting a big charge out of a lot of things, stress and all, these days.

rshowalter,

Good to hear that last positive note! And BTW, with my own bouts with anxiety and depression, finding happiness has been difficult. However, I have improved considerably over the last two years.

Finding things in life that have meaning to them, which have both a creative ingredient as well as a social ingredient of helping others, has been some of the most powerful medicine available to me.

Someone once described the search for human meaning as trying to visualize a four-dimensional cube. We, being merely human, can only see the outlines of such a cube. These outlines were metaphorically referred to as "meaning lines." The best we mere mortals can do is travel along these meaning lines to find meaning, and ultimately happiness, in our lives.

And the real kicker is...no one can really do it for us. Not even the world's best therapist, although he/she can serve as mentor and guide. We have to take the journey ourselves and explore into the scary environment along those lines to catch that meaning and happiness.

I'll admit that with my anxiety and depression, medicine did help a hell of a lot. I don't feel it changed who I am...it simply transformed me into "the healthy version of myself," which allowed me to find the strength to walk along those meaning lines. If you feel that you are chronically anxious or depressed, you may want to talk about it with a health practitioner, who could probably be of assistance.

I wish you the best journey possible in your quest for meaning and happiness. I know that you can reach it and obtain it, although sometimes it can seem like trying to grab hold of a slippery snake. And, as you are doing, always feel free to talk to others when you need to...it's such a powerful healer. Take care and find peace.

Sounds as if some of you guys have been to Talibhan and back .. one hell of a journey!

In these Guardian Talk threads and in the NYT Missile Defense thread, Dawn Riley and I have worked to focus patterns of human reasoning and persuasion, and problems with human reasoning and persuasion.

These citations deal with that: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/2758 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/2759 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/2760

We believe that controversies that could not be resolved before may be resolvable now.

The techniques we (and so many other people on the net) are using to get things to closure are the same techniques that often work in well conducted jury trials.

Perhaps we're too optimistic, but we feel that, in small part because of our efforts, and in large part due to the wonderful resources of the Guardian Observer that we've been grateful to use, the risk of nuclear destruction may be coming down.

At least sometimes, we get that happy feeling.

American opinion may, alas, probably will, have to lag opinion outside America on issues here. That makes the Guardian Observer, which is respected all over the world, an especially vital force.

The death of about 20 unarmed women and children in Vietnam more than 30 years ago is a clear example of many of the issues in this thread -- including the anguish of people trying to come to terms with what they have done. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f1e4c5b/74

Reader Discussion: 'One Awful Night in Thanh Phong'

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/2838 ends > " If more Americans could rise to (Kerrey's) level of moral sensitivity, current grave risks to the survival of the whole world could be ended."

People and things need to be checked, and some things can be. Sometimes some progress gets made. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/3077

I'm grateful that this thread is being left up - - it makes an argument that I believe may be essential, if we as human animals are to learn to make peace, so that it works.

I'm posting this note in Guardian Threads I'm personally very interested in, as a matter of pride, and to keep them current.

The New York Times - Science - MISSILE DEFENSE thread would total about ten 1 1/2' looseleaf notebooks by now. I summarized it, in a way you might find interesting, and could read quickly, in 3532: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/3791 , which reads in part:

"We've had outstanding contributors -- who have furthered discussion by taking a special "stand-in" role.

I believe that the Guardian-Observer , and The New York Times , using the new possibilities of the internet, are making real world progress possible. Dawn Riley and I are trying to participate in some of that.

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/4045 reads:

I feel that a great deal of progress has been made since gisterme's debut #2997: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/3218

....and my response to gisterme's direct question ... #2999: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/3220 .

Especially since gisterme's 3319 - http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/3563

..to which I responded in .. 3327-3328 : http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/3571 with the citation http://scienceforpeace.sa.utoronto.ca/WorkingGroupsPage/NucWeaponsPage/Documents/ThreatsNucWea.html THREATS TO USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS: The Sixteen Known Nuclear Crises of the Cold War, 1946-1985 by David R. Morgan

We've come long way since - common ground is being established, differences are being clarified, thoughts and ideas are coming into focus.

Dawn Riley and I believe that, especially with the augmented memory of the internet, controversies that could not be resolved before may be resolvable now.

2565: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/2758

2566: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/2759

2567: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/2760

It seems to me that the NYT Missile Defense thread, and the wonderful threads here, contain steps toward showing that.

I've been heartened by how much progress is being made in these thread -- even in the four days, and 235 posting, since #3532 - .

A lot has changed about the prospects for world peace and world nuclear safety in the last 100 days, and not all of it is bad, by any means. If we're more scared than before, and more frustrated, that could be all to the good -- some people are paying attention.

Cited this thread, to "Putin stand in" almarst http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/4058 , who I believe is well connected to the Russian government.

In NYT Missile Defense #3839 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/4115 almarst_2001 , our "Putin-Stand in" asked a key question - and in context, it is an example of good faith, and of difficulties to be faced:

Robert,

A great question, that I'm trying to answer, with people listening.

Many citations from Paradigm Shift .... whose getting there? Guardian Talk , Science, are cited, and are playing a crucial part, in dialog on the NYT Missile Defense thread that appears to be involving representatives of governments.

MD 4048: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/4334

MD4050: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b

I deeply appreciate Guardian Talk -- and anything Dawn and I are lucky enough to accomplish will be, in large part, due to the the wonderful resources and readers here.

Germ warfare is on the Bush agenda http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/20/world/20GERM.html

Last weekend, I went to a small scientific meeting, and discussed both missile defense issues and some personal science. What I displayed is discussed and linked at NYT-Science- Missile Defense MD 4080-4081 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/4366

I was pleased with the meeting. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/4411 Paradigm conflicts are resolving on the scientific side. Some of the social-psychological-institutional conditions for workable discussions on reduction of nuclear risks seem to me to be promising.

Partly because they fit the MD discussions, I've reposted parts of an old thread started by Beckvaa -- "If Jesus Was Alive Today" in Detail and the Golden Rule -- Guardian Talk, Issues , and discuss it a little in MD 4159 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/4456

The start of this tread is an organic part - now at the end, of Detail and The Golden Rule . A poster in the NYT MD thread, who I have reason to think is a thoughtful, well connected Russian, seems to have found the argument good.

I'm hopeful. And also very thankful for the Guardian Talk community.

Mankind's inhumanity to Man and Woman -- in spades.

If the information here were more widely known, and faced, in the USA and the world, much good would follow, and much deception and misfortune avoided.

CIA's Worst-Kept Secret by Martin A. Lee May 16, 2001 http://www.consortiumnews.com/051601a.html

Deception, self deception, group deception, all come easily, and can reinforce and "justify" man's inhumanity to man and woman.

Putting Your Faith in Science? by GINA KOLATA http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/27/weekinreview/27KOLA.html is, I believe, a fine contribution to the culture. What it says reinforces, and reinforces strongly, the arguments Dawn Riley and I have been making, about the need for checking , in Paradigm Shift .... whose getting there? Guardian Talk, Science .

Kolata's piece, which makes essential arguments beautifully, and takes them into the mainstream culture with a grace I could never muster, and from the commanding position of the NYT Week In Review, ought to make a dent in many minds. It ends:

" Dr. McDonald said he wrote a paper 18 years ago that concluded that the placebo effect did not exist. But, he said, the New England Journal of Medicine rejected the manuscript, saying that everyone knew the effect existed. The paper was eventually published, in Statistics in Medicine. But he met with such disbelief that he gave up even talking about his findings.

MD4210: rshowalter "Missile Defense" 5/25/01 6:04pm http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/4510

This inhumanity to man thing is happening again in Macedonia ....

... are packs of men with guns 'just selfish?'

The politics in the US is shifting so that the basic ideas on this thread are becoming more acceptable. If the ideas about "man and outsiders" become more widely accepted, there will be new, practical opportunities for peace. I've been heartened by political happenings this last week.

A big story, with wrenching consequences, and all aspects of mankind's humanity and inhumanity -- wisdom and folly -- the ongoing tragedy and struggle with AIDS.

How much better the world would be, how much less agony there would now be, if lies and self deception about AIDS could have been less, and discipline in the common good could have been greater.

See an admirable NYT Special AIDS at 20 -- http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/aids/aids-index.html

and especially a stunning graphic THE SIZE OF AIDS ON A (NATIONAL AND GLOBAL) SCALE http://www.nytimes.com/images/2001/06/05/science/sci_AIDS_010605_01.pdf

Important to educate and re-educate .... that's the only protection - truth!

Thoughts about getting more good done, and less bad, using internet discourse.

MD4532 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/4839

Knowledge used to double every ten years .. with improved communications systems .. enabling discourse .. wonder how many years to double the volume of knowledge now ... at least some can be cyber-stored, accessed and distributed.

Outlawing use of child soldiers ...

UK USA deploy under 18's

Africa - children made to go back to own villages and kill their families ... so they have no where to run back to; children raped - used as bounty.

Lightweight weapons - enable children to be used!

5 countries have signed international treaty re child soldiers -- including the Congo.

I'm about to cite #163, this thread, on the NYT Missile Defense board, where, it seems to me, some folks may be paying attention.

Some folks continue to pay attention.

Since Missile Defense 4433 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/4839 there have been 906 postings.

The NYT forums have now reinstalled a search function, after a long time -- and it seems to be the same one the Guardian uses, with search page lengths the same as in these TALK threads.

The NYT Missile Defense thread is being extensively used, and discussion and controversy are continuing. Main contributers are:

almarst_2001, previously almarstel2001 who, since March 5 has acted as a "Putin stand-in" in the Missile Defense forum, and shows extensive connections to literature, and to Russian government ways of thought.

gisterme , who since May 2nd has acted as a "Senior Bush administration advisor stand in" who shows some plausible connections to the Bush administration.

Posters ( beckq , cookies ) who, according to the dialog, are the same poster, who I'd interpret as "stand-ins" for former President Clinton since August 2000

Me, and Dawn Riley, who have been arguing for improved communication, and as much nuclear disarmament as possible within the imperatives of military balances, since September 25, 2000

Counting search pages, for characters, gives some sense of the participation. Here are the number of search pages for these posters:

Putin stand-in, Almarst --- 55 search pages.

Bush Advisor stand-in, gisterme ----- 35 search pages

Clinton stand-in, beckq, or cookies2 ----- 7 search pages

Dawn Riley - - - - 85 search pages

Robert Showalter - - - - 166 search pages.

I've contributed the most words to the MD thread, and Dawn the most citations and the most connection to the news.

But the involvement of the "stand-ins" has been very extensive, too, represents an enormous work committment on thier part, and their postings are, I think, very impressive. The involvement of these "stand-ins" continues. I believe that their work has assisted in the focusing of problems where neither the US nor the Russians were clear about how to make contact with each other before.

The thread is an ongoing attempt to show that internet usages can be a format for negotiation and communication, between staffed organizations, capable of handling more complexity, with more clarity and more complete memory, than could happen otherwise.

I believe that is something relatively new, in need of development, and clearly needed.

I feel that progress is being made, and that impasses that were intractable before may be more tractable now.

These Guardian threads are more flexible than the NYT threads, and stylistically freer. Many of the ideas at play in the MD thread originated and were focused here, and these TALK threads are extensively cited in the Missile Defense thread. For discussing an idea, over under around and through, these TALK threads are the most impressive place for discourse that I have ever seen, and I appreciate them very much.

Work on the New York Times ... Science ... Missile Defense thread continues.

MD5913 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/6329 includes this:

" If one looks at the history of the Cold War, I believe that this issue of auditing becomes a central one -- some VERY agressive patterns, VERY different from the patterns of personal kindness and tolerance widely distributed among Americans, have been VERY well funded, and well protected, and surprisingly unquestioned, since the 1950's.

If one wants to see the enormous usefulness of the Guardian TALK section for the NYT Missile Defense thread, go to the thread, and search "guardian" -- there are 14 search page (the same size as TALK search pages) of citations - and I'm personally grateful to be able to make those citations.

There have been 461 postings since MD5917 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/6333 , some that seem important to me.

MD6370 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/6843

MD6371 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?7@@.f0ce57b/6853

tell a story, from my own perspective, about the Cold War, and plans to end it with which I became involved.

The connections to mankind's inhumanity to man seem direct to me.

I was glad, on July 4th, our Independence Day , to have a chance to post some of the things I feel are important for the welfare of the US, UK, and the world, in these postings, many of which include other links:

MD6549 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/7056

MD5450 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/7057

MD6551 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/7058

MD6552 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/7059

MD6553 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/7060

MD6554 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/7061

MD6555 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/7062

MD6556 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/7063

Some who've followed my work may find the background interesting.

I'm posting them here, because I hope some may find them interesting, and because I feel that the more people read them, and the more widely this information is spread, the safer the world may be, and the safer I may be personally.

Progress is continuing on the NYT Missile Defense board, and I've got hopes that, with the help of Dawn Riley, and some others, we may make a positive difference for peace.

We need to reduce mankind's inhumanity to man.

Rshowalter

Don't see you over here on the Talk much, too bad, miss your insights.

Thanks, hayate0.

Since July 4th, The New York Times -- Science -- Missile Defense forum has had 611 postings - many extensive. These include useful comments from almarst , our "Putin stand in", and gisterme , our "Bush administration high official stand-in."

Has the thread been influential? Worth the trouble? As successful as I'd hoped?

Perhaps yes, on all these points, though the work seems inconclusive in some ways. In the end, I'm hoping to set out many arguments, like a case to a jury, subject to crossexamination, and then "pick a fight" - in some way that can work in public -- to establish truths that remain, so far "somehow too weak." The case is far along. On the MD thread, and many other places. Getting to a place where a fight in public is possible is not far along -- though progress toward that goal may not be so far away.

MD7097 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/7767 .. includes high praise for the Guardian-Observer , and especially its interactive specials, including

Does Starwars work? http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/bush/flash/0,7365,434805,00.html

I deeply appreciate the fact that these talk boards are here -- and am grateful for the existence of the Guardian - Observer

Your welcome

There have been 262 postings on The New York Times -- Science -- Missile Defense thread since July 18th, and I believe that things have gone well - and hopefully.

Dawn and I have worked hard.

Postings that may interest some of you start with this:

" I've often thought, writing on these forums, about whether I've been keeping faith with Bill Casey -- doing things that, on balance, he would have thought reasonable, and right . . .

At every moment, each person choses who they are going to become, and every choice is a step away from ones animal existence and heritage.

What does one choose? How does it augment or diminish creation?

Nature may be 'red in tooth and claw', but personhood is not.

Persons are halfway between the Animals and the Angels according to Aquinas - every person has to choose to which they aspire:

Is one going to be merely human 'being' (human existing) or aspire to the realms of personhood (human living)?

One knows only that the first path is easier...

P.

But the second more hopeful.

Man's inhumanity to man might be less if we became more clear about some problems on display in the US concerning the US military-industrial complex. I'm asking for some advice.

I know that I've posted a lot here, but I'd like to ask some help from any Talk folks who might be interested. I've felt, for a long time, that it should be possible to check the crucial technical issues involved with the US Missile Defense programs, in public, on the basis of what's known in the open literature. And, by doing so, show that, whatever one may think of them as strategic programs, they are also deeply flawed technically.

I've been under some pressure about that, but have also gotten a good deal of attention - perhaps including some attention from people associated with governments. Perhaps some of you may be interested in some aspects of that, as background, set out in the following links.

MD6808 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/7376

mrshowalter@thedawn.com

With more insights like those set out by Rumsfeld here, man's inhumanity might get perceptively less, and we might become both safer and richer.

U.S., Russian Defense Officials Meet By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/news/AP-US-Russia.html includes this from U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. and Russian defense officials are meeting behind closed doors at the Pentagon to explore the prospects for an agreement on building missile defenses and cutting nuclear forces.

. . . . . "

" Rumsfeld said there are psychological barriers to creating a new security relationship with Russia.

"``There is an awful lot of baggage left over in the relationship, the old relationship, the Cold War relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union,'' he said.

" ``It is baggage that exists in people's minds, it exists in treaties, it exists in the structure of relationships, the degree of formality of them,'' he added. ``And it will require, I think, some time to work through these things and see if we can't set the relationship on a different basis.''

One doesn't have to approve of everything Rumsfeld has done, or even much of it, to be glad that, as a leader and working politician, he said these words. It means that many people, including military people, have these words in mind. Perhaps some things can get better.

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/8686

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/8687

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/8688

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/8689

Perhaps we'll even come to some technical clarity -- something I hope for. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/8694

To really end the Cold War, the United States would have to work itself through some fictions, and Russia would have to do so as well. That may take a while, as Secretary Rumsfeld suggests

But perhaps some limited progress is being made, and more can be made, as more and more people draw reasonable conclusions from facts.

Many of those facts well reported in the Guardian Observer.

And just for beauty, and appreciation of good things, some nice sites found by Dawn Riley: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/8644

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/roguestate/default.htm http://www.cpeo.org/lists/military/1995/msg00099.html Plutonium: USA : http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/11/national/11PLUT.html

If people understood how human beings normally treat "others" -- we'd all be safer.

Facts are essential to right action. Toward that end, I've made a proposal, that might work.

MD7935 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/8873

MD7936 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/8874

The proposal, for checking of key technical points by professional engineers, with writers of PE exams serving as umpires, would involve some action by people with some power and independence. I've had contacts with such people that may be promising. On matters central to world peace, and balances, there should be "islands of fact" that all concerned are morally and socially bound to respect. Hard to get, but perhaps not impossible.

MD7940 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/8880

MD7944 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/8884

Some things about military balances and security procedures in general could use some review.

MD7950-7951 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/8891

http://www.guardian.co.uk/globalwarming/story/0,7369,539945,00.html Subsidy - can hide real costs - affecting decision making.

If the basic insight of this thread -- that "nice people" can naturally act like monsters to "outsiders" were more widely understood, the world would be a more hopeful place than it is.

A nice quote from Envisioning Information by Eward Tuftie and some illustration and explanation jobs I'm hoping to help get done.

MD 8211 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/9196

It seems to me that the world is polarizing. That makes this a dangerous time. But a hopeful one, as well.

Some progress, and hard work, on the MD thread. The key insight of this thread, if it were widely understood, would do great good.

Here is some great coverage: The Fortunes of Russia and China, as Told Through the Pages of The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20010902mag-china-russia.html

The New York Times is a major source of information about missile defense. Discussion of that corpus, and the complexity, richness, and challenge of it, and link to many articles on missile defense that have been discussed on this thread. Listings of missile defense articles in the NYT, with working no-charge links MD8309 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/9296 MD8310 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/9297

Colin Powell, and his TIME magazine cover story MD8392 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/9389

Some history, going back almost a year now, that may interest some who have been following the MD thread, and wondered about barriers to news coverage in the United States. It includes events set out in Mankind's Inhumanity to Man and Woman - As natural as human goodness? #163 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?13@@.ee7b085/193 . MD8393-8395 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/9391

We shouldn't miss what even a monkey could see: MD8289 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/9276

On issues of military and nuclear balances, "no solution as stated:" ... We need a reframing: MD8300-3 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/9287

Perhaps it is important that the "word" of the United States, and of US military officers, comes to be discounted -- and senses of obligation to the United States, among, allies, come to be diluted with mistrust. . . . the rest of the world has to stop deferring to the US, or being intimidated in every way by the US, and handle their own responsibilities themselves. MD8317-8318 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/9304

Perhaps, along with all the things there are to fear, there are reasons for hope. If some "islands of technical fact" could be established, I believe that things might go a great deal better. MD8343 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/9330

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?224@@c04b@.ee7b085/259 I notice you do that on many threads you post on. I find it overloading and read none of it. Maybe one URL at a time with your comments will help me see what you want to say in this case. Thank you and sorry for any hurt I may cause.

Thank you for your comment.

One thing I'm trying to do is build an "associative case" -- where a number of things, over a period of time, fit together in a checkable, coherent whole. Sometimes a ref, cited much later, in a different and richer context, gains force.

All the same, I'm sorry for the overkill.

Since September 4th there have been 400+ postings on the MD thread.

A few may interest some people here. I'm grateful for the chance to post links here, for the record.

Postings dealing with the current tragedy in New York and Washington, and its relations to larger risks, involve postings Dawn Riley and I have done on these wonderful Guardian Talk threads: MD8827 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/9894

Points were raised by gisterme , the MD board's "Bush administration stand in" that led me to repost Detail and the Golden Rule here: MD8737 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/9788 MD8743 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/9796

I made the point that American institutional and intellectual traditions, shaped by the Cold War, may be standing in the way of safety now, in

MD8698 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/9742 .

The problems considered on this thread are central to world survival now.

The Big Terrible by THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/18/opinion/18FRIE.html

MD9374 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/10511

To cooperate, we must act on the basis of ideals that work for our friends, and that can convert many people, against us now, to our side. To do that, we have to be the good guys.

As a species, we are beautiful, but ugly, too.

MD9388 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/10528 .

chef16 - 06:07pm Sep 25, 2001 BST (#23 of 80) | Delete mattdiamond - Here in Britain we have a collection of newspapers, regardless of their quality, most follow, or support, either of the main political parties (they have been known to change allegiance when their particular party as no possible chance.eg when labour took control from tories in 97 or whatever). In doing so they quite often paint a false picture just to further the agenda of the particular party they are supporting, this happens. Why is it therefore not possible for a media that is on the whole totally controlled by Jews to paint a picture to favour Israel? I am talking about the main media here, as I know there are some Jewish agencies that try to get at the truth. It seems even stranger to me that as soon as you mention any thing critical about Israel or mention that Israel has a hell of allot to gain by what happened in US (not least to mention the death of allot of Muslims) that they all come out with the vitroil, ignoring the truth and searching little discrepancies to which have no relevance to the big picture. Is it really so wrong of me to ask such a question? If you can answer that without the personal abuse I'd be willing to listen. AND SO TO Muzeo - 02:55pm Sep 25, 2001 BST (#16 of 17) < I would like to know if serious debate on the subject is possible? > As soon as serious debate is in sight you may be sure that we will respond. I'm still waiting for something other than cobbled together quotes from very old / obsolete articles, spurious arguments, racist slanders, etc etc. I noticed there muzeo, you may want to read yourself even, begins to chuckle, that you're not interested in old stories, even when they come from nahem Begin, David Ben-Gurion, Moshe Dayan, Chaim Weizmann. Anyway they are not really that old, are they? Do you hold even older stories in the same regard? Because if you don't where does the justificacation of the Zionist dream come from? So I'll say it again again..................................................I read on a thread, by someone else, that to be anti Zionist was to be anti Jew. Which I thought was a bit much because I know allot of Jews who don't support Zionism. But I started to think what if it is true; the media, which is mainly controlled by Jews, does not represent a true picture of what is happening. Politicians seem not to address the problem fully and I wondered if maybe it was worth some discussion. That is all, this is a very confusing time for all of us we do not know who was behind the attacks on US yet some people don't seem to worry about that as long as someone else gets out there and bombs them. We know why the problems in Palestine exist and yet no body with the ability to do so is speaking about them. The problem in Palestine could be resolved. It will be hard for Israel to accept (but possibly not for all Jews) but it has to be done or this apocalyptical spiral we are on is going to lead to something far worse.

chef16 - 06:29pm Sep 25, 2001 BST (#24 of 80) | Delete Azor When things look confusing he does help a bit. The problem with students is they think they are clever, and so they should, society tells them they are. Most know allot about a little. They have to study take exams find people to have sex with ect.........They think they are intelligent, one only has to spend time with them and that myth can soon be disproved. They are lucky; they have a potentially bright future (or so we are led to believe). They leave education; some of them go on to good jobs like a politician for example. Some may work in the media even. All the time knowing how clever they are. But seeing as the world is in the verge of a catastrophe, was the education really worth the tax payers money? Don't try and knock me for what I read it's quite pathetic of you

If the key lesson of this thread were learned, the world would be much safer.

There have been 430 postings on the NYT Missile Defense Board since I last posted here, and since this posting, which cites a number of warning references posted on the Guardian: MD9421 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/10566

Dawn Riley and I have done most of them, but there have been many interesting ones from almarst and gisterme , people we have reason to think are associated with the Russian and US governments.

In MD9757 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/11037 I made the hopeful point that

in very complex systems, patterns of solutions that exist and seem at all satisfactory, within a system of constraints, are likely to be few or unique. And often easy for people to think about and focus on in ways where they all agree.

I believe that, terribly unfortunate as the WTC and Pentagon tragedy-crimes were, they have given political actors a sense of urgency and reality that may be very useful. My own view is that with more discussion, and checking of key facts, some of the ugliest and most dangerous messes in the world could be handled much better.

The world is interconnected, and one issue recurs with monotonous, but deadly serious regularity.

It is that sequences where lies are involved are likely to go wrong in ugly, expensive, unjust, unpredictable ways.

MD9808 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/11103

MD9809 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/11104

MD9810 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/11105

This isn't much reading, and perhaps some who looked at these pieces would find them boring. But perhaps some might be interested. I'm posting them on the off-chance that some people of responsibility, directly or indirectly, might find them interesting.

The NYT Missile Defense board is going on, at high intensity, and I've had reason to think it may be being influential. And perhaps constructive.

Some of the dialog , which I found revealing, and that may have influenced judgements of staffed organizations, has been deleted. I think that may be just as well. The dialog was up long enough, I feel, to have served a purpose. The board is being carefully censored. Under the circumstances, I'm grateful for that.

Some movement toward closure on some technical points about missile defense has, I believe, occurred.

MD10095 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/11499 .

This thread has been cited on the MD board 5 times this week.

Toward a New Security Framework

I believe that if the fundamental lesson of this thread were learned, things that have gone badly in the past might go better.

Advice I got once:

" There is no one standard, no one rule, no one pattern that fits all the time, and if you have a system that you need to check, the checking system, for complicated circumstances, has to be structurally different from the system checked, and has to "violate" some "rules" built into the other system, so as to get things that have to be checked checked." "What's the best advice you've ever been given?" Wed 10/10/2001

Mankind's Inhumanity to Man and Woman - As natural as human goodness? rshowalter " I'm trying to float and idea here - and that's something these forums are good for.

Looking at the world, there are so many cases of "unthinkable" and "unexplainable" evil and negligence, that the mind and heart recoils. People recall such behavior among the Nazis, and recoil, as well they might. How could "civilized, aesthetically sensitive, cultured people" ALSO act so monstrously, and with such clear and sophisticated murderous intent.

But is this behavior so strange? Or is it the NATURAL?"

----

Isn't the common call 'Sometimes a military solution IS necessary' ?

Is goodness a quality process? http://www.brint.com/wwwboard/messages/368.html

.. same guard who wanted to listen to music was indignant when shown a propaganda leaflet dropped by an American plane. "Is this really the future you want for your women and children?" the leaflet asked. It showed a photograph of Taliban religious police beating a woman.

I review links discussing a proposal that I've made from time to time since March, and discussed with almarst and Dawn Riley extensively in - - - MD9842-9844 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/11158

The proposal deals with the idea of

" Crafting a fully workable, fully complete, fully explained "draft treaty proposal" for nuclear disarmament and a more militarily stable world. Such drafting would, at the least, make for stunningly good journalism -- that could be widely syndicated among papers. Useful as that would be, I think the drafting would serve a much more useful purpose. That purpose would be actually getting the points that need to be worked out for nuclear disarmament set out coherently - - to a level where closure actually occurs. That would involve a great deal of staff work done coherently, quickly, and in coordinated fashion."

The rest of the world is organizing in ways that should permit the United States to be held to reasonable account - - - and in important ways, the United States is behaving in ways more accountable to world opinion than it did before September 11. - The time may be ripe for reviewing the reasons why the current nuclear terror occurred, and coming to understand how we may, responsibly and carefully, get out of that horrible situation. It makes no sense to have thousands of obsolete and terribly dangerous nuclear weapons around for decades more, when they serve (especially at such high levels) no military purpose. The misunderstandings and terrible patterns that caused these weapons to come into being should be better understood, and the reasons for them examined and deconstructed.

Interesting to note the Afghan settlement gets down to basics

Food water clothing shelter

The lid on an squirmy can of inequitable worms has been RAISED.

That lid has been raised -- and applications of "the golden rule" have to be considered -- in the complicated world people are actually in.

We don't, after all, have to agree about that much - but we need to communicate well enough so that economic cooperation is possible, and so that cruelties are avoided.

A set of rules "dictated" by ancient texts, interpreted by minds steeped in medieval traditions, isn't good enough.

The question

What are the CONSEQUENCES in human terms?

Personally I believe in Evil as a direct motivating force. Humans have an appetite for destruction which isn't found in any kind of wild animal. It's a consequence of our domestication and the resultant tension between our animal instincts and our conditioned behaviour.

We resent the responsibilities that go with being human. From that resentment emerges a desire to destroy what contrains us. (See http://www.pigsty.demon.co.uk/fenris.html).

That's why individuals, or whole nations go on the rampage from time to time. That's why disaster movies are good box-office. That's why it's so easy to recruite suicide bombers.

That isn't the case with the apparent injustices of society, though. Most of those are directly traceable to the needs of society itself. For example woman couldn't be in charge of their own sexuality while child birth was such a highly dangerous excersise or there wouldn't have been further generations. Women's lib became possible only with improvements in gynocology.

"Nature is red in tooth and claw." And it's only arrogance that persuades us that we're more than very clever monkeys. I feel that our capacity for inhumanity is inherent (rather than the result of some external corrupting spiritual influence), but that we can and should try to rise above it (we're professionals...).

I don't know if we're "worse" than other animals; maybe just cleverer enough, so that the difference between the consequences of our "good" and "evil" actions is a little more marked (see war, terrorism, ethnic cleansing etc. etc.). Or just a little more imaginative...

If we were wiser, and more able to get rid of unintended consequences --- we'd do better.

After all, as a species, for all the carnage and ungliness, we sometimes do both well and beautifully.

There ought to be awareness of our limitations as "clever monkeys" -- but given the beauty and accomplishment people often achieve, hope too.

I couldn't sleep last night, and thought of a bit more...

Nice Monkey; Shares banana.

Mean Monkey; Doesn't share banana.

Nice Man; Gives up life of riches and luxury to nurse in a Calcutta convent. Runs back into a burning building to save a trapped baby.

Mean Man; Flies planes into skyscrapers. Drops A-bombs. Rapes. Ethnically cleanses.

I think our intelligence just gives us greater scope to do very very nice or very very nasty things.

I think our intelligence just gives us greater scope to do very very nice or very very nasty things.

I don't think wild animals have an actual appetite for destruction. If they kill it's a matter of indifference, not pleasure.

Could be. But I wonder; I live well outside the M25, and often see lambs etc. with entrails torn out, completely uneaten, just lying in fields. Now, I'm not an animal psychologist, and maybe Fantastic Mr Fox could provide an excellent justification for his misdeed were he gifted with the capacity for speech. But it does look like they do it for fun, whatever that means for a fox.

But it does look like they do it for fun, whatever that means for a fox.

That's genuine cruelty.

True (about genuine cruelty). But maybe that's a development from the cat and mouse. Cruelty must have roots in animal behaviour, even if we can't see what we would call "genuine cruelty" among animals.

Back to Fantastic Mr Fox... I wouldn't expect him to assess the exact nutritional value of each chicken relative to his own requirements at the time. But when he's wandering through a field at night, and sees a lamb, and thinks "Well I'm not hungry*, but hey, I'll kill it anyway...", maybe that is the seed of what, in a more "developed" creature, could be seen as cruelty, or an "appetite for destruction".

I've also seen predators pass up opportunities to kill, for reasons best known to themselves, but which may include lack of hunger, self-preservation, etc. ... I don't accept that a predator will kill WHENEVER it gets the chance to do so.

Inhumanity is often praised, or ignored and thereby approved in war.

Many wars are run by MADMEN ...

Under Madmen many men go mad ...

Inhumanity if failure to humanise and visualise the numbers .. as individuals.

Games that traumatise - should be despised.

The fact of tragedy -- set out day by day in the "A Nation Challenged" section of the New York Times -- is serving a great purpose. Look at the faces, with enough words associated -- they are real -- and too many to comfortably count, or attend to.

In wars, especially with nukes, THOUSANDS of times that many can die --- and with nukes, with controls as they are, and vulnerabilities as they are ... MILLIONS of times more can die.

It helps to "look at" a few thousand.

And then try to count to a few thousand, one at a time - yourself -- with each a GROUP of similar tragedies.

The world could use more perspective like that -- quantitative, at least a little bit, and touched by the humanity of the lives lost and at stake.

ah! like the wtc equates to 3 standard highschools on the numbers basis ... that's 100+ classes (30) deleted! Their near and extended famlies left void.

So if the event were nuclear then WOW ... the world would take a long time to recover.

Note the UK put the NucPowerstations up for sale ... no buyers showed .. says there's concern re the fuller aspects of accounting. 2050 is the date the UK have set to close down all NucPower ... there's a move to renewable energy.

Cruelty must have roots in animal behaviour

In a natural situation predation is very rarely free of risk and energy expenditure. Our domestic animals, rendered incapable of effective flight or fight for the convenience of our own predation, create a special circumstance.

From an undelivered speech by Franklin D. Roosevelt, written shortly before his death:

"Today, we are faced with the pre-eminent fact that, if civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships --- the ability of all peoples, of all kinds, to live together and work together in the same world, at peace."

I don't think humans behave much different from other predatory species. It is worth watching wild life programmes to see that they all behave much the same. They will defend their own young and members of their own tribe, pride, pack, school, whatever.

We like to think of ourselves of top of the pile but perhaps only for now as in reality in behaviour we are no different. Just a bit lucky (from development) with a cortex. That can soon change especially as we still have not become sophisticated enough in our behaviour to be tolerant of our own species. Just a blip in the chemical soup that supplies us with air which we are so careless with and bye, bye homo sapiens welcome new species!

If humans "don't behave much differently from other predatory species" then the weight of responsibility of culture is very heavy.

We are animals, all right. Beautiful animals, sometimes. I hope the species goes on.

We can hope, and fear, based on the idea based things that people do. People will die and kill for ideas and ideals. Maybe, with work, they'll learn to come up with workable arrangements, too.

Often, it happens.

I was glad to see http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/12334 by gisterme , a person who I suspect has high connections with the Bush administration.

Gisterme said that

" The massive nuclear arsenals are already on their way out, Robert. That's because there's way more trust between their possesors than there was prior to 1991. Be patient. We'll both likely live to see the largest strategic nuclear arsenals no larger than a few dozen missiles or perhaps even less. Maybe none. The things are obsolete as rational tools of political leverage because they are too terrible for any sane leader to ever use except as last-ditch defense. .

The Collapse of Enron-- Moderated http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f276dbc/18 is a very interesting forum - pretty short, with excellent stuff throughout.

Postings on the MD board so far this year, though too many to interest the casual, involve things I believe ought to be of great interest to staffed organizations, all over the world, interested in military stability, and reduction of nuclear and other risks.

HOW TO SEARCH THE NYT MISSILE DEFENSE FORUM

MD9057 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/10144

MD9440 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/10594

Is it the Collapse of Enron

or

The Collapse of lapsed government?

Here are wonderful NYT Op. Ed Pieces:

ENRON AND THE GRAMMS by Bob Herbert http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/17/opinion/17HERB.html

THE UNITED STATES OF ENRON by Frank Rich http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/19/opinion/19RICH.html

MD10870 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/12622 :

Last year, Russia hosted a meeting on the militarization of space - something like 104 countries attended. The United States did not. Laser weapons were centrally involved in the issues of concern. Take away the laser weapons, and the other offensive ideas for space weapons don't amount to much.

The Next Battlefield May Be in Outer Space By JACK HITT http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/05/magazine/05SPACEWARS.html

Psychwarfare, Casablanca -- and terror #207-210 , linked in MD10882 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/12636 , offers background on things that might be understood, and done.

The New York Times has been doing a remarkable job covering the Enron scandal, and a collection of their coverage is linked here: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/14/business/_ENRON-PRIMER.html

There is a moderated discussion on the topic "The Collapse of Enron." http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?50@@.f276dbc

"lchic" has many especially useful contributions.

Perhaps " enron " should become a verb. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f276dbc/709 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?13@@.f276dbc/455 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/12804

I was very glad to see Organizing the World to Fight Terror by IGOR S. IVANOV , Russian Foreign Minister http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/27/opinion/27IVAN.html

Much of the NYT Missile Defense thread deals with subjects related to those that Minister Ivanov speaks of. MD11068 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/12865

The need for openness, and international relations built on trust is very great. Towards that end, it is useful that things be checked. MD11071 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/12868

People and nations do make their systems work better. Russia has made great progress since "Muddle in Moscow" http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=533129 .....

Efforts on the NYT MD thread may not have had anything to do with any of that progress, but lchic and I have tried to be constructive. md7389 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/8171

People are naturally aggressive to weaker people.

Just like wolves and our closer cousins the chimps. They have strictly, and physically enforced social heiarchies, and aggressively defend their groups from outsiders.

There is no inherent universal human kindness to the world, we can all be cruel. This is why the more utopian leftist visions of the world are so unrealistic.

I suppose you've heard of Milgram's experiment where subjects were willing to electrocute people?

http://www.new-life.net/milgram.htm

Have you heard of Zimbardo's prison experiment which gave volunteer student subjects the power of prison warders over other volunteer student subjects? The violence got so out of hand, so quickly that the experiment had to be stopped:

http://www.prisonexp.org/

Great references. Erica Goode did a good article in the NYT science section keyed off those pieces, about two years back.

There are those who think the current US defense budget proposal is excessive and misshapen, and I'm one of them. The NYT is of the same opinion. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/06/opinion/_06WED1.html

My own special interest is nuclear disarmament,and that has meant special attention to the NYT Missile Defense message board -- which remains quite active. I believe that it is being demonstrated that the basic technical parts of the Bush administrations's MD program are tactically useless. An interesting example is the Airborne Laser system (ABL) -- which depends on adaptive optics that requires a feedback path that does not exist. Key numbers are classified, but what is possible (and impossible) can be seen from widely known data in the open literature. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/13124

Some days, I feel the MD board is productive -- I'm stuck there, to some extent, because of a "credentialling problem" that can be viewed from several perspectives. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/12592

In the last week, I've had a subjective sense of progress.

The NYT MD board has been active this week -- with a great many postings by " gisterme ", a personage I've sometimes suspected of high US government connections.

Dawn Riley pointed out that

I don't believe that the missile defense programs could stand careful, organized scrutiny about these questions, at the level suggested in MD10764 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/12487 , and feel that it would serve the interest of virtually all people of good faith concerned with world security to get some key facts checked, in some way that went beyond "trust me" -- and got down to specific, clear cases.

Boinggggg!

Inhumanity is often justified, and permitted, by lies.

Concerns about the Bush administration are widespread -- very often, things are done for reasons that don't make sense, in terms that are explained. Perhaps things cannot be explained in terms that can stand the light of day. The Enron scandal may illustrate a great deal about the role of "information control" (aka fraud) in current US government policy, foreign and domestic.

The emotive slogan in "Superman" comics, and movies, is

. Truth, justice, and the American way . . .

An Enron Unit Chief Warned, and Was Rebuffed By JOHN SCHWARTZ http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/20/business/20PIPE.html

In analogy to

" Truth, justice, and the American way . . .

The NYT Missile Defense thread, which now fills 28 notebooks of text, is being rebooted - continued, but without holding previous text on the database. The last ten days have been especially active, with our "Putin stand in, almarst", and the "Bush administration stand-ins" quite active. I've saved the thread. I posted the following summary of the thread to date. (MD11896)

. . .

"This thread has made some progress. The "missile defense" programs are technically much less tenable than they used to be. I think the discourse on this thread has been part of that. Very serious efforts to defend BMD have been made here - and they have taken up much space, and involved many evasions. But they have made no specific and detailed technical points that have been able to stand about technical feasibility.

The "lasar weapon" programs have been significantly discredited -- because countermeasures are easy, because adaptive optics is not easy, and because a fundamental misunderstanding about the "perfect coherence" of lasers has been made.

" Alignment good enough for lasing" has been confused with the far more difficult alignment needed for laser beam coherence for destroying targets over long distances.

We need some islands of technical fact to be determined, beyond reasonable doubt, in a clear context. It is possible to do that now.

Just a thought for a happy ending, based on the pattern in How a Story is Shaped http://www.fortunecity.com/lavendar/ducksoup/555/storyshape.html

Status Quo . . .

Initial Problem . . .

Exposition . . .

Complications . . .

Crisis . . . A superpower out of hand - - with plenty of muddle and danger.

Climax boom, crash -- . . . A few world leaders say, in public, "this is an intolerable mess -- there are muddles here -- we want the key facts and relations sorted out -- staffed to closure -- beyond question . . ."

to be continued .

Denouement . . .

Description of New Status Quo . . .

New Status Quo

I think some pretty satisfactory resolutions would occur, pretty naturally, once there was enough "news value" for public scrutiny -- along with formats that were able to handle the logical problems involved.

MD170 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/203

MD171 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/204

MD84 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/99

I think many of the questions raised by almarst , the NYT Missile Defense thread's "Putin stand-in" are interesting, and I've collected some of them in MD183 to MD186 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/217 are worth a lot of respect, attention, and concern.

I believe, for reasons of context that you can judge for yourself below, that manjumicha2001 either is, or represents, a major player in the Bush adminstration defense establishment. That is, of course, deniable, unless some journalists do some work.

manjumicha2001's posted MD401 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?13@@.f28e622/493 rather than respond, or have a cohort respond, to a challenge of mine explicit enough that it could not be run away from. MD393 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/483

In MD401 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?13@@.f28e622/493 manjumicha2001 says this:

" I agree with you that NMD is a program that is 50 years old and has proven to be terminally challenged by the laws of physics.

If people responsible for making the United States a "Nuclear Rogue" http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/12/opinion/_12TUE1.html know the technical things that they must know, and that manjumicha2001 acknowledges -- scandal ought to be fully justified.

Bush didn't get the conservative judge .. what is 'conservative' decision making ... is it make the decisions that satisfy an unchanged 'yesterday' rather than the new reality of today.

Bush was disappointed !

At least. if Bush makes an 'appearance' before the bench - it won't necessarily be before one of his hench men !

Lead article in MIT's Technology Review Why Missile Defense Won't Work by Theodore A. Postol April 2002 http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/postol0402.asp

From -GEN. GEORGE LEE BUTLER former commander, Strategic Air Command http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Nuclear-Lighthouse-Hertsgaard.htm

" Nuclear weapons are irrational devices. They were rationalized and accepted as a desperate measure in the face of circumstances that were unimaginable. Now as the world evolves rapidly, I think that the vast majority of people on the face of the earth will endorse the proposition that such weapons have no place among us.

I misjudged manjumicha2001 MD717 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/892 - - - and may have underestimated the amount of hard work, and brilliance, that NYT people are putting into the MD thread.

Debate? Dissent? Discussion? Oh, Don't Go There! By MICHIKO KAKUTANI http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/23/arts/23STUD.html contains a lot of wonderful stuff -- I was struck especially with this line:

" the Internet, which instead of leading to a global village, has created a multitude of self-contained tribes - niche cultures in which like-minded people can talk to like-minded people and filter out information that might undermine their views."

All Roads Lead to D.C. by EMILY EAKIN http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/31/weekinreview/31EAKI.html

" Today, America is no mere superpower or hegemon but a full-blown empire in the Roman and British sense"

Some people are born sick, some are not. Some people become twisted, others live outside London. Some people are sheep and follow the mass hysteria.

Movie makers have to "play god". http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/1574

To sort out problems, including problems of peace (and the smaller related muddles of the missile defense boongoggle) people have to face the truth, tell the truth, and avoid misinformation. When right answers really count, they have to "connect the dots" ( MD1055 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/1344) so that patterns emerge -- and to check those patterns.

Here are some OpEd pieces by Paul Krugman quoted on the NYT Missile Defense thread:

The Big Lie http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/27/opinion/27KRUG.html

Bad Heir Day http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/30/opinion/30KRUG.html

The Great Divide http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/29/opinion/29KRUG.html

The Smoke Machine http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/29/opinion/29KRUG.html

Connect the Dots http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/02/opinion/02KRUG.html

At Long Last? http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/05/opinion/05KRUG.html

The White Stuff http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/12/opinion/12KRUG.html

Losing Latin America http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/16/opinion/16KRUG.html

The Angry People http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/23/opinion/23KRUG.html

A number of links discussing Krugman's pieces are set out in MD1741 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/2181

I'm so glad Guardian Talk is back!

Hatred - and LIES.

MD1755 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/2201

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/165xqyni.asp

Revenge - book review http://www.sacbee.com/content/lifestyle/story/2319783p-2747920c.html

MD1756 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/2202

MD1759-60 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/2205

The NYT Missile Defense thread has been very active, and I sometimes think that it may have been influential.

U.S., in Surprise, Announces Global Talks for Mideast By TODD S. PURDUM and DAVID E. SANGER http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/03/international/middleeast/03CAPI.html

shows a situation where, if complications can be faced - - and resolved, enormous good could come. lunarchick's MD1972 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/2454 includes key questions:

"In one years time - where do we ALL want to be?" .

If our techniques improved --- and they could, if people used the net as it can be used - - we might learn to deal more humanely and effectively with each other.

I've asked

" When large news organizations such as The New York Times or the Guardian-Observer cannot solve problems by covering the facts about them -- why don't the solutions happen, when they often seem very clear?

MD2043 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/2540 MD2047 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/2546

A lot of the time, the problems can't be solved because the "dots" are not collected so that people, as they are, can actually connect them.

More often the problems of the world are based on genuine conflicts of interest and the solution is that one side gets screwed.

Genuine conflicts of interest do in fact happen a lot -- and sometimes there "has to be a fight."

At some level.

But limitless, escalating conflicts - such as wars - almost always involve "terrible oversimplification" - or costs and moral positions that can't stand the light of day.

I stand by what I said, particularly about soluble problems that are not solved:

A lot of the time, the problems can't be solved because the "dots" are not collected so that people, as they are, can actually connect them.

You can't "change human nature" - but sometimes better ways of "collecting the dots" and "connecting the dots" can be found. In fact, over then last few years, better ways are being found - and we there's more progress to be made in that direction.

A Wider Atlantic: Europe Sees a Grotesque U.S. by TODD S. PURDUM http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/16/international/europe/16NATO.html illustrates some of the challenges.

"To travel across the Atlantic with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell is to catch a brief glimpse of the unilateralist America seen by many European eyes."

... Secretary Powell came to a meeting of North Atlantic Treaty Organization foreign ministers here to press Europeans to modernize their military machinery and spend more on defense

I believe that Erica Goode has made a contribution to the culture, and that the NYT Missile Defense thread may also have done so. I'm only basing my jugement on statistics, and what I myself have noticed, and may be wrong. But the matter could be checked, pretty readily, by searching the net. It concerns the phrase "connect the dots." -- and whether that phrase has gained in meaning, and frequency, since Erica Goode's Finding Answers In Secret Plots http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/10/weekinreview/10GOOD.html . . which speaks of:

"a basic human urge to connect the dots and form a coherent picture."

http://www.lizardpoint.com/fun/java/dinodots/dino1.html

War is the culdisac

Why 'war' ... sheer waste!

War Crimes - Afghanistan

USA (Taliban)

Work on the NYT Missile Defense thread has been busy, and I feel that some of that work might interest many readers of the Guardian-Observer, and participants on this thread. In that thread, Guardian articles, and TALK threads, are often referred to, and are important and much appreciated sources.

A number of pieces have run in the NYT that I've been glad to see, perhaps this one most of all:

Playing Know and Tell by John Schwartz http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/09/weekinreview/09BOXA.html .

Schwartz's piece ends:

" Listen."