There ya go, Eileen. Absolutely.

Whedon is mainstream and Hollywood elite. However, he is active in supporting Felicia Day and that is an example of a local benevolent elite that shares resources and opportunities to an emerging transnational elite rather than attempting to dominate its emergence or capture its resources. Felicia is a transnational star (not the same as global) and The Guild is a global hit as a result.

The point made to Heraclitus and others pondering the question posed is yes we are quite capable of changing even what some otherwise consider instinctual patterning through awareness of and practice at directed cultural evolution. The challenge is how to manage elite capture and competition but more fundamentally important, to answer the question, what do we want to become.

I agree with Eileen 100% and I believe the author of this book would agree with Eileen 100%. Iago is far and away my favorite manifestation of the dark side although Richard the Third is a good second. However, the question here is: Is the dark side hard coded into are genetic sequences or is it just a figment of our collective imagination? This reduces all the way down to our ability to become uncontrollably violent (watch any newscast on any evening of any day), to participate in battle (super charged adrenalin rushes and what is often described by combatants as the surreal dream affect during the actual carnage that numbs the perception of the reality of dead burnt bodies) and ultimately to the more population based perceptions that allow us to dehumanize other individuals to the point of mass murder (genocide). Are there dominant and recessive genes for dehumanization (like eye color or pea pod shapes and sizes)? Are these hardcoded into our DNA (requiring a mechanical rearrangement of our code to end wars and suggesting the future requires an evolutionary transition from the current physical configuration) or is it just part of the algorithms in the software codes of our operating system (representing the Pete Seeger theory as presented in this thread that reprogramming our collective consciousness can ultimately eliminate war)?

Which side are you on boys (and girls)?

...something i thought about too were soldiers who have returned from war and the stories of how they have struggled with that...some really messed up...some who couldn't and wouldn't even talk about it for decades if ever...

there seems to be at least some kind of apprehension out there among us?

You chose your non de plume well, H.

I believe Plato was wrong. Nothing is fixed. The river is the river but the water keeps moving. Heraclitus (the historical one) was on the right track but his models are too inexact and obscure. His death certainly bespeaks his lack of understanding. The logos is understandable and we can evolve a culture away from war. If we can sustain that long enough, we can evolve the species away from over-reliance on resource predations and toward resource renewal.

Those who think One World Government notions are tin-foil hat notions are not actually studying the rise of the transnational elites who require it eventually to maintain the newly installed transnational accumulation circuits. However, if that goes awry, the need to restrengthen the national and local circuits can result in elite conflicts that cause a world war. That's the chasm just ahead. It isn't in our stars or ourselves; it is in the models and they are not platonic.

I had to read it twice but I think we have a vote in support of gene sequences! Inevitable equals DNA. Any software supporters out there? Give us your best "Pete Seeger" argument.

about soldiers and combat, i came across this article, i will post it here...

http://www.killology.com/print/print_psychological.htm

i can't be arsed to say no more, i am pooped...later

oh yeah...remember that movie, the gods must be crazy? (don't know what made me think of that all a sudden)

Maybe this fits here. Hope I'm posting in the right spot. It's about Pete singing against the oil drilling. Has a video with it...

My first impression of this idea that war is part of evolved man was also one of skepticism. Man has the gambit of emotions including remorse, fear, morality and the sense of species (the stuff Agnes posted). However, the "them or us" gene and the "paranoia" gene and the "violence desensitization" gene and the "subjective morality" gene and the "dehumanization" gene may all be real and doom us to premature extinction. I have heard great discourses during my life on just reasons for war based on nationalism, religion, economics and morality for moralities sake. There are overwhelmingly superior arguments against war that can be communicated in a few lines of a simple song. War remains a reality and will be for the foreseeable future. I have long been an opponent of Social Darwinism. The causes and emotions associated with the propagation of war are to great to easily dismiss as the great historical record of poor decisions made by the constantly evolving mind. So maybe my skepticism was premature? Maybe there is something more base and physically integral in us that takes war and its propagation out of the realm of our collective imagination?

Has anyone seen "Agora", the film starring Rachel Weisz as Hypatia?

I don't believe our DNA predisposes us to warfare. I believe the systems of communication and governance that give rise to elite emergence and elite capture of surplus resources do. While our pop culture may be a culture of the mediocrities as temporary elites, our historical culture is one of exceptionalism and excellence despite the fact they get few to none of the rewards while above ground. Mediocrity services mass communication. Social networks are not governed by quality but quantity of connections. Such networks are prone to rampant, divisive short lived emotionalism. History has no such limitation. What lasts is always best. We give it away to give it life and this is the cultural antidote to war.

Your position is a cop-out, H. You don't want to work for it. When I look at the locally originated institutions such as The Guthrie Center I know there is hope and even good results even if they are limited in scope and sustainability. There is no gene for war but I believe there is a gene for hope, hard work and selflessness. The challenge is to sustain what is best and to do that, we have to capture the surplus and spend it wisely.

i also wanted to respond to heraclitis' post but it had to wait, i had to run, so pardon if this seems a little out of sequence...

but yeah, that dehumanization thing can be a bitch. not to discount the other stuff mentioned but i was thinking about that one in particular at the moment (seems the launching pad for whatever propaganda that one might pitch for whatever agenda), (and i do understand your thoughts and they can be frustrating) but i still don't think it is hard wired across the board, i mean who was that guy,,,was it george wallace,,,that kind of changed later in life (as a for instance)? (that is who popped into my head, sort of a canned example of dehumanization and being able to change...but it goes beyond just black and white) and there are others who have changed even earlier in life) anyway... still there are certain (individual) propogandists who like to keep that stuff going for use in their own agendas and they-can-be-sneaky! yet still i think that there are lots of people who want peace and good things in general and not just for themselves but for others too because they can see a connection there?

hoo-mons definitely aren't perfect

i hope i am making sense

maybe it is a cop out?


Like I said, I am not talking about politics or economics so communication and governance really don't apply. I agree that the onset of civilization with its politics, economics and social hierarchy have all contributed to man's realization of his potential to war on a grand scale (you left out religion, I would include religion). I guess we could take the approach that we are really just the noble savage that has been duped into war and dehumanization by the shifting sands of progress (oh Rousseau, where are you now). Isn't that a real cop out though? That is why Jane Goodall always comes up in these discussions and the observations of the war between the chimps. Sure, there is hierarchy in the chimps society. Primarily based on sex and the alpha male. However, when civil war came, all members in the tribe participate and they participate with unrestrained brutality. Yes the foundation of the war is territorial and resource driven. However, the argument is that it is a democratic realization that new boundaries need to be established.



I could go with Jane Goodall again and point out how chimp's that were once the best of friends were observed bashing brains out of one another when the tribe split. However, there are so many examples of how this "change" you mention goes two ways. How about one from Pop Culture (Len brought up Pop Culture so why not). There is a wonderful movie called Life is Beautiful about the holocaust in Italy. There is a part where a Jewish inmate is appealing to a German doctor who he had been friends with in "different times". The Jewish inmate had always helped the doctor solve riddles and puzzles. When the Jewish inmate encountered the doctor in the camp, the doctors body language suggested he would help this Jew deal with the "current times" However, it came to pass, that the doctor was just excited because he was working on a difficult riddle that he needed help to solve.



This is true! The Thousand Year Reich lasted for thirteen years. War and Genocide have always been with us!



Don't know what to say about that line?

does dna rule the mind, or does the mind rule the dna? I know, a bit of a paradox because the mind IS dna,but the soul is not.

The persistence of warfare is so bound up in economics and communication and governance that not talking about it ignores reality. Such a chat has little value. Religion is included as an institution. That's why I didn't include it.





We're a different species, H. An argument based on what we observe of The Monkees usually devolves into is Mickey cuter than Davy and are they a real band. IOW, it's specious.



The violence curve of the last century was almost vertical until the invention of the atomic bomb. Then it drops precipitously. Fear of anilhilation trumps territorial ambitions. That is an argument for a self-directed culture. We don't have to do it and usually don't when there is no profit in it.



Not just Wallace, but also a number of his staff. His is an interesting case in that he runs in 1958 on a desegregation platform and is defeated. He decides not to make the same mistake twice. Prior to that he was known among the black lawyers as one of the fairest and least prejudicial judges in the state. His ambition was one of power, not violence. During his administrations and that of his wife Lurleen, he dragged the state into the 20th century with roads and education. Again, self-directed change. And your perceptions of Wallace are skewed. He didn't dehumanize anyone. He was an opportunist who took public stands but also private actions. A person more like what you're after was Andrew Jackson.





There are long periods in which they aren't. As to WWII, you may want to study the international banking and monetary systems of the time. Nothing will justify the acts of Hitler and his party but before a madman comes to power, the social conditions that enable it have to exist.

If we make war, we also make peace in equal measure. Is that also in our DNA?

len, yeah i admit i was sort of grasping for a public figure in an effort to show an example of how a person could change for the better. he was a segregationist (which leads me to think he saw some humans as less than) and then he wasn't. but maybe he wasn't the best example of that...maybe he was just one of those people who was willing to turn on you. so, sorry about that. but while i was writing that (and trying to find the correct public figure in my mind) i was also thinking of a doc i saw on tv about former neo nazi skinhead white supremacists (who had changed for the better), but i didn't know how to direct you (anyone) to that information. apologies.



heraclitis, when i was talking about people changing i was thinking "for the better" and was aware of (as i was writing) how people can change the other way round too...
and the story about the jewish inmate and the german doctor you spoke of (i am not familiar with it, but as you say) who were friends in "different times", then the doctor only being excited to see him because he could help solve some puzzle,.... i think i touched a little on that at the beginning of this thread, in some vein or context or other, maybe
i guess on some level it could be considered to be self serving too to show your excitement at seeing someone...being as how you enjoy their company and it makes you happy after-all (but i guess...there i go again being simple)

and the other thing about changing not for the better (as you point out with jane goodall observing how monkeys, once "best friends" later bashing the heads of one another when the tribe split....i knew these things could happen,,,even when i was eleven. i have told this story here before, but i will put it here now....

i had a friend who was black, and i found her crying (we were at school) and i asked her what was wrong and she didn't want to tell me, because she was afraid i would get mad at her? and i am like, "what are you talking about?" so finally she tells me that some girls (who were also black) three of them, called her a name because they took issue with her hanging around me (me, being white). so i approach the girls, and in so many words want to know what their problem is (my friend by this time probably had her hand clapped over her forehead, i don't know), and so the one girl pushed me, and i pushed back and she wound up in the bin, and so they rally up and say they are going to get so-and-so to come beat my ass...another black girl, and this kid was like one of the biggest kids in school, maybe one or two guys were in her size range, (and i am some skinny white kid)...so i am thinking, "oh great" ...i mean i never had problem with this person before, but i knew that people could turn on you...i knew this, but i am determined to stand my ground and so brace myself, so then you hear them roaring back with a mob behind them and they point me out and say. "there she is!" and i looked straight at her, and she looked at me and then looked at them and says, "her??? man i got no problem with her...ya'll go on!" (or something like that) and she left...she left! i was really glad not to have to stand up to her, but i was also very glad to see that kind of integrity. so sometimes people do good things because they feel it is the right thing.

Or individuals change. It's problematic to cite relevant examples until the entire arc of their lives plays out. Think of recent events and how many people who start out as well-admired even worshipped public figures, celebrities, and politicians but a few years later are reviled or laughable. The list is long. Not as long is the list where they start out heavily reviled and then somehow either they change in behavior or we change our opinions about what we revile or both.

That is why it is a little dicey to assess history in the short view.

Why do we keep going to war? Who was it said that if war profiteering were heavily taxed we'd have fewer and they'd be shorter? I think it was Woody. And in fact, that was one of FDR's smarter moves.