How To Save The World: Step One
By Daniel Miessler on December 10th, 2006: Tagged as Civilization | Culture | Philosophy | Politics
The world today is failing to help the less fortunate due to cowardice. This is true in the U.S., in Mexico, in Africa, and most everywhere else on the planet. The issue isn’t obstacles that cannot be overcome; it’s that we are unwilling to correctly identify the obstacles in the first place.
When we as world citizens approach a situation in which a certain segment of the population is in pain, we approach it in one of two ways: it’s either a problem with the group itself or it’s a problem with the group’s environment, i.e. they are victims of something external to them that they cannot overcome. Inevitably, we chose the latter.
What’s needed, however, is an aggressive move away from politically-correct, “victim” policy and one towards logic and reason. The sad reality is that in order to do any good we have to stop treating many of these groups as equals.
When a child starts lighting things on fire, the role of the adult is not to convene a summit composed of equal numbers of children and adults in order to decide whether they should be allowed to continue the behavior. Instead, the adult’s job is to simply state that it cannot continue. Children are not entitled to equal treatment because they are children.Failure to adopt this approach will lead to the child simply lighting things on fire over and over. The role of the world in that scenario is reduced to sending firetrucks (and money for new furniture) and politely asking for the kid to stop. I say the time for that has passed. Let’s call a failed system what it is and find the courage to “talk down” to our family members who have lost their way. Anything less is superficial and ultimately pointless.This should be no different in the “adult” world. If a population or culture seems unwilling or unable to subscribe to the concepts that make civilizations successful, and human suffering ensues as a result, the world should step in and put a stop to it. But not as an equal — as a parent. A loving parent, to be sure — a parent that knows that this child will one day be an equal — but a parent no less.
The challenge here, of course, is determining who should be included in the group of parents, and what the message to the child should be. And given the recent Bush administration the perception of arrogance and condescention is somethiAny discussions along this line inevitably lead to charges of racism, religious oppression, cultural elitism, etc. But one fact is clear: the unwillingness to classify these situations correctly, i.e. as groups/cultures that need behavior modification rather than environment modification will only prolong the suffering.:
--
How can you limit the power of the ‘loving parent’? I feel that it is important to intervene and take direct action, but look at what has happened with Bush. We gave him the power of direct action and he abused it to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people. I think the problem is more fundamental than you say. I think it originates in a willful ignorance to the world. Americans are too used to being able to say ‘That doesn’t concern me,’ or ‘Someone else will fix it.’ By leaving it to the government to take action in the way you discribed I think that it does not solve the fundamental problem of ignorance of the people. We need a direct citizen based action commitee that would take it upon themselves (the whole community of citizens) to make change possible. Your last paragraph was the most interesting to me. I agree to some respects with Elite Theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism ), but I think it will be hard to have the unbiased opinion required for the election of the elites. Rather than addressing this problem which will take much longer to solve, it seems to me that it would be much more effective to teach people to be more active and less apathetic. I could rant forever about this issue, but I just wanted to say a bit of what was on my mind.
Comment by Takamori — 12/10/2006 @ 10:05 pm
Thanks for your thoughts, Takamori. I agree the issue of controlling the “controlling parent” is paramount, but on your second point I think you’re off. It’s not about leaving it to the government; it’s about the people requiring that the government(s) take action on their behalf. And not in the form of sending aid to soothe someone’s conscience, but rather a serious effort to improve the overall quality of the culture in the suffering areas. We can start by working toward eliminating superstition and having them embrace science. Without that step any other improvements will be temporary at best.
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 12/10/2006 @ 11:04 pm
(My first name is Daniel too!) I’m glad you clarified your point about people taking action to force their governments to take direct action. ‘it’s about the people requiring that the government(s) take action on their behalf.’ I like how you phrased it very much. My focus in life right now is education reform so most of my ideas tend to be centered on how we can fix societal problems in the education system. There are so many connections to every part of life in fixing this problem that I think there are more fundamentals that (sadly) must come before merely trying to help the suffering. My goal in life is be able to simplify the school system to try and get rid of these problems that plague most modern western societys.
Comment by Takamori — 12/10/2006 @ 11:27 pm
Hi Daniel,
Your post exemplifies the most prevalent problem with Western society and its treatment of other cultures: Sticking to your own point of view.
How do you know Western society is the adult in this case? Because our actions make sense to you and their actions don’t? From their point of view, WE are the smug, rich children who squander our money on materialistic luxuries while they are the old, forgotten, sidelines adults with the higher moral ground of trusting god, living simple life and being righteous.
It’s not that they burn you because they’re children, they want to burn you because they want you to see the folly of your ways, they want you to mend your ways and be, well like them, and settle for less.
It’s all in the point of view. If you want to proclaim that this is a clash between two civilizations and we’ll always fight until one side wins and it better be our side - sure I have no problems with that. Don’t justify yourself by deciding that your PoV is for some reason the right one. It’s just as bad as saying that your god is the right god.
Love,
– Arik
Comment by Arik — 12/10/2006 @ 11:29 pm
It all sounds so simple.
I came across an article that speaks volumes on this topic. And although I’m still for trying something new to help, he makes a huge amount of sense in his article.
So much sense that we all delude ourselves about how “civilized” our society really is compared to others around the world.
Let Africa Sink … (or swim!) http://reddit.com/goto?id=s9fe
Respectfully Randy.
Comment by Randy Colbert — 12/11/2006 @ 12:31 am
Arik,
You asked how we can be so sure our culture is superior? That’s simple. Look at how much we war with each other. Look at what we produce. Look at our level of secular education and the degree to which baseless superstition is passed onto children in each.
You are, in my view, making the ultimate mistake — assuming all cultures are equal and simply “different”. They aren’t. I think the more a system comes from a secular understanding of the world and teaches the expansion of happiness and the reduction of suffering, the better the culture is.
Some would argue that this is just one view, and that another culture which aims to kill all people who don’t worship coke bottles is equal, but it isn’t. It’s time to stop pretending.
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 12/12/2006 @ 10:23 am
Randy,
Thanks for posting; I too loved that article. It was a bit depressing, but I liked the fresh outlook. I hope that approach isn’t the only option, though.
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 12/12/2006 @ 10:24 am
Daniel,
Look at your criteria for success:
In all of these, the outlook for a religious Muslim society is: (and I’m exaggerating this on purpose for the sake of argument, don’t go all up in arms if you’re Muslim, I’ve chosen Muslims because I’m more familiar with Islam than other non-Western religion and value system)
War every now and then reminds them that we’re stronger, and war with non-Muslims is mandated by the Koran: The world is divided into two - Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb (the dwelling of Islam and the dwelling of the sword).
GDP - of course the GDP of Muslim countries is lower, the Zionists and the Americans make it so by making sanctions and restricting our ability to participate in the economy, to have ‘nucilar’ power, etc. That’s just one more way that they oppress us, in addition to trying to push their culture on us.
Secular education - secular education for men is important, to an extent. It is not as important as religion, and it must be forbidden where it conflicts with religion. When researchers go to far they believe themselves to be equal to Allah, which is heresy. Women’s place is not to learn, but to serve their husbands so they learn the essentials.
Religious education - Hey, we have the best Madrases in the world! We teach the truth of Allah and the Koran very successfully.
Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that the Muslim way of looking at things is good. According to my values as a Westerner, they are screwed up. I wouldn’t mind that if it didn’t have a direct effect on me, and it does, and when push comes to shove I want MY way of looking at things to prevail.
However, they are equal, in the sense that were you born and bred a Muslim, you would have the exact opposite symmetrical opinion of things. This is what I would like you and actually everyone to recognize. Lose the feeling of superior point of view and you’re far better equipped to deal with the threat that the different mindset poses.
Again, I restate: I, as a person who grew in a Western society, subscribe to (most of) what we call the Western value system. It does not mean that I can treat anyone else as my inferior. In fact, realizing that they are equal to me in every respect when they look at me from their point of view helps me assert my way.
I suggest The Clash of Civilizations / Samuel P. Huntington, ISBN: 074323149X as reading material. http://www.amazon.com/Clash-Civilizations-Samuel-P-Huntington/dp/074323149X
– Arik
Comment by Arik — 12/13/2006 @ 2:36 am
Said by Arik: “Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that the Muslim way of looking at things is good. According to my values as a Westerner, they are screwed up. I wouldn’t mind that if it didn’t have a direct effect on me, and it does, and when push comes to shove I want MY way of looking at things to prevail. However, they are equal, in the sense that were you born and bred a Muslim, you would have the exact opposite symmetrical opinion of things.”
I can’t believe that someone as advanced as you is capable of such a heinous logical breakdown. Viewpoints (or cultures) are not legitimized or given weight in the real world just because someone believes in them.
Children, for example, believe lots of things, yet it’s the world’s responsibility to CORRECT their behavior, not present an alternative that is more or less equal. It’s called correction because their way is wrong, and the adult way is right.
This same dynamic is in play with various cultures throughout the world. If one culture thinks a woman is at fault (and should die) for being raped (because not enough people witnessed it), that’s wrong. If they think all people who don’t believe in the invisible unicorn God need to be beheaded, they’re wrong. They aren’t different or “diverse”: they’re fucking insane and are in need of re-education.
The standard baseline for decency is elusive — we all know that — but I think that among the advanced cultures we can at least agree to what it isn’t. And the examples above fall into that category. Another would be, say, holding a convention about whether or not the Holocaust actually ever took place (and then allowing and/or inviting the former head of the Ku Klux Klan to attend).
Until we can stop calling ignorant, harmful ideologies “different but equal” we will never make any progress as a civilization. I implore you to reconsider, sir.
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 12/13/2006 @ 9:00 pm
> I can’t believe that someone as advanced as you is capable of such a > heinous logical breakdown. Viewpoints (or cultures) are not > legitimized or given weight in the real world just because someone > believes in them.
Hold it. Look at what you wrote. “Legitimized”? What’s that? It’s as subjective as it gets, what’s legitimate in YOUR eyes is not necessarily legit in someone else’s.
Is eating human flesh legitimate? To you I bet it isn’t. To Cannibal tribes in Africa, it is. Are they “primitive” or are they conserving valuable resources? If you don’t accept that your point of view is not the only one around, then this is a problem and my explanation is in vain.
> Children, for example, believe lots of things, yet it’s the world’s > responsibility to CORRECT their behavior, not present an alternative > that is more or less equal. It’s called correction because their way > is wrong, and the adult way is right.
This is the wrong analogy, again, because of your PoV. You think that they might be children. They think you are the child. Saying to me “But I’m right and they’re wrong” actually proves their point…
> This same dynamic is in play with various cultures throughout the > world. If one culture thinks a woman is at fault (and should die) for > being raped (because not enough people witnessed it), that’s wrong.
Again, wrong in your mind, you who subscribe to Western values. Detach from your emotions for one second and look at it from their PoV. The word “wrong” is subjective, because it’s always “wrong” as a result of your judgment, and that goes back to your values.
> If they think all people who don’t believe in the invisible unicorn > God need to be beheaded, they’re wrong. They aren’t different or > “diverse”: they’re fucking insane and are in need of re-education.
Again, insane in your mind. They will kill you for blasphemy and they would be right, because you question their belief. You might not like the result and might even wish to kill them before they have a chance to do same. Go ahead I won’t stop you. Saying that they’re wrong is simply saying that what they do doesn’t comply with your value system.
> The standard baseline for decency is elusive — we all know that — but > I think that among the advanced cultures we can at least agree to > what it isn’t. And the examples above fall into that category.
“Advanced cultures”. Oh boy. Refer to my comments about about PoV and subjectivity.
> Another would be, say, holding a convention about whether or not the > Holocaust actually ever took place (and then allowing and/or inviting > the former head of the Ku Klux Klan to attend).
I don’t think Mr. Ahmadinijad believes that the holocaust never existed. It’s all political manipulation on his side. He wants to be the leader of the Arab world, and true to form he uses the time tested method of fighting the common Arab enemy the best he can.
> Until we can stop calling ignorant, harmful ideologies “different but > equal” we will never make any progress as a civilization. I implore > you to reconsider, sir.
There are two things here.
They are equal. They are equal in the sense that each side holds its own and they both think they’re in the right.
Should they be allowed to persist? No. I think they should be stopped, ASAP. Because as much as they’re equal, I want OUR side to exist and win and not their, see, I value my life.
Hey, I want to stop them as much as you do, but not recognizing that the way they see what they do as right and righteous is like going into a battle blindfolded. You’re looking down at your enemy. Read Sun Tsu’s The Art of War:
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
– Arik
Comment by Arik — 12/14/2006 @ 5:26 pm
Arik,
What does one mean when they say two philosophies are equal, or that one is better than the other? If you’re having an informed debate it should mean that one ideology or the other is actually better for the world — not that “from some perspective, somewhere in the world, someone thinks one way or the other.”
We all know that perspective rules when it comes to ideology and that extreme Muslims think they are correct while extreme Christians they they are correct. This is so basic that it shouldn’t even require mentioning. Since we are above that we should move on to more important matters, i.e. what’s REALLY best for the world. What culture encourages true happiness and is most effective at reducing suffering? (That’s the real standard)
What you are doing is adhering too strongly to the ultra-liberal ideal of “nobody’s ever wrong, they are only different.” That’s crap, and you know it is. Look, we’re talking about what’s best for the world in reality, not according to some philosophy course. If you listen to yourself you’re talking about Hitler and The Dahli Lama being morally equal because they both believe in what they preach.
People traveling this line of thought are likely to say things like, “Hey, we say Hitler is a bad guy and that His Holiness is on the right path, but can we really say that? Is it fair to judge Hitler? Was he really such a bad guy? He thought he was doing a good thing.”
Sure, man. And some people believe in Santa Claus. The point is that anyone can believe anything; to say that ALL beliefs are equal is little more than an intellectual exercise. It serves no purpose whatsoever when it comes to trying to solve the world’s problems. In short, one’s belief in the morality of their actions doesn’t really matter when it comes to making the world a better place.
So it’s not about being skewed towards western ideals, and not realizing that the Muslim way is just as valid. I grew up in the San Francisco bay area and am quite versed in the liberal approach to judgement (don’t ever do it, basically). Life has shown me that this is a recipe for disaster.
People who subscribe to this way of thinking are the types to invite strangers into their homes, have them steal everything they own, sleep with their underage daughters, kill the family dog, and pee on the doorstep. The liberal is left saying, “Hmm…ok, well…you seem to express yourself differently than I do…and I’m not saying that’s bad…but we’re going to have to talk (attacker kicks liberal in the face) …ok, wow…that kind of hurt…if you could just stop that…yeah…that’d be great…mkay?”
Dude, that’s the world of “every ideology is equal.” Surely you can see the flaw in this approach. It’s meant to be used as a guideline — a benchmark for teaching morality. To show children that you shouldn’t go around hating people that think differently than you. And I am thankful to have been exposed to that. But at some point you have to grow up and see that when you apply this mode of thought to the extreme you end up firmly in the realm of denial and ignorance.
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 12/14/2006 @ 11:47 pm
Arik,
> What does one mean when they say two philosophies are equal, or that one is better > than the other? If you’re having an informed debate it should mean that one ideology > or the other is actually better for the world — not that “from some perspective, > somewhere in the world, someone thinks one way or the other.”
How do you know what’s actually better for the world? I mean, everyone knows that if everyone becomes Muslim the world will be a lot better, no matter how many people die in the process.
Please.
> We all know that perspective rules when it comes to ideology and that extreme > Muslims think they are correct while extreme Christians they they are correct. This is > so basic that it shouldn’t even require mentioning. Since we are above that we > should move on to more important matters, i.e. what’s REALLY best for the > world. What culture encourages true happiness and is most effective at reducing > suffering? (That’s the real standard)
Are we really above that? I mean, we all want happiness, true happiness. You are insinuating that Western culture is most effective at reducing suffering and encourages happiness. I agree with you, and I also claim that a Muslim will claim that true happiness can only be found in the teachings of the Koran, a Buddhist will tell you that true happiness is achieved by utilizing one of the paths of reaching nirvana, etc.
To summarize, happiness is subjective, suffering is subjective.
> What you are doing is adhering too strongly to the ultra-liberal ideal of “nobody’s > ever wrong, they are only different.” That’s crap, and you know it is. Look, we’re > talking about what’s best for the world in reality, not according to some philosophy > course. If you listen to yourself you’re talking about Hitler and The Dahli Lama being > morally equal because they both believe in what they preach.
I agree that the Dahli Lama and Hitler are morally equal when judged from their respective point of view. I do not agree that both have a right to exist.
Let me explain yet again: Each one of us people have our own point of view. You have one, I have one. I understand that. If you’re doing something that’s right from your point of view, it is. right. from your point of view. My opinion of what you do, however, is inevitably from my point of view. If I perceive what you do as wrong, I might take action to stop you from doing that, and in the extreme case I might kill you or at least try. Because, while I understand that from your point of view it seems perfectly okay to point that gun at me and shoot, from my point of view it is very much not okay. Since being alive is important to me in my view of the world, I will do whatever I can to maintain that, even if it means killing you in the process, and as you lie there in a pool of your own blood, I will still not forget that you only did what you thought was right, and I will feel sorry for you, knowing that you are dying because you did not take my point of view into consideration. Too bad.
Did I make myself clear enough?
> People traveling this line of thought are likely to say things like, “Hey, we say > Hitler is a bad guy and that His Holiness is on the right path, but can we really > say that? Is it fair to judge Hitler? Was he really such a bad guy? He thought he > was doing a good thing.”
Of course it’s fair to judge Hitler. He was a racist, war mongering, power hungry deluded angry SOB. He was also, in his mind, the savior of his people, and millions of people shared that point of view. Forgetting the latter and concentrating on the former will lead you do delusions of absolute good and absolute evil.
> Sure, man. And some people believe in Santa Claus. The point is that anyone can > believe anything; to say that ALL beliefs are equal is little more than an intellectual > exercise. It serves no purpose whatsoever when it comes to trying to solve the world’s > problems. In short, one’s belief in the morality of their actions doesn’t really matter > when it comes to making the world a better place.
You’re twisting what I’m saying. All beliefs are equal NOT in the sense that they’re good as far as YOU are concerned, but in the way they work for the people who subscribe to them. I believe that it is stronger than an intellectual exercise. I believe that there is a certain tipping point when both side of a disagreement understand the other side’s point of view, and it changes the conflict at that very point. Also, if you understand an enemy’s point of view, you increase your ability to oppose them. Again refer to The Art of War.
> So it’s not about being skewed towards western ideals, and not realizing that the > Muslim way is just as valid. I grew up in the San Francisco bay area and am quite > versed in the liberal approach to judgement (don’t ever do it, basically). Life has > shown me that this is a recipe for disaster.
You just don’t understand what I’m writing, I’m afraid. The Muslim way is valid to a Muslim. The Western way is valid to a Westerner. In that sense they are equal. The Muslim way is not “as valid” to a Westerner, at least not radical Islam that claims that I should either die or become a Muslim. Not valid. No. I don’t subscribe to the “Do not judge” approach. I don’t think it’s even possible not to judge, you do it instinctively.
> People who subscribe to this way of thinking are the types to invite strangers into > their homes, have them steal everything they own, sleep with their underage > daughters, kill the family dog, and pee on the doorstep. The liberal is left saying, > “Hmm…ok, well…you seem to express yourself differently than I do…and I’m not > saying that’s bad…but we’re going to have to talk (attacker kicks liberal in the face) > …ok, wow…that kind of hurt…if you could just stop that…yeah…that’d be great…mkay?”
Actually I invite strangers into my home, after a short conversation. I wasn’t raised in the US. In fact, last night at 2am I stopped near a car at the side of the road and asked them if they needed assistance. The driver, Tony, appreciated my offer to drive him to the nearest gas station and thanked me profusely. He was standing there for some time trying to flag cars, including police cars, in vain, and not for lack of traffic, here in the SF bay area. What can I say, I guess I’m more trusting than most. I never had anyone do something bad to me, but my thought process would go along the line of, well, I invited you into my home thinking or assuming you share my values. You obviously don’t, so get out of here or you can wait for the cops.
> Dude, that’s the world of “every ideology is equal.” Surely you can see the flaw in this > approach. It’s meant to be used as a guideline — a benchmark for teaching morality. > To show children that you shouldn’t go around hating people that think differently than > you. And I am thankful to have been exposed to that. But at some point you have to > grow up and see that when you apply this mode of thought to the extreme you end up > firmly in the realm of denial and ignorance.
So, you’re saying that your process of growing up taught you that there are people that you should hate. I’m so sorry. I had a person I used to hate. He threw a stone at me when I was 14, and bruised me pretty bad. Over time I came to realize that he was just a stupid kid, and he’s not worth the time I spent thinking of how much I hate him. I never experienced hating a religion or a people, even though I guess I had plenty of chances.
As someone who does hate, I have a question for you: Does that hate serve a purpose in your life? Does it enrich your life in some way? Does it provide you with tools to deal with the people you hate? Does it enable you to fight them more effectively? Can you use that hate as an effective tool? If you can answer one of those questions in the positive, by all means, embrace that hatred, nourish it and cherish it.
I believe that if you replace that hatred with the understanding that the other side does what they do for a reason, not only will it let you fight them more effectively, it will also remove that strong emotion that’s controlling you, leaving you calculated and in control, and to the extent that it is possible, more objective.
Daniel, I suggest that you read what I wrote carefully and think about it for a short while before you formulate your answer. I have a feeling that I have repeated myself many times over, and frankly, I don’t see that it serves a purpose. Perhaps you just can’t understand what I’m saying, and perhaps I’m blind to something that you perceive to be obvious. In either case, I have run out of ideas of how I might explain my point of view to you. If you can think of a new way that you may explain your point of view to me, by all means, do so.
– Arik
Comment by Arik — 12/15/2006 @ 4:46 am
Arik, I don’t hate anyone really. Hate implies emotion, which I try to keep out of the issue. To me it’s a simple logic problem; some systems are better than others for the world as a whole. Unless you are willing to accept this as a fact rather than steadfastly relying on “every system being equal”, there’s not much more I can tell you.
I already agreed with you a long time ago that from each perspective all ideologies are equal — everyone learned that in secondary school. That’s not the question, though. It’s about trying to build a system that can benefit the world the most, while hurting it the least.
At that point, the roving warlords who rape, murder, and pillage in Africa are not equal to, say, the Buddhists. One way to demonstrate this would be to magnify the scope of influence of each group. In other words, what would the world look like if it was run by Buddhists who practiced Buddhism? And what would it look like if it was run by those committing genocide in Africa?
It’s a crude tool, to be sure, but it illustrates pretty clearly that according to the happiness/suffering system of morality (it’s Bertrand Russel’s, not mine) the Buddhist way is far superior for humanity. Of course one could argue that the African warlord is more correct “from their point of view”, but that’s nothing but an exercise in perspective.
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 12/16/2006 @ 4:10 am
DM: “some systems are better than others for the world as a whole”
You’d have to explain this one specifically, and in OBJECTIVE terms.
The only reason why you think the world is better off in the hands of Buddhists rather than the roving warlords is because of your Western values. You can’t define “better off” in objective terms, because it’s better off in YOUR value system.
There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LOGICAL about that statement. It’s totally value-driven and emotional. “A system that can benefit the world the most” is again, subjective and emotional, because the benefit is a benefit when you look at it.
The happiness/suffering system of morality is fine, as long as you remember that happiness for some people may be perceived entirely different than you, and while you perceive happiness in freedom, they may perceive happiness in belonging to a religious faction and being safe in the knowledge that they are pleasing the Lord. The African warlord is not only correct in his point of view, he’s making a better future for his kind and relieving the suffering of the miserable tribes he’s annihilating, the warlord sees himself as a savior of his people and a divine harbinger of justice and punishment. I’ve invented all this, I have no inkling of the psyche of an African warlord, I just want to show you that a point of view is not just an exercise in perspective, it changes the entire meaning of good and bad.
The only thing you can do to make all these statements true is to disclaim them with a big “The way I see the world, in my eyes…” and then you would be absolutely right.
– Arik
Comment by Arik — 12/16/2006 @ 4:58 am