Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA29976 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Mon, 17 Sep 2001 12:10:26 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3102A6CFD9@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <email@example.com> To: "'firstname.lastname@example.org'" <email@example.com> Subject: RE: On the origin of .... war Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 10:29:03 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain X-Filter-Info: UoS MailScan 0.1 [D 1] Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
<There just doesn't seem to be any rational basis for it.
Aboriginal tribes get virtually nothing out of it. Yet they're often just
as enthusiastic about war as we are for team sports. Instead of looking for
a reason, we need to be looking at the unreason that bubbles up from the
No we don't Ted, Aboriginals get as much from war as anyone else- increased
territority, decreased competition for resources, opportunities to improve
the tribe's gene pool by kidnapping women and children etc. etc. It all
depends how one defines rational. In adaptive terms, war can be highly
rational, and a very good strategy for dealing with competitors within one's
own species in a single encounter. I refer again to the evidence of great
ape raiding parties on neighbouring troops.
We often tend to think of rationality as in some way automatically removed
from what we are when it's not, and what we need to do is recognise this
otherwise we will never be able to turn away from instinctive flight/fight
responses to such acts.
George Galloway, a Scottish MP ardently opposed to military action, and who
was against the Gulf War, made the point that if the allies (as they are
being dubbed in the UK) flatten Afghanistan then we risk creating many more
Bin Ladens in his place. I'm not suggesting something shouldn't be done (I
for one wouldn't be sorry to see the Taleban get a kicking), but my instinct
is always that the bravest of acts is to not retaliate with, what's the
phrase- extreme predjudice, which looks likely at the moment. If
pro-Taleban pakistanis oust Musharaf in the event of mass slaughter there,
they suddenly have access to nuclear weapons, and whilst that might not make
the US and Nato act rashly, India may feel in imminent danger etc. etc.
-- The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland by charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA. Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the University of Stirling shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
=============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 17 2001 - 12:15:25 BST