Archive for November, 2012

Monday, November 26th, 2012

Who Wins Wars?

Who wins wars?

More importantly – can a war, today, really be won?

In the “old days,” war was simple…populations were smaller, weapons were less effective for mass killing…so you fought and killed and then took over the population that remained.  Rape and pillage were, of course, part of the deal.

In some instances, the subsuming of the population was a given – champions fought each other and winner took all…

But lest you think that ancient societies were utopian…in War Before Civilization, Lawrence H. Keeley, a professor at the University of Illinois, says that “approximately 90–95% of known societies throughout history engaged in at least occasional warfare, and many fought constantly.”

And cruelty was a part of life long before gunpowder, modern warfare and fear of nuclear devastation, as has been evidenced by many archeological findings.

Yet, it seems to me that the biggest difference is the outcome – as I said…in the “old days,” we fought: I won, you lost, and for the most part you went away – integrated forcibly or otherwise into the winning society. Not exactly “quietly into the night,” more like kicking and screaming, but nevertheless – your tribe, territory, civilization ceased to exist as it was and most often re-emerged in parts of the conqueror’s society…and then as they got conquered – on and on and on – till today, when so much of who we are – anywhere – is an amalgam of diverse and often far-afield parts.

In fact – one view of the etymology of the word “war” – from the Old Saxon, Old German, Old Frankish (kind of makes the point) is to confuse; to perplex – maybe as in regard to what comes out the far end….

In either case – think about war in the last century – and think about the outcomes – Europe is now the EU (OK…maybe for a little while longer); Germany is a major economic power in the world and a key ally of the US; Japan is the largest (as of last week) holder of US debt and China and Russia are major trade partners of just about everyone. Hmmmmmmm.

Not a lot of empire subsuming here – is there? In fact – as many people as were killed, as much devastation as there was, the equation of destroy and take over is no longer an option – unless, of course, one doesn’t care at all and goes nuclear…and there are some who seem that crazy….

But at the end of the day – if you look at the conflicts that still rage – they are for the most part civil warlike – that is, between people in the same territory, fighting – each believe – for the same thing: religious – I speak to God and you don’t; ethnic – you are below me; or the simply old-fashioned – I’m running my country into the ground so I will take my population’s eye off of me and use one of the above to divert their attention while I divert all the money….

Neil Gaiman, in American Gods, had it right… “There’s never been a true war that wasn’t fought between two sets of people who were certain they were in the right. The really dangerous people believe they are doing whatever they are doing solely and only because it is without question the right thing to do. And that is what makes them dangerous.”

However, no matter how you look at it – there are no winners anymore – look at Vietnam.  The sheer loss of life – on all sides, from the French days on – the money that could have been spent on human needs – the hatred and civil anguish – all wasted, all down the toilet for nothing – all the fears and predictions came to naught – and today Vietnam is a proud country with a growing future – and a great office for me….

Hard to reconcile that with the days of protest and burning draft cards…my own included.

But so it goes…and while it’s not clear who wins – even losing isn’t clear – or maybe it is – as depicted years ago by this famous satire – “The Mouse That Roared.”

So yes – before the knee-jerkers jerk…people have to defend themselves, people have to protect themselves – and clearly some neighborhoods are more dangerous than others…but as Carl Sandburg said, “Sometime they’ll give a war and nobody will come.”  Would it were so….

Bottom line – listen:

“War does not determine who is right – only who is left.” Bertrand Russell

And, if you have been watching some of the postapocalyptic movies of the past decade, who is left is not necessarily who you want as a neighbor.

Which leads me to one of the greatest minds of all – Ben Franklin, who said: “There never was a good war, or a bad peace.”

So – no answers – at least I don’t have any – although sadly I see and read so many who do….all I have are questions – and maybe questions are the best and only place to start….

What’s your view?

 

 

 

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFRM4oJwLdc
  • Dear David, thanks so much for your deep and useful posts. They always give food for thinking.. when reconsidering and thinking over a vital topic you can define your own opinion and attitude to this. Agree with you - more questions than answers are here, and questions are really a good standpoint to start think over. I just want to stop ...
  • I ran into a related point in a story about driverless cars and ethics. The story goes beyond cars and touches on robotic warfare - http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/11/google-driverless-car-morality.html "The thought that haunts me the most is that that human ethics themselves are only a work-in-progress. We still confront situations for which we don’t have well-developed codes (e.g., in the case of assisted suicide) ...
Monday, November 19th, 2012

How Sure Are You?

How sure are you?

How sure of anything are you?

Look – having opinions is critical – no one likes a waffling whinge….

Having a POV at least gives you a place to begin a discussion and makes conversation interesting.

And driving a stake in the ground to anchor an argument can help keep you grounded and others focused.

But again – how sure are you?

Will you fall on your sword for your argued position?  Before you do, you might want to read this….

Do you adhere to a code? If you think you do, check this out….

Will you “kill” to make your point?  Hmm – might want to see this….

Bottom line – how sure are you???

Maybe it’s the difference between opinion and opinionated, between positions and policies, between thinking and knowing….

Seems to me – that sometimes we get so caught up in our own viewpoints that we not only miss the forest for the trees – we miss the trees as well – and if we miss the trees, we are down to the moss and rocks and I’m ready to bet that isn’t where we meant to go.

Despite all the technology, despite all the communication, despite 24/7 connectivity, shared values, globality, Gangnam and whatever else is trending at this moment – it doesn’t seem like anyone is really listening.

In the famously turbulent ‘60s in the US, there was a famous saying based on a Carl Sandburg line that went like this (it had many iterations):

Suppose they gave a war and nobody came

Sadly, that never happened – but here is the flip side – we get caught in our own rhetoric and imagine that others really do agree with us.  More so – we imagine that they don’t just agree –they really and truly support us – would fall on their swords for us….

Have you ever walked out of a meeting sure that it was great, only to discover that it wasn’t? Have you ever had a discussion where you’re sure you had consensus, only to discover you didn’t?  Have you ever been in a relationship sure that it was solid, only to get dumped?

We all have…at one time or another…experienced one or more…and other similar situations as well.

Which led me to this – listen:

“My doctor told me to stop having intimate dinners for four. Unless there are three other people.” Orson Welles

Truth is, Orson was no doubt talking about his weight – but maybe that is the point – we get fat on the dinners we make for guests who don’t come – and we sometimes seem oblivious to the empty seats….

So if you ever get the feeling that you are talking to yourself, check to make sure you have company.  On the other hand, learn from General Petraeus – make sure you invite the right people….

What do you think?

 

 

  • Mr. Sable, I think you bring up some interesting points here. You mention the distinction between "the opinion and opinionated, between positions and policies, between thinking and knowing." These comments resonate with me. As Roger Fisher and Bill Ury suggest in their work "Getting to Yes," we are often too focused on the position as opposed to the ...
Monday, November 12th, 2012

What Do We Really Vote For?

Four years ago – on Election Day in the United States, November 8, 2008 – Twitter was elated when the company saw a total of 1.8 million tweets related to the event of the day.

Fast-forward four years:

The first so-called US Presidential Debate 2012 – between Obama and Romney – showed 10 million Tweets during the 90-minute broadcast.

And, in what is a commentary of some sort – you judge what kind – finally something/someone broke Justin Bieber’s Tweet record to create the most shared image (to date) in social media ever…until the next one.

Lest you stop reading – no, this isn’t yet another analysis of the US election or the effect of social media on such events – although I will use both as references.

I am more interested in what drove people to vote as they did, what really influenced them and, at the end of the day, what really drives us all.

Because if it’s only a Twitter feed – humankind is in deep….

In fact, I don’t even think that voting itself is a measure of much either – I have written about this before – remember Hitler was elected in an open democratic election, and in today’s world I can go on and on.

What is important – in fact, in my opinion, the only important factor and the one that becomes the biggest benefit of what I have dubbed Digital Exponential – is the overwhelmingly powerful effect that offline, primal/DNA human behavior has on the world when combined with the enhanced sharing power of digital – it makes us all superheroes, gives us all special power; if we had masks and capes they’d make a movie…

So the question becomes, what is it that people in the United States voted for or against – as the case may be?  Or to broaden the analogy to another so-called high bar in social moments –what drove the people in Tahrir Square those few years ago – when their hopes and the hopes of the world were so high?

And if you think it was Twitter or Facebook or “Likes” or tweets – you are not even close – in my opinion.

Simply put, it was values. Values – a concept as old as we are – and a struggle that is equally old.  And, of course, values beg the question of universality – are there values that connect us as people?  Are values strictly local, and your values and mine will never align?  Is there a standard of values that link us more than they divide us?

I have always believed the answer is yes, and have written about it before.  I will let you decide if you think that global values exist – in what I call Generation World.

So while I can write pages and pages about tweets and re-tweets, Facebook pages and “Likes” and “Dislikes,” the amount of money spent in local TV broadcasts (imagine that) and the incredibly obscene amount of money spent in general – I will let you explore those on your own.

Instead I will share with you what I consider to my proof point – the words of Joel Benenson – Obama’s lead pollster:

  • “The president’s victory was a triumph of vision, not of demographics” – this from the guy reading the audience and helping to set the strategy.
  • “That is why, despite the credit given to Mr. Romney for ‘understanding’ the economy…Mr. Obama was always significantly more trusted on qualities that matter to working Americans” – technical doesn’t count as much as values.
  • “Americans made a choice to side with a set of values and principles” – in other words, not spreadsheets.

Bottom line – as you look around the world, ask yourselves – what is driving people…really? What makes us align or oppose?  Are there core values that unite us or is it really all local, and my values might be so abhorrent to you that you would kill me (and maybe yourself) to stop them?  PS:  If you die for them or kill for them are they really values?

Time Magazine, in covering the Egyptian revolution – an event that was used by analysts to drive the value of social media companies one year ago – wrote:

“Technology mattered, but this was not a technological revolution. Social networks did not cause these movements, but they kept them alive and connected. Technology allowed us to watch, and it spread the virus of protest, but this was not a wired revolution; it was a human one, of hearts and minds, the oldest technology of all.”

So the onus is on us – the challenge is ours.  Listen:

“Your beliefs become your thoughts,

Your thoughts become your words,

Your words become your actions,

Your actions become your habits,

Your habits become your values,

Your values become your destiny.”

Mahatma Gandhi

So is our destiny merely tweeting?  You tell me….

What do you think?

PS – some good reading on the election:

Rob Norman: The Morning After
CNN: Why Romney Lost
Time Magazine: How Chicago’s Data-Driven Campaign Triumphed
Financial Times: US Election Offers Advertising Lessons
CNN: The Billion Dollar Election: Who Got Paid?