Tag Archives: liberal

Restless Without War: Is World Peace Possible?

Posted on by
1

Conflict can be a powerful way to provide meaning to your life. Without conflict, what else can fill that void?

I have been thinking about war a lot in the past year, from the historical, philosophical, and psychological perspectives. The approach to warfare seems to be one of the key concretes that distinguish different philosophies (liberal, conservative, objectivist, libertarian, etc). I am fascinated by the subject in general. How we as a society and individuals can hold pacifist values and yet support an unending sequence of wars.

bnw-carlisle-umunna-nigeria-biafra-war-child-casualty-3One of the questions I’m ultimately concerned with is if world peace is possible. The more I learn about human nature, the more cynical I become.

Two books that have especially inspired my thinking on this topic is A History of Warfare and War is a Lie. These are two brilliant books that I will talk about more in the future. The first admires war as a fundamental (and necessary) part of human society. I’m not sure “admires” is the right word, but the author is fascinated by the richness of its history to a point of obsession. The second is a brilliant deconstruction of all the ways in which war is absurd and the justification we provide for it is a contradiction of the logical and moral compass with which we guide our life.

I’m sorry for the dramatic photograph of a child casualty. It’s more for me to remind myself of the reality behind the philosophy.

Einstein’s Brain

Posted on by
4

I was listening to The Skeptics Guide to the Universe which is a laid-back podcast that preaches the value of the scientific method.

They briefly mentioned a quote from Stephen Jay Gould:

“I am somehow less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.”

There wasn’t any discussion of the quote but it got me thinking about the old nature vs nurture debate, given my recent reading of Mountains Beyond Mountains and the realization of just how dire the living conditions are for most of the world’s population. My intuition on this debate is that both your genetics and your upbringing contribute to what you accomplish as a member of society, but the circumstance of the upbringing is much more important. Genetics, I think, can provide a ceiling, but for most of us that ceiling is so high that it does not prevent us from changing the world through brilliant ideas or exceptional productivity.

To me, genetics provides the ability for an individual to be consumed by a goal, a passion for an idea. Our parents, our surroundings, and the minuscule details of our upbringing determine if that passion is able to flourish.

At the time of writing this, I am a progressive, a liberal, in that I believe in a government’s utilitarian value to society. However, effective “nurture” requires an unabashed respect for individual accomplishment. In other words, give a liberal $100 and 2 school kids, and he’ll give $50 to each to buy school books, lunch, transportation to and from school. This is what I believe is morally right. However, it is not most effective at developing either of the kids into Einstein. In my opinion, the more effective policy is to run a contest for the two kids. Give them one week to come up with a good idea, and whoever comes up with a better idea, gets the whole $100. It’s not about money, it’s about valuing the elite. It’s what the objectivists preach as their ideal. It’s unjust in my view, but a little of that individualistic spirit is needed to serve as a catalyst for the development of genius in our education system.