By “we” you mean the rich developed countries, right?
Near enough, yes.
What it shows is that it can be successfully controlled and channeled.
I think this may just be a disagreement about definitions.
I ask again: What proposition is it that you think you’re arguing against?
Being obedient is correlated with the position on the docile-bloodthirsty axis.
I beg leave to doubt this, or at least to doubt whether it has the significance it seems you’re suggesting. If you consider only times of peace when TPTB want docile (I note in passing that yet again you’re choosing terminology that encourages equivocation between “peaceful” and “obedient”) sheep, then of course obedience will be correlated with docility. But if you consider only times of war when TPTB want bloodthirsty sheep, you’ll find obedience correlated with bloodthirstiness. Lately peace is more common than war, and it’s mostly only the youngish men that TPTB want to be bloodthirsty, so no doubt overall the correlation with peacefulness is positive. I think that reflects the fact that peacefulness is usually more useful than bloodthirstiness, not a fundamental link between peacefulness and obedience.
I’m maybe overstating my case a bit. People have moods in which they want to burn the world down, and those tend to be less obedient and more bloodthirsty. So there probably is some genuine correlation between obedience and peacefulness that isn’t just a matter of peace being, well, mostly better than war. But I think your choices of metaphor are liable to push readers towards thinking there’s much such correlation than there is.
What proposition is it that you think you’re arguing against?
That we can get rid of bloodthirstiness in humans easily enough.
But if you consider only times of war when TPTB want bloodthirsty sheep, you’ll find obedience correlated with bloodthirstiness.
I don’t think so. Let me make a caricature of my position so that it becomes clearer: humans have a violent beast inside them which civilization contains and tries to tame. This beast is not obedient by its nature. In peacetime TPTB make the containment cage as strong as possible, but in wartime the cage is open and the beast is let loose. There is less obedience, but that’s the price you pay for the ability to smash. Think berserkers.
I shudder to imagine what kind of thinking on the part of my readers will this metaphor push them towards :-P
That we can get rid of bloodthirstiness in humans easily enough.
Well, depending on what you mean by “we”, “get rid of” and “in humans” my answer is somewhere between “yes we can, and we have, and we can see that all around us” and “well, duh, of course we can’t, and no one claimed otherwise” :-).
Let me make a caricature of my position [...] violent beast [...] not obedient by its nature [...] containment cage.
OK, so the corresponding caricature of my position goes like this: humans do indeed have such a beast, but it can in fact be tamed as well as contained, and in many humans it is well enough tamed that its existence is scarcely detectable, and taming it doesn’t appear to do anyone any harm. If released, the beast doesn’t obey its human very well, but that’s largely orthogonal to the (dis)obedience of individual humans to the society they’re in and its leaders. In particular, the idea that individuals will become more free if they release the beast is an error, often deliberately fostered by people of malign intentions; the actual main effects of releasing the beast are (1) that you are more at the mercy of the beast, which you do not control well, and (2) that you are more at the mercy of TPTB, if they happen to be the sort of PTB that are good at manipulating people by throwing red meat to their beasts.
Under the assumption that this segregated part of the society, the Beast Riders (commonly called the armed forces), will be adequate to stop the Joyous Skullcrushers if and when they appear.
the idea that individuals will become more free if they release the beast is an error
Near enough, yes.
I think this may just be a disagreement about definitions.
I ask again: What proposition is it that you think you’re arguing against?
I beg leave to doubt this, or at least to doubt whether it has the significance it seems you’re suggesting. If you consider only times of peace when TPTB want docile (I note in passing that yet again you’re choosing terminology that encourages equivocation between “peaceful” and “obedient”) sheep, then of course obedience will be correlated with docility. But if you consider only times of war when TPTB want bloodthirsty sheep, you’ll find obedience correlated with bloodthirstiness. Lately peace is more common than war, and it’s mostly only the youngish men that TPTB want to be bloodthirsty, so no doubt overall the correlation with peacefulness is positive. I think that reflects the fact that peacefulness is usually more useful than bloodthirstiness, not a fundamental link between peacefulness and obedience.
I’m maybe overstating my case a bit. People have moods in which they want to burn the world down, and those tend to be less obedient and more bloodthirsty. So there probably is some genuine correlation between obedience and peacefulness that isn’t just a matter of peace being, well, mostly better than war. But I think your choices of metaphor are liable to push readers towards thinking there’s much such correlation than there is.
That we can get rid of bloodthirstiness in humans easily enough.
I don’t think so. Let me make a caricature of my position so that it becomes clearer: humans have a violent beast inside them which civilization contains and tries to tame. This beast is not obedient by its nature. In peacetime TPTB make the containment cage as strong as possible, but in wartime the cage is open and the beast is let loose. There is less obedience, but that’s the price you pay for the ability to smash. Think berserkers.
I shudder to imagine what kind of thinking on the part of my readers will this metaphor push them towards :-P
Well, depending on what you mean by “we”, “get rid of” and “in humans” my answer is somewhere between “yes we can, and we have, and we can see that all around us” and “well, duh, of course we can’t, and no one claimed otherwise” :-).
OK, so the corresponding caricature of my position goes like this: humans do indeed have such a beast, but it can in fact be tamed as well as contained, and in many humans it is well enough tamed that its existence is scarcely detectable, and taming it doesn’t appear to do anyone any harm. If released, the beast doesn’t obey its human very well, but that’s largely orthogonal to the (dis)obedience of individual humans to the society they’re in and its leaders. In particular, the idea that individuals will become more free if they release the beast is an error, often deliberately fostered by people of malign intentions; the actual main effects of releasing the beast are (1) that you are more at the mercy of the beast, which you do not control well, and (2) that you are more at the mercy of TPTB, if they happen to be the sort of PTB that are good at manipulating people by throwing red meat to their beasts.
Indeed :-)
Under the assumption that this segregated part of the society, the Beast Riders (commonly called the armed forces), will be adequate to stop the Joyous Skullcrushers if and when they appear.
Yes, I agree with that.