Now there is another interesting note on violence in society which I’d like to mention.
The nation state that maintains a standing army, and that gives its approval to carrying out violent acts on its behalf, will almost always have, throughout history, been formed by violence itself– including our own. (This is dealt with at some length by Jared Diamond in his book Guns, Germs and Steel, referenced already).
But at some point in time along a nation’s history, (with the notable exception of the USA), the vast majority of the population are disarmed and then a smaller number (Army and Police) are armed to defend the country against invaders and/or maintain internal order over the vast majority that are unarmed. Given the number of countries in the world where the general population are unarmed, this seems to work reasonably well – and in the one country that I know of (the USA) where the general public were never disarmed, (in fact, have a constitutional right to carry weapons), it seems to bring a lot of problems.
However a very troubling reality (at least for the developed world) is that, because of our greed and hunger for more and more wealth, we use our developed status to manufacture arms and sell them to countries at war, or whose governments do not respect human rights – thereby being indirectly responsible for death, hardship, poverty, famine in faraway places.
And it is surely a measure of the effectiveness of the desensitisation, over hundreds of years, to the realities of state violence – indeed, seeing it as a necessary part of our world – that we do not feel very ashamed of our Western World and particularly our European tradition in this regard.
Scientists and engineers invent anti-personnel mines that blow off a soldier’s leg but will not kill him. The purpose of this is to cause maximum distress to his comrades who can hear his screams of pain but are helpless to go to his assistance because they are in a minefield. Scientists and engineers invent flammable gas that adheres to people’s skin thereby causing an unimaginably painful death. I could go on and on but I think you know where I am going with this.
I am sure that most of these scientists and engineers go home in the evening and tuck their children into bed, their consciences untroubled.
Scientists and engineers, mostly highly academically intelligent, who develop weapons, are, of course, just like the rest of us. Some are emotionally intelligent – for example see this link to an organisation known as the Union of Concerned Scientists – and some are emotionally very needy. Those who are needy have always been exploited by powerful people to further their own ends. (I explore various aspects of intelligence here).
It is reasonable to wonder if corporate closed-ness, allied closely to the military industrial complex (whose power I discuss in the next post) has prevented scientists from thinking deeply, because thinking deeply threatens the myth that we will be safer if we develop more sophisticated weapons.
And surely it is proof of the power of the mixture of fear, conditioning, perpetuation of values, and denial that we can invent and manufacture devices that inflict terrible injury and death on some humans in distant lands while we can lovingly tuck other humans into bed. (I refer to this as ambivalence in another part of the website).
(Here is a song where I try to touch into the struggle between the overwhelming power of the military-industrial complex and the desire that we all have to be responsible humans).
I have already described how acceptance of this myth of safety by highly educated scientists, engineers etc. in countries that called themselves civilised, and advanced – caused the terrible tragedies of the World Wars of the 20th Century.
When nations reach out to each other in a genuine way with the intention of reducing armaments it has resulted in – if not peace – at least lesser likelihood of war.
The hugely successful and profitable weapons industry is the most notable and damaging effects of corporate closed-ness in the world.