Title pretty much says it all. Crusades are now generally acknowledged to be a bad idea, even among Christians. Crusades = killing Arabs to bring Christianity to their lands. Now we’re killing Arabs to bring ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ to their lands. I put those in quotes because forcing people into a ‘free democracy’ doesn’t really make sense (you can’t force someone to be free, being free is, like, defined, as not being forced into something you don’t want). 

That being said, freedom and democracy are far worthier things to spread than Christianity in my books. There are two problems with forcibly spreading them though: 1) due to modern Arab history, evolution of a popular, effective government is wayyyy more likely and better off coming from within, rather than having it imposed on them by the West against their will. The West has been shaping Arab governments for far too long. The turmoil these days in Egypt et all is a great example. Egypt is evolving today, and if we hadn’t invaded Iraq, maybe a popular movement would have done the same there. Arab governments are all relatively new (colonial era/slave era weren’t that long ago, and slave era didn’t die out there till after it did here, cause the slave traders still had tons of power), and the modern governments there have been propped up/established by international powers. It took a long time for democracy to evolve in the West, so it was wrong to dismiss the chance that Iraq’s government was going to evolve on its own. Now we have a blood-stained, (unpopular?), foreign-imposed democracy in Iraq that may not last past our withdrawal, whereas in Egypt there is real hope (though there’s a good chance it won’t work out).

Reason 2) is that it’s wrong to think along the lines of: we have things good, we should be willing to use force to spread our ideals to places that have it bad, and that will share our goodness. One reason this is wrong is because we don’t necessarily have it good b/c of our ideals. The US rose economically to the top b/c WW1 and 2 wrecked Europe, which previously had been on top. Even today, it’s not necessarily freedom, democracy and capitalism that are responsible for having it good here: we exploit cheap foreign labor like it’s no one’s business, foreign powers make gigantic purchases from US companies as part of diplomacy with the most powerful nation in the world. I don’t really know how things work at that level, but if you don’t either then you should not be confident that we have things good b/c of our ideals, b/c there are so many other possible explanations.

Another reason for 2) is that what works in one nation/economy may not work in another. The wealth of Arab countries is oil. That is radically different from countries whose wealth is based on business (of course, Arab wealth is based on more than just oil, but comparatively speaking). The work of drilling/refining oil is important, but the wealth of that oil belongs more to the country than to the drillers, b/c the oil is a resource of that country, and drilling for it is something anyone with a right mind would do given the chance (like if you had a pile of rubies buried in your backyard, and your brother staked out that area so no one else in the family could dig, then dug them up and said he was entitled to them all b/c he did the work of digging for it). So basically, if the wealth belongs to the state, then more socialist policies should probably be in place.

And actually this last is applicable to Hawaii. So much of the money here is from tourism. What percentage of the profits does a hotel deserve, if the reason people come here is because the island is paradise? It isn’t the hotel that makes it paradise, it’s the island: the weather, the nature, and the people. So shouldn’t the government of the island, and the people who help make it paradise, deserve a larger percentage than, say, for a hotel in New Jersey? (hot girls shld get tax money)

http://i.imgur.com/cKUlg.jpg

so good…

So Pins has been gearing our conversations towards evolution and consciousness, and a few things popped up in my head I thought I’d share.

So first of all, it seems a pattern for Pins to propose that evolutionary theory can be applied to this or that other field as well (as though expecting disagreement). I thought I’d articulate what I think some authors I’ve read have taken for granted, but not articulated: why evolutionary theory can be applied to just ‘bout everything.

Evolution is, to my mind, a branch or subdivision of a deeper field. That deeper field can perhaps be said as ‘the study of what exists’ (and covers what will continue existing, and why, and how existence has changed, and how various factors lead to changes, and probably lots of other questions as well). Evolution can be defined as the application of that field to biology. Many of the rules that are true to evolution (the importance of self-propagation, advantages leading to survival of some lifeforms and the extinction of others) can be applied to other subdivisions of ‘the study of what exists’, because the subdivisions of this field are likely by their nature to share patterns of success and failure.

For example, you could draw a parallel between propagation of the species and the spreading of an idea. When you have babies, you are increasing the size of your species. Similarly, if you define ‘species population’ as ‘the population of people convinced of a specific idea’, then when you convince someone of an idea, you are increasing the size of the host population, and in a sense propagating the species. You could speculate that the success of evangelical movements is based on the strength with which their ‘species’ (Evangelicals) propagate (i.e. convert people). In this way you are taking a principle from evolution - the species that is best at multiplying has an advantage, and applying it to an idea, a religion, etc… 

What occurred to me that was particularly interesting, and that is the reason I write on this subject, is that my moods and habits can be said to follow this science too. My moods are, or can, constantly change, and those that stick with me are not necessarily those that I most prefer, but are those that are most successful in ensuring their continued existence.  (similarly, the ideas that are prevalent in society aren’t there because they are right- they are there b/c they are the most successful at their own brand of evolution (i.e. ideological or cultural, or possibly many others).

Of course this is obvious in terms of addicting behavior, but it can also be true of place. Mood both depends upon and determines where one chooses to be, and what one chooses to do. Any daily habit can draw one into a year-long pattern, but be far from what is best for oneself. 

In this sense, settling into habit is an abandonment of childhood dreams of paradise: the acceptance of a way of living that will work its way into your mind with increasing importance and resistance to change requires acceptance of imperfection. This is, perhaps, emotionally equivalent to middle age. In old age some people once again challenge these modes, taking the energy to lift themselves out and look for another (often for physical reasons one’s previous habits are no longer so appealing, and often for reasons of gained maturity). Thus the old adage that old age is a second childhood.

On the other subject, consciousness, I had a thought train to follow. It occurred to me that as we would define human consciousness, it would perhaps be unarguable that our consciousness can only focus on one subject at a time. I can walk across a field while listening to music and reliving a recent conversation in my head, but my consciousness can only be on one task at a time: I can focus on walking, the music, or on memory. The ‘consciousness’ could even be said to be that focus, which may imply awareness.

The implications of this are interesting vis-a-vis the conversation as to whether the interaction between humans and the internet constitutes a form of consciousness, because the feature I define above is not true of humans and the internet: there is no singular focus. This isn’t to say that humans and the internet are not an alternate form of consciousness, but then it’s really just a question of how one defines consciousness, which I consider an abstraction of physical reality to begin with.

http://gizmodo.com/5660618/this-is-the-simpsons-title-scene-secretly-created-by-banksy

w000000 banksy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shah-nukeIran.jpg

I have no problem with wikileaks. The problem people have is that they do not want a world where our top secret government dealings are made public (for security/diplomatic reasons). I agree with this. However, I believe that if someone is risking death by committing treason to reveal information to the people of the world, then there should be a way for them to reveal that information. Treason should not be impossible to commit, because there are times when the government is heading down a horrible path, and getting the truth out is more important than loyalty. It is the responsibility of our government to prevent its own officials from committing treason. It does so with the threat of death. The worse a path a government is heading down, the more those officials may be willing to risk death and get the truth out there. Also, the treason we’re talking about here is not the passing of information to an enemy government, but to all the people of the world. As such, it is generally more altruistic.

Theoretically, if there were a government official leaking documents to some press other than wikileaks, I would consider it the role of the press to report those documents to the public. The role of the press is to value truth and public awareness. This role is crucial in a democratic system. There are times when the truth would better have been kept secret, but we create bigger problems by creating a system where the truth cannot get out. Blame for treason lies on the leaker; wikileaks is fulfilling the role of the press. Much of our current media is not so admirally neutral, nor values the truth as purely as wikileaks seems to. I wonder whether if information had been leaked to some press within the U.S., if that press could or would have successfully distributed the information to the world, against the will of our government. As such, our press may not adequately be fulfilling the role we need it to fill within the system as a whole, making something like wikileaks necessary and indispensible.

Treason can betray the best interests of our country, but sometimes there are truths that are more important than treason. Imagine if it had been leaked in 2001 that Iraq did not have WMDs, that they had little-nothing to do with 9/11, and that these revelations had swayed the American people not to invade Iraq. Think about Guantanamo, and how important it is know the truth about it. Think of all the corruption within U.S. government and corporations (hypothetically, I don’t know much, but certainly looking at our Chicago politics…), and how important it is that the truth comes out. If the recent leak was by someone who sees us heading to war with Iran, and wants to avoid it, then that’s not so bad in my book.  

Josh, in response to what you wrote (b/c I dunno how to post this as a note), I think your argument is against the morality of the leak, and against the ideology of transparency being good in and of itself. I do not think you have made an argument that wikileaks should censor itself. The difference is that I believe it is good for part of the overall system to believe in transparency. I think it is great for the press to believe in transparency and truth. I do not believe the government should seek transparency in all things, or that the leak was necessarily the right thing to do. But I whole heartedly support the role of wikileaks, which did not obtain the information itself, and only serves as a conduit for others who believe their information needs to be shown to the world.

I suppose I do believe this is the right direction for the world, and that the media as is is not unbiased/good enough, so my beliefs likely influence this all.

just so I can listen w.o. looking it up all the time on Munk’s page.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/arab-man-who-posed-as-jew-to-seduce-woman-convicted-of-rape-1.302895

“Arab man who posed as jew to seduce woman convicted of rape”.

-abridged: Arab guy had consensual sex with a woman on the same day he met her, then walked out on her. She went to the police. Dunno details, but rape!

“The court is obliged to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price - the sanctity of their bodies and souls,” Segal wrote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5nk9JfSA0o