[Reader-list] Bertrand Russell on war in the future (1952)

[Menso Heus]

On Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 09:32:15PM -0700, Rana Dasgupta wrote:

<cut out some stuff, see original posting>

> But if human life *is* to continue in spite of
> science, mankind will have to learn a discipline of
> the passions which, in the past, has not been
> necessary.  Men will have to submit to the law, even
> when they think the law unjust and iniquitous. 

This, to me, seems to be a bit too simplistic. It 
states that humans, if they wish to live, must accept
anything that is brought upon them by others, be it 
their neighbour or the government or whoever. It reminds
me of the Tinkers that show up in the Wheel Of Time book
series, they accept all violence done to them without 
responding in the same way. It is noble, it is also a 
great way to see those you care about decrease in numbers
rapidly in case the proverbial cow dung hits the fan. 

It is easy to be said yet hard or impossible to do. People
will fight against what they find unjust if it is near 
enough to them and they have the power to do so, especially
if things are not changing or not likely to change. 

Let us not forget, that war is never fought over injustice
done, it is fought because either money can be made or in
the current situation money that could have been made, is lost. 
The Gulf War is quite a good example of this. ("They're messing 
with *our* oil!")
Nobody did anything to help settle the war in former 
Yugoslavia because there was no money to be made there, even
the Taleban could do whatever they wanted since they didn't
have anything we wanted and can still get away with it as
long as they deliver Bin Laden. 

> Nations which are persuaded that they are only
> demanding the barest justice will have to acquiesce
> when this demand is denied the by the neutral
> authority.  I do not say that this is easy; I do not
> prophesy that it will happen; I say only that if it
> does not happen the human race will perish , and will
> perish as a result of science.
> 
> A clear choice must be made within fifty years, the
> choice between Reason and Death.  And by 'Reason' I
> mean willingness to submit to law as declared by an
> international authority.  I fear that mankind may
> choose Death.  I hope I am mistaken.

The past has proven that, as I already stated, the world 
doesn't do anything unless there is a profit to be made. 
I think there are already organisations that should make
sure that no human rights are being broken, yet it is 
happening, continuously, and nobody is doing anything about
it because it doesn't get us any money.

Thus this international organisation should suddenly change
all this? Being led by countries that are being despised by
others? Being led by countries that have already shown that 
they don't care about what's happening as long as it's not 
happening to them or the promise of a profit to be made is
not in sight?

The real problem is, always has been, always will be, the 
lust for power over others. 
Money has proved to be a great tool for gaining this power 
and by excercising it one can achieve even more money and 
thus more power!
More! More! MOOOOREEEEEEE!!!!*

Now you be a good little taxpayer Rana, and don't you worry 
too much son: `make no mistake about it, your armed forces 
are ready.' 

Unjustice, ha! Go hug a tree, hippie! 

Menso


* Naturally, the cry for more is followed by the counter-question
"And then what?"

What follows is the answer to that question, it can be compiled
in any BASIC compiler (most brains should be sufficient enough 
for this too :) 

10 PRINT "EVEN MOOOOOREEEEEE !!!"
20 PRINT "And then what?"
30 GOTO 10
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, the :// part is an 'emoticon' representing a man with a strip 
of sticky tape across his mouth.   -R. Douglas, alt.sysadmin.recovery
---------------------------------------------------------------------