{"id":106733,"date":"2018-02-19T12:00:03","date_gmt":"2018-02-19T12:00:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=106733"},"modified":"2018-02-18T10:47:18","modified_gmt":"2018-02-18T10:47:18","slug":"its-the-rapacity-stupid","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2018\/02\/its-the-rapacity-stupid\/","title":{"rendered":"It\u2019s the Rapacity, Stupid!"},"content":{"rendered":"

19 Feb 2018 – Case 1<\/em>: Imagine, in a picturesque suburban neighborhood, two pet dogs of immediate neighbors quarreling over a bone \u2013 growling, barking, snarling, lunging; that is, a typical instance of canine conflict over a prized object.<\/p>\n

Imagine that the two owners come out and notice the conflict. How might they resolve the conflict? Surely this would be a simple matter, with several decent solutions. For example, the \u201cbone of contention\u201d may be tossed into a covered garbage bin. Or one of the neighbors may come up with a second bone so that each dog has one. Or each neighbor may simply drag his or her dog \u2013 growling and snarling \u2013 away from the conflict.<\/p>\n

This would be civilized behavior. The neighbors would smile at each other, exchange a civility or two, and go happily back home. We can conclude rightly that a \u201chigher intelligence\u201d at work resolved the conflict.<\/p>\n

Case 2<\/em>: Now imagine that the prized object is something that the two neighbors covet for themselves \u2013 say a precious statuette, or something similar, that the two dogs mistake for a bone. A thinly disguised conflict would now ensue between the two neighbors<\/em>, with the situation evolving around an altogether different trajectory.<\/p>\n

Of course the neighbors would be quite \u201csophisticated\u201d in how they maneuver to get hold of the prized object. The strategies used would include dissimulation, fake smiles, verbal thrust and parry, posturing, and so on \u2013 with barely hidden animosity \u201cjust under the surface\u201d.<\/p>\n

Viewed in terms of game theory, each neighbor would aim to establish \u201crightful claim\u201d on the coveted object \u2013 while also struggling to ensure that he or she is not seen to fall below certain presumed standards of \u201ccivilized behavior\u201d.<\/p>\n

The \u201chigher intelligence\u201d which manages to resolve the conflict in the first case is totally absent from the scene in the second \u2013 all available intelligence being fully tangled up in the game of proving \u201crightful claim\u201d.<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

Even if one considers Homo Sapiens<\/em> to be \u201ccreated in God\u2019s image\u201d, one cannot deny a degree of commonality between the two conflict situations outlined.<\/p>\n

However, one key difference between the two is that, in the second case, \u201ccivilized behavior\u201d is strained by the desire to obtain the coveted object. The questions below can serve as \u201cstarters\u201d for a closer examination of this point:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Is it an implicit criterion of being considered \u201ccivilized\u201d that one must get hold of as many prized possessions as possible \u2013 \u201cby hook or by crook\u201d?<\/li>\n
  2. Would it not be \u201ccivilized\u201d for one neighbor to simply let the other neighbor have the contested prized object?<\/li>\n
  3. Does \u201ccivilization\u201d mean (a) being civil, or (b) appearing to be civil while maximizing material gain? The latter in fact seems to be the currently prevalent and dominant definition of the newly emerging \u201cglobal civilization\u201d.<\/li>\n
  4. What is the role of material prosperity in \u201cbeing civilized\u201d?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    ***<\/p>\n

    Historians tell us that the two World Wars of the previous century \u201creshaped the world\u201d, although that is no more than a simple and trivial statement of fact. Any conflict which involves hundreds of millions of people and causes the deaths of tens of millions would obviously \u201creshape the world\u201d. That should be a no-brainer, even for a professional historian.<\/p>\n

    Far more important than the above trivial observation would be to expose what exactly caused the two horrendous bloodbaths. The following statements were made by persons who knew exactly what was going on.<\/p>\n

      \n
    • Conversation between a British and a US diplomat, before the start of the First World War:<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      BD: \u201cWe are probably fools not to find a reason for declaring war on Germany before she builds too many ships and takes away our trade.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

      USD: \u201cIf you wish to compete with German trade, work harder.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

      BD: \u201cThat would mean lowering our standard of living. Perhaps it would be simpler for us to have a war \u2026 Is it a question of right or wrong? Maybe it is just a question of keeping our supremacy.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n