Does supporting the underdog mean having to also take sides with bigger or more influential players in the world of politics and power?
Surely it can't be as simple as East and West?
Disliking one is not sufficient reason to accept the aggression of another (much less even to support, or seek to justify.)
F got into a somewhat heated discussion with someone whose politics sounded (to F anyway) to be the product of an indoctrination without any room for a consideration of humanity; someone whose political beliefs seemed to be that it was OK to push small players under the bus in order to create 'a balance' of the bigger (read 'biggest') ones.
I pretended to be asleep, but I was listening
If all countries were smaller and federations or unions of countries were banned, and no one could form military treaty organizations, would wars be smaller and less lethal, or more frequent and attritional?
Would there be endless conflict or none at all? Your history suggests that for humans, warring is a state of existence.
Is it a uniquely human thing to try an wipe themselves out and take the rest of us with them? I'm starting to think that the planet would be a better regulated place without you creatures that walk on your hind legs and use your hands to create ways of killing each other and destroying the environments around you.
F said I should read 'Ender's Game' by Orson Scott Card. Maybe I will get her to read it to me.
Hari OM
ReplyDeleteDeep thoughts this morning, Tigger... and understanbly so. It is a sad fact that the human animal has developed a sense of yours and mine and that there are some in the species who believe that what is yours ought all to be mine. Sensible discussion and sharing don't figure in their version of the world. All animals have the 'survival of the fittest' gene - even cats - and will face skirmishes as everyone finds their place in the order of things. Only humans have taken it to the level o potential mass destruction and with some of the most horribly sadisticly inventive ways of bringing about that destruction. If only that creativity could be redirected to enivronmental and ecological uses (that is the modern way of saying turn their tanks into ploughs...)
Ooh, Enders Game - read that a few decades back. Hmmm... not sure what you'll make of that Tigger, dear. Hugs and wags, YAM-aunty xxx
We are not all the same Mr T. But the bullyboys always seem to win
ReplyDeletethis is so true. In the past few days i have started to fret for the safety of all my friends in Europe. At first I thought they are safe, but distance has nothing to do with it if he takes out power grids and water and bombs that will float stuff all over our planet. I do not know the answer but I do think the planet would be better without us humans.
ReplyDeleteHumans just can not live together without warring. From gangs in the streets fighting other gangs in the same streets . Our world is crazy and has always been this way. I have lived almost 8 decades and there has never been a time that there were no wars.
It is tragic that one person invades another country for power and whatever else....it is very humbling that all we spectators can do (other than donate to humanitarian efforts on behalf of those displaced, injured, etc) is sit and watch and despair. My prayers continue for all involved.
ReplyDeleteOh yes. I totally agree. I think this planet would thrive without the plague of humans on it
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately I and those I hold dearest are human so I kinda want to stick around
Another selfish human thought I guess