Tough question: How can we stop humans from killing each other?

By David McElroy · May 24, 2011

According to the Book of Genesis, humans have been killing each other ever since Cain killed Abel out of jealousy. Over the centuries, we’ve gotten very good at it. Individuals kill each other over love and greed and hate and various other emotions and desires. But the most efficient and effective killers have always been governments — as one group justifies its desire to destroy another group and take what it has.

If we’re going to live in a post-statist world where the sprawling nation-state goes away, we’re looking at a future in which independent jurisdictions will be smaller and less homogeneous. It’s a perfect recipe for a continuation of the bloody conflict that’s haunted humanity from the beginning. Are we setting up a return to the feudal warfare of early nation-states?

In a discussion Monday about this possible future, a friend of mine said the following — and it echoes one of the key questions I have about the post-state world:

However, I think some underlying agreement to tolerate each other — necessarily somewhat voluntaristic unless we’re talking about states — is required for those societies to coexist.

The question is whether that’s possible. Have humans learned enough to make enlightened choices? I believe humans are inherently sinful, but whether you call it original sin or simply human nature, I’m not convinced our nature can change, so I’m not counting on it. Have we at least learned how to rig the incentives so that groups have a greater incentive to get along than they do to kill each other and steal from one another?

I don’t know. As I’ve thought a lot over the last 10 or 15 years about new cities or nations, I’ve been most interested in islands, for this very reason. The water that separates an island from its neighbors is a blessing and a curse. It makes it harder to attack, but it makes it more difficult to trade. On balance, the defense is probably worth it.

Some have argued that changes in technology are going to make it harder for large groups to have a natural advantage over a smaller group. One could argue that the history of the past 10 years provides some strong evidence for that, as a relative handful of mostly backwards people have kept the largest military on the planet tied down and unable to score a decisive long-term victory that can end a conflict for good. In fact, it would appear that one man plotted to bring the United States into conflict with the entire Muslim world — and he succeeded well before he died very recently. Would technology prove an even greater weapon in the hands of a small group of people from a developed area? That’s a question I’ll examine another time, but I’ve read arguments to that effect.

So how can incentives be rigged to prevent conflict from happening? Is it possible? Is it realistic for these small cities or nations to have defensive weapons that would protect them and make war inadvisable for groups of bullies? If we can’t answer that question acceptably, we might be right back to the point of small groups consolidating for greater protection and power. So it’s a question that has to be answered before we can hope to get people to take alternatives to the state seriously.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts