the mellow tigger's musings

I have inconsistencies of thought on the matter, so obviously I need to spend more time pondering the subject.  By my definition, a warrior is someone willing to die, not someone willing to kill.  I respect the warriors of peace.  What, though, do I call those who do both?  I think, in particular, of the Sacred Band of Thebes... the famous warrior lovers.  What are they, in my vocabulary?  I don't yet know.

Probably the most significant religious text that I have is this:

The right to live is tentative. Material things are limited, though the mind is free. Of protein, phosphorus, nor even energy is there ever enough to slake all hungers. Therefore, show not affront when diverse beings vie over what physically exists. Only in thought can there be true generosity. So let thought be the focus of your world.
- David Brin, my favorite sci-fi author

The universe constrains us; it imposes limits on resources (both matter and energy). I've seen no evidence that suggests a way to escape this fundamental restriction. So of course there will be conflict over resources. Gods of war (and therefore heroes of warfare) have their necessary place in the story of our lives. Every form of life competes for resources, from microscopic organisms to macroscopic biospheres. When war is called for, wage war brilliantly.

I am not a peacenik who thinks that universal love will overcome every obstacle. My universe is more complex than that. I do question, though, how to tell when warfare (killing for future protection of resources rather than for immediate food/shelter) is appropriate. Nature provides so many checks on unrestrained growth already. Starvation and disease are very effective ways to reduce a population. Do we add genocide to the mix of mechanisms only because we grow impatient with Mother Nature's pace? When is a soldier something more than just an impatient bully?

I am here. I am human. I was not born to fight you. I was born to live and be free. And this is me living and being free in the face of your teargas. I wanted to create, not just react.
- "Fierce Light", http://www.alivemindmedia.com/films/fierce-light/ (YouTube trailer)

This movie reminded me that peaceful protestors die just as simply as armed ones. Peacefully waiting out a conflict still results in casualties. Can the peaceful outlast the armed, starving the aggressor of money, time, food, or water? If they can, then isn't it the moral choice to maintain peaceful protest? Ultimately, there needs to be fewer humans on the planet than we have now. I see that goal as the only long-term solution. Surely starvation and disease can eliminate a great many people without the need for warfare. Most religions seem opposed to reducing birth rates, but the only alternative I see is the massive reduction of population by other (far more unpleasant) means.

Our minds display an enormous plasticity, and it is possible to transform ourselves based on deliberate uses of attention. And yet we need to understand that rationally.  We need to understand that neuroscientifically and psychologically.
- Sam Harris in "Fierce Light"

(This quote also reminds me that I still need to make time to write about Remaking.)

Perhaps there's a way to use ideals to inform our intellect, a way that doesn't require the use of traditional religious institutions or standards.  Sam Harris wrote a book titled, "The End Of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason".  Apparently he tries to posit a rational approach to ethics for people who are more familiar with religious methods.  I think maybe I should continue my investigation by ordering myself a copy of his book to read.

No answers today.  Just lots of questions.