Is bloodshed ever necessary?
Posted 22 February 2010 - 09:01 AM
With humans what we have is smart computer hooked to a social network. It is not always possible to disconnect from it from the network and/or alter the brain hardware/software. It might also be hard to reprogram the existing software with an new update, successfully use a virus scan (debrief), or totally clean out the hard drive and reinstall the operating system. What we have is a smart and often resourceful computer which can resist, hide core resources, and bring them back, when we hook it back into the network. So how would you deal with a smart computer gone renegade, which we can't be sure we can fix, who will try to fry peaceful computers in the network? We may have to terminate. I would try all the less destructive methods first, since it is a clever machine and potentially useful, but if nothing works, ...
But there is a reverse to this. Say you had a "renegade" smart computer, like the patriots during the American Revolution. If this case, the smart computer is trying to alter the network, but in a progressive nondestructive way. The programmers, tech and IT people like things the old way and will see this impact as a virus, while the progress will see the status quo as the virus driven by smart computers.
- LaurieAG likes this
Posted 23 February 2010 - 02:06 AM
But there is a reverse to this. Say you had a "renegade" smart computer, like the patriots during the American Revolution. If this case, the smart computer is trying to alter the network, but in a progressive nondestructive way.
Good points. I read about a couple of 'grey' viruses a couple of years ago that searched for exploitable ports on susceptible computers, took over, blocked the ports then sent an email to the sysadmin telling them of the problem that was fixed. Unfortunately this is a 'grey' area with regards to the law, vigilante activities if you like just like the patriots (who would be considered terrorists today), and would probably be a prosecutable offense under many countries laws.
Australia celebrates its military tradition on ANZAC day, a tradition laid down at Gallipoli where Australian, New Zealand, British and Irish soldiers made a brave gamble and lost!
We celebrate a massive defeat as our military celebration because we (a smaller number each year unfortunately) understand that it doesn't matter if you win or lose, its how you play the game that counts, because if you win and play dirty you may have won the battle but you have lost the war (unfortunately our political parties think that the ends justify the means and have hi-jacked the system to their own ends).
That smart computer downunder just says 'Lest we forget'.
Posted 23 February 2010 - 03:44 AM
I see it as desired. Preferential approach to a desired outcome. If it were (truly) necessary, I believe we would engage in it far more often. As in any time we desired a specific outcome. Again, that is if the assumption is that it is necessary.
I know that the US fought in and won what we term the American Revolution. It was a rather bloody war. We also had our Civil War, again rather bloody. Were these wars necessary? Were they jsutified? Should we not have fought them?
The "should" question is a deceptive one, IMO. We did fight in them. And they have been justified as 'righteous action' for desired outcome. Bloodshed being a natural/normal aspect of human wars (or battles among animals).
I'm just wondering if people think that the wars that were fought in the past were ok, but that now we've evolved past the point of needing bloodshed to continue our development??
I don't believe we ever needed bloodshed. Wars are relatively 'okay' if they are still being fought now or in our past.
Or have all wars throughout history been wrong?? Is there ever a time when a war is 'necessary'? Is there such thing as a peaceful revolution?
To me, 'right' and 'wrong' are essentially what we're fighting about. I find the better inquiry to be along lines of how well is this working for us? There is never a time when I believe war is necessary. There is such thing as peaceful revolution, though, as I understand things, it comes through peaceful means. When it is desired through means of attack/defense, it is essentially delaying the inevitable/larger revolution. The one where peace is seen for what it is, rather than attempting to obtain it through what it is not.
To me, and I feel this very important, peace in action is not a passive process. It is not "non-war" (only). Peace is received/earned/manifested on a daily basis via countless other ways to "serve community, country, way of life." The way in which service is regarded as "ultimate sacrifice" for one's country continues to show up to me as bold faced lie. And yet, I do realize that this sort assertion can alienate a whole lot of 'patriots.' To lay down one's life (in the body) doesn't necessitate war. If understanding that (true) freedom is not in need of any defense, then the perception of (necessary) sacrifice becomes a misnomer to what is actually occurring.
Posted 02 December 2018 - 01:37 PM
Well, I end up shedding blood almost anytime I make repairs to machinery. No violence involved, just tools slipping. The skin on my knuckles is probably 80 to 90 percent scar tissue.
As for violence, one does occasionally come across a bully who can only be stopped by knocking them down.