 Kore7 says: The psychological biases for conflict and against peaceful resolution are numerous, deep-seated, and often irrational; properties that are amplified when extended by all-too-human leaders to countries' foreign policies. People prefer to avoid a certain loss in favor of a potential loss, even if they risk losing significantly more. When things are going badly in a conflict, the aversion to cutting one’s losses, often compounded by wishful thinking, is likely to dominate the calculus of the losing side. I do dangerous research with dangerous people in dangerous places. The golden rule of survival is: Never carry a weapon in a war zone. I've never had to defend myself, I've never been in a situation where I need to fight but couldn't. Why? Because I'm a pacifist, and I have a good sense of humor. People say that unilateral disarmament isn't feasible because we need weapons for protection. That is categorically not true. Those same people should re-examine their love affair with martial power. I know many people who study martial arts for self defense, and constantly somehow find themselves "being forced to defend themselves" while in similar situations, I have never encountered violence.... Oops, forgot to hyper text that: Consider the persuasive argument put forth by Alexis de Tocqueville and put into practice by Pep Figures, that a democracy cannot live at peace so long as it has an army. |
View the Top Clips from October 2, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||
|
|
|||
