Whether we are of the human species or of the lower primates, the relationship among individuals, between the groups and between the individual and the group, plays a major role in the maturity of the individual, in the culture of the group and in the evolution of the species.
All of us are genetically programmed to
observe a minimum level of required behavior that help us survive the early
stages of our growth and maturity. This would also be the time when we are
under the care of elders from whom we learn how to interact with other
individuals, and with the group in which we find ourselves. When we are mature
enough to “leave the nest,” we begin the process of learning on our own what should
help us make a positive contribution to the evolution of the species.
Of course, there is a rough kind of correlation
between how we appear physically and the level of maturity we have acquired.
But that’s only a rough kind of correlation because the relationship does not
always hold true. In fact, some youngsters are so precautious, they act like
twice their age. And there are grown ups whose behavior says they never left
the adolescent stage of their upbringing.
Because behavior is a contagious habit, it
acts like a double-edged sword in this matter. In fact, it is an important
component of the learning process. This means that when a trend begins and
gains traction in a society, it will be picked up by many if not all members of
that society. If the habit is a positive one, it will contribute mightily to
the evolution of that society, and by extension to the entire species. But if
the habit is a negative one, it will do damage to the society, and will
adversely affect the entire human species.
But how can we tell what’s a positive habit
and what’s a negative habit? Well, we begin with the notion that maturing early
is in itself a good thing. We also begin with the notion that to be young at
heart is a good thing. But in both cases, the habit can be a two-edged sword.
For example, an undisciplined youngster that knows more than others of his age
group, can become a pain in the neck, and he may grow up to use his knowledge
to do unsavory things. On the other hand, a young at heart that goes overboard
acting like a youngster, will begin to show signs of senility.
This says that moderation in life is the best
choice we can make. But it would be boring if we were all born and reared as
clones of each other. This means that to be good, behavior must sit in the
middle of the spectrum between youthfulness on one side and mellowness on the
other. But the range in which the behavior is allowed to vary from person to
person cannot be too narrow or too wide if we want to avoid being seen as too
controlled or too loose.
Can any of this be of use when we try to
decipher and understand what’s developing in a given society, or developing about
the human race? Well, we happen to have two recently published articles that can
help us do just that. One article came under the title: “Iran benefits from Taliban
takeover,” written by Jackson Richman, and published on August 18, 2021 in the
Washington Examiner. The other article came under the title: “The Afghanistan
top line: It was time to go,” written by Daniel DePetris, and published on
August 17, 2021 in The Washington Examiner.
To
decide what to make of these two articles, we concentrate on what each writer
is saying that might fall under the rubric of human relations.
Here,
in condensed form, is what Jackson Richman is saying:
“Iran and the Taliban share a common enemy: America. The Taliban's victory
will assist Iran. Iran has previously supported the Taliban.
Iran hosted delegations from the Taliban. The head of Iran’s Supreme
National Security Council met with the Taliban co-founder who is expected to
become Afghanistan’s next president. Iran will be able to give greater supplies
of money and arms to the Taliban and al Qaeda. The risks speak to a key reason
why the US should have stayed in Afghanistan. President Joe Biden’s decision to
withdraw US forces from Afghanistan is a win for America’s adversaries. We
should now expect Biden to surrender”.
This
kind of thinking is typical of the grown up that never left the adolescent age.
What Jackson Richman did, was take note of who talked to whom, and who met with
whom — which is absolutely the normal thing to happen in international
relations — to then draw what he wants the audience to believe are serious
conclusions. What is that, you ask? Here it is in his own words: “We should now
expect Biden to surrender.” That would be Joe Biden, President of the United
States of America.
And here, in condensed form, is what Daniel
DePetris is saying:
“The Biden administration is in the middle of
a blame game. The execution of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan has sparked
outrage. Questions will have to be asked, and serious answers should be
offered. It’s vitally important to separate the implementation of the
withdrawal from the decision itself. Because the decision to leave Afghanistan
is just as solidly grounded today as it was years ago. It should have been
evident years ago that the United States could neither win the Afghan civil war
nor transform Afghanistan into a Western-style, centralized democracy”.
Here, Daniel DePetris begins by describing
the existing scene … one of outrage. As the narrator of a historical event, he
does not take sides but notes that one side will have to ask the questions,
whereas the other side should answer them seriously. But what good is a debate
of this nature unless we draw the correct conclusions so that we become wise
enough not to repeat the mistakes that have led to this wrenching moment? And
so, DePetris has concluded that: It should have been evident that the US could
neither win a foreign civil war nor transform a foreign culture into a
Western-style democracy.
And to you, my friend, I ask that you look at those two performances to see the stark difference that separates the mature wisdom of Daniel DePetris from the juvenile mentality of Jackson Richman.