The story of survival on Planet Earth for all forms of
organic life has moved along two strategies. One has been that of survival to
the fittest which obliged the weaker party to fight and perish or flee and live
… at times be forced to fight another day. The other strategy has been that of
adapting to the situations as they present themselves, thus accommodate the
changes as they materialize and be accommodated by them.
Our human intelligence has placed us so high above the other
animals that we no longer have to flee them. In fact, we go out of our way to
protect those we label endangered species because we recognize that we are more
of a threat to them than they are to us. In time, our privileged status has
also dampened our natural instinct to fight the non-human primates because we
know that there can be no contest between our technological might and their
puny natural defenses. In fact, this tendency is gradually becoming an integral
part of our human culture.
So far so good insofar as our relationship with the other
species is concerned. On the other hand, the situations we have not dealt with
comprehensively revolve around the disputes that arise among humans … though we
took a few steps in that regard. In fact, to mitigate the possibility of a
situation escalating to a violent outcome, each jurisdiction has made laws that
tell individuals how to relate with each other. We also made international laws
that tell the jurisdictions (called nations) how to interact with each other.
Despite all that, human beings continue to clash at the
individual level inside the jurisdictions, and they continue to clash as
nations on the international stage. This is how we find ourselves resorting to
(a) the concept of survival to the fittest, forcing the weaker party to fight
and perish or flee and live, or (b) the strategy of adapting to the situation,
thus seek a compromise that would accommodate all stakeholders.
Our human brain is the reason why we find ourselves forced
to return to the ancient concepts. Yes, the brain gave us the ability to rise
above everything else on the planet, but it also gave us the ability to shape
the cultures by which we live with each other as individuals, and the cultures
by which we interact with each other as jurisdictions. The consequence has been
that the cultures have proliferated, causing a marked increase in the
possibility that some will be at odds with others.
This being the reality of the human condition as we find it
at this time, our leaders have been struggling to put together an international
code of behavior that will help our species avoid clashing violently when
disputes arise. The trouble is that there remains a minority which rejects the
attempt to converge the purpose of the different jurisdictions. These people
argue that the fundamental principle of Evolution is that the species diverge
from each other rather than converge toward each other. This has led them to
adopt the principle of survival to the fittest. Thus, they argue that individuals
and nations must settle their disputes using all the means at their disposal,
including violent wars.
People like Benny Avni used to openly advocate that course
of action. Seeing that they were not gaining traction, they softened their
stand a little. However, the reality remains that no matter how subtle they say
the things they used to say openly, they continue to be the open book they have
always been. It is easy to read between the lines of what they advocate, which
is that they want to see war, war, war everywhere and all the time. It is that
deep down; these people believe their side shall always prevail because they
are the fittest.
You can see that tendency in the article that came under the
title: “This was the year that China
truly broke out,” written by Benny Avni and published on December 30, 2015 in
the New York Post. He begins the discussion by mentioning the fact that China has set up a banking system whose purpose
is to rival the World Bank, now dominated by the United States . He then moves on to
discuss the military strength of China ,
lamenting that the Obama Administration is doing little to confront China in that
regard.
It is not that Avni argues China
is doing something illegal or unethical, and must therefore be stopped; it is
that he argues China is
evolving the way that America
did, and must therefore be stopped before it becomes strong enough to rival America – a
development that will force the latter to adapt rather than fight.
Here is the passage that reveals the thinking of the author:
“to complement its financial muscle-flexing, China is increasingly aggressive
militarily. In [its] version of the Monroe Doctrine, [it] is muscling neighbors
in the East and South China seas and beyond.”
In other words, he says that what was good for the American goose is not good
for the Chinese gander.