Of the differences that exist between our human species and
the lower species, two are paramount. The first is that we have developed a
rich and complex language we use to communicate with each other. The other is
that we can communicate not only simple notions such as sending out vocal
warnings of an approaching danger, but also communicate complex ideas.
Because of this, several of us can get together, share a few
ideas and go far with them. We rub the ideas against each other and produce new
ones that we can rub against each other and produce still more ideas … and so
on. This method allows us to start with two ideas and multiply them by several
iterations to produce millions of new ideas. Thus, whereas the matriarch in a
group of elephants can only guide the herd to a water hole, human beings can
build spaceships and send them to the planets or send them past the solar
system into deep space.
However, because our existence did not begin as the species
of thinkers that we are now, we owe what we have become to roots that go deep
into a past we share with the lower species. In fact, we may have at best
existed as a thinking species for a million years, but our biological roots go
back nearly six hundred million years. And whereas the science and technology
we produce differentiate us from the lower species, the relationships we
develop with one another are determined in large part by the animal instinct
that continues to command us.
Sometimes that side of us can be so overpowering, it clouds
even our scientific judgment, thus leads us to treat others more like a beast
than a human being. This is why, when searching for a way to interact with
other human beings, we usually do better when formulating resolutions collectively
rather than follow the instructions of a matriarch or a patriarch who may be
wise but not infallible.
We come together to formulate collective resolutions. When
this happens, the tendency of a diverse group is to break up and coalesce into
subgroups of the same kind. For example, a subgroup may be composed of adults
only or young only; of liberals or conservatives; of males only or females only
… and so on. Despite that tendency, however, it is evident that instant
communication and the abundance of information in these modern times have
conspired to blur the line between the subgroups.
In fact, it is difficult at times to differentiate between a
male idea and a female idea; between a liberal idea from a conservative one; a
youngish idea from a mature one. And as usual, there is the exception that
makes the rule. That is, it happens at times that in the generational category,
we may encounter adults that think and behave like adolescent amateurs; or
encounter young people that think and behave like adult professionals.
Most of the time, it is possible to determine why a
youngster has matured quickly and has begun to behave like an adult. It is that
he or she would have gone through a difficult time, and was forced to rely on
themselves to survive. By contrast, what is difficult to determine most of the
time, is why some adults behave like adolescents.
There are two examples of the latter, and it will be up to
the readers to determine why these adults behave like adolescent amateurs.
One example came under the title: “Lobbying for Iran , among other things,” an article that also
came under the subtitle: “Macron and Merkel visit the White House, pushing the Iran nuclear
deal,” written by Jed Babbin and published on April 29, 2018 in The Washington
Times. The other example came under the title: “After the North Korea-South
Korea summit” and the subtitle: “Why North Korea ,
Iran , China and Russia must be watched closely,”
written by Peter Vincent Pry, and also published on April 29, 2018 in the same
Washington Times.
What the two writers have in common is that they belong to a
subgroup of people whose ideology is based on the notion that our animal
instinct is so overwhelming we remain a species of hunters and of the hunted.
Therefore, it behooves us in this part of the world to always be the hunter
lest we become the hunted. To that end, each of the writers has suggested a way
forward:
Peter Vincent Pry said this: “No matter what Pyongyang and Tehran
may agree to, assume the agreements are worthless. Proceed with U.S. nuclear
forces modernization, space-based missile defenses and EMP protection of the
electric grid full speed ahead”.
Jed Babbin said this: “We can re-impose the sanctions during
the negotiations period, maximizing our leverage by threatening to impose them
on European companies that do business with our [opponents]”.
This is how the apparently adult writers propose that we be
the hunters, and go after the hunted. But considering that the species which
came before us have survived by not preying on members of the same species, we
must view such proposals as the expression of adolescent amateurs.