I believe so. In my opinion, this likely to have occurred, at least on a small scale.
It should be clarified that I am only
referring to average, statistical intelligence (not geniuses or halfwits) and
that which is natural and has nothing to do with level of learning. A person
with a university education may be less “organically” intelligent than someone
who has not completed elementary school or even someone who is illiterate. In
popular language, some are born smarter, quicker or more inventive than others.
Among well-educated people, the level of
intelligence is variable. As someone once said, referring to an enemy, “he
acquired more knowledge than his intelligence allowed”.
Besides deaths, injuries, chaos and
destruction on a large scale, it can be presumed that, in each country, wars bring
about a genetic, mental decline in subsequent generations, given that in such
conflicts the “survival of the least fit” occurs, together with the “extinction
of the fittest” – going against the theory of evolution put forward by Charles
Darwin. This is just one more argument against the stupidity of wars. Fortunately,
to date, women have not participated en masse in combats. They have thus
conserved the best genes of their respective nations.
In wars, it is exactly the youngest and
healthiest, in body and mind, who are called up and approved for military
service, and who die first in combat. They die, whereas the young men rejected
by armies continue to produce children.
Being merely curious, with an inclination
to investigate possible biological ties of the cause and effect type in social
issues – in this case, between the death of millions of young soldiers and the
current mental retardment of human beings – I ask myself whether periodic wars,
eliminating the best portion (healthy young men) of the population, explain why
humanity has not improved. Or worsened, in average mental and moral terms, despite
its impressive technological advances. It should be noted that scientific,
technological and philosophical inventions are relatively rare, produced by a
microscopic fraction of humanity. In this text, I solely wish to discuss a
global, statistical hypothesis, recognizing, of course, that many young people
who are unfit for fighting in wars may be exceptionally intelligent. However, I
am not going to discuss exceptions.
How did the idea arise of relating regular
and frequent wars to a low level of evolution, or no evolution, in the quality
of human beings? I will explain below.
After reading hundreds of the writings of
Greek philosophers – Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and even pre-Socratic
philosophers - in three languages, I keep asking myself the following: Socrates,
for example, was likely born in 470 BC, in other words, around 2,500 years ago.
What he said – and his followers wrote – regarding ethics, politics and human
beings has not been supplanted by current “thinkers”, even after so many
centuries.
Modern writers seem to be more concerned
with phrases destined for effect, with a view to ensuring successful sales,
than depth and striving for truth. In politics it is even worse. One only needs
to compare the improvised speeches of the presidents of nations over the last
hundred years, including the heads of state of some of the richest countries. With
regard to speeches that are read, at the highest level, it is known that they
are commonly written by so-called ghostwriters.
Little or no progress in these areas in 2,500 years. Maybe even a regression,
despite our impressive technical advances, the product of rare innovators.
In spite of the availability of so much
reading matter, with the invention of the printing press, computers and cell
phones, as well as the free and instantaneous availability of information,
modern man continues to lie, cheat, kill and rob in an uninhibited manner. With
one aggravating factor: after the aforementioned philosophers, three principal
religions arose which, being monotheistic, should drive humanity in the
direction of uniting the human species.
However, it got worse. The carnage only
increased: the Crusades, the Thirty Years’ War, the Hundred Years’ War, the
Napoleonic Wars, The Russian Civil War, the American Civil War, the Dungan
Revolt (in China), the Tamerlane “Attacks”, the First World War, the Second
World War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf Wars, the Syrian “Civil”
War, the Islamic State, fighting between Israelis and Palestinians, etc. All
this without even counting a possible nuclear conflict if Kim Jong-un and Trump
continue to threaten one another, embrace and then threaten once again. One
push of the button, even accidentally, and chaos will ensue.
I spoke of an “accidental push” because
when Jimmy Carter was president, one of his suits was sent to the laundry with a
“cell phone” or equivalent device that had been carelessly left in one of the
jacket pockets which, when activated, would fire missiles with atomic warheads
against Russia. To counter this, Russia would use its “immediate response”
system, launching atomic missiles against the USA, London and other European
capitals, members of NATO. Fortunately, ignorant of the danger, no young
employee of the laundry tried to “test” the buttons of the enigmatic “toy”. Could
it be a new “smartphone”, with games?
I like to remember that sometimes good is
to be found in evil and vice versa. At the time of the Cold War, if the USA and
the Soviet Union were not nuclear powers, a Third World War would have already
occurred. Following the defeat of Germany, Stalin had divisions available for
territorial conquest of a large part of Europe.
With a view to avoiding wars, it is
necessary to prohibit them; however, in order to prohibit them, it is necessary
for nations to be aware of a need to cede part of their sovereignty to a
central agency, a type of “world police”, or “amplified UN”, authorized to “cut
back” the excesses of the capricious and abusive sovereignty of certain nations
dominated by generally dictatorial governments, where the people are afraid to
protest against their leaders. Such “abuses of sovereignty” occur in strong,
well-armed nations, because weaker ones know, realistically, that their own
sovereignty is only theoretical, if not maintained by a “guard dog” that says: “Hands
off this one!”.
Unfortunately, there is a lack of a
recognized, reliable and determined world leader, who can convince the majority
of nations that there is a need to act while there is still time.
Delinquent travesties of heads of state wish
to continue doing whatever they want – causing mass migrations and thus
disorganizing other countries, incapable of suddenly accepting millions of
refugees – when this could have been avoided if there were a global
organization with the power of preventively “nipping out” and compulsorily
retiring half-crazy politicians intoxicated with limitless power. If Hitler had
been forcibly interned in the 1930s, the Second World War would not have
existed. Unless another lunatic appeared with the same obsession, who would
have also been “removed” from power.
The allegation that a “world government” would
inevitable be despotic, led by bankers, is a deceptive, prophetic lie at the
service of rogues who adore the “status quo”. Of course, such malicious
“bankers” may currently exist; however, they are basically no more than smart
cretins (without any contradiction in this description) with a mania for
greatness.
In setting up this necessary advance in
human co-existence, all countries would put forward their opinions and pay
particular attention to preventing this regulation of sovereignty from becoming
transformed into an instrument of oppression at the service of a small group of
financiers. With current knowledge of governance techniques, it is already
possible to polish the sovereignty of states, simply limiting abuses. However,
there is a lack of someone with the courage and greatness to do this.
One must agree that it is not really a
complicated matter. How many professors of International Law are there in the
world? Thousands of competent ones, of course, but almost all handcuffed by the
fear of being criticized, hated or dismissed from their posts.
It is not necessary for an alien force to
threaten our planet in order to unite it and, once united, become strengthened
and save its inhabitants. Millions of them, crossing deserts on foot, dying
from asphyxiation inside containers, drowning in the sea or fleeing from
soldiers seeking to amputate their arms with machetes.
Enough of indifference and timidity.
This article was translated from Portuguese
by John Upson
(e mail
john@wetranslate.com.br)
(07/08/2019)
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário