Friday, October 30, 2009

Peace: Exploring the Solution

Now that we know the who, how, when, and what of the solution to our problem with distrust which will create the conditions for peaceful co-existence, we must now turn our attention to why this solution will work as well how it will accomplish our stated goal. In the process we will find that this simplistic solution to a complex age-old problem actually delivers much more than it appears to offer.

What will be the immediate result of our academicians using available research information to illustrate the inherent organically systemic nature of the human race? The result is that over the years these academicians as well as those who consume their academic offerings will begin to internalize the idea that they are part of one organic whole.

The problem we have with distrust is not a lack of understanding that we should trust each other but that we do not instinctively see ourselves as belonging to the same side, so to speak. Distrust is founded in fragmentation. The task is to get humans to see themselves the same way that other organisms see other members of their species.

Our current education system has taught us that the way to change someone's mind on a subject is to provide them with sufficient information to bring about a change in their thinking. This works often, but it has to overcome the natural tendency of humans to push back against new information. The proposed solution assumes forgotten the notion that oneness is the reality, and not a desired condition.

This solution circumvents this problem in a manner that first became evident to me more than a quarter century ago. I learned from a college professor that it is easier to convince people to your way by explaining why you do what you do instead of trying to tell them why they should adopt your way. It is also easier to get someone to like you by asking them to do something for you instead of doing something for them. In the first case their defenses are unarmed because they do not subconsciously perceive an attempt to influence them. In the second, they must temporarily experience what it is to like you while considering whether they like you enough to do something for you.

As a result of implementing this plan internationally adult humans will eventually come to view world the way that infants view it. It will not be long before we cease indoctrinating our children in a fragmented view of their species.

But this is only the first step. Next time I will discuss why the focus is on the educational system instead of government or religion, the two other institutions that wield influence in our lives.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Peace: The Plan to be Implemented

Based on all we know about the world around us, neither evolutionary theory nor intelligent design can explain the presence of distrust among adult humans. Distrust provides no survival benefit to the human species so there is not reason why humans would develop such a trait, especially when the positive trait of trust is evidenced among the infant of the species. From an intelligent design perspective it is illogical that an intelligent designer would design the necessary survival trait of trust into the non-human species and replace it with the destructive trait of distrust, but only among the adults of the species. The final possibility that would ascribe distrust to an entity outside of the human species is not any less problematic. All of this adds to the mystery of distrust; it should not exist yet it does.

With such a unique problem it should come as no surprise that a workable solution may mystify. Sometimes I have felt that the solution I have arrived at can only be appreciated after the foundation for it has been completely laid. But in the process of such thinking it occurs to me that the arguments that would explain the solution would make more sense if the proposal were known. I think the latter approach is the way to go. I will present here the who, what, when and where of this solution. The follow-up blogs will address the why; and there are may of these.

As I noted earlier, the goal is to eradicate distrust among humans as a species, not only from individual human beings. We must focus on what the human race was meant to be like rather than on what it can become. Thankfully, it does not require us to inform anyone that we should not be distrustful, nor the development of a new sophisticated area of knowledge. We already possess all we need to implement this solution.

As a first step, in order for humans to eradicate distrust our academic leaders must through scholarly papers or lectures, demonstrate from their existing body of research how each of the systems they deal with illustrate the natural organic nature of the human species.


The first thing you will note is that unlike other curriculum iniatives that address the lower educational levels this one begins with the higher levels of education. The second is that it treats the human race as an organic whole rather than as a loose collection of individual parts. The third is that this step will lead naturally to other steps. These and others will be discussed in the future.

Monday, October 26, 2009

Peace: The Solution

So, how do we eliminate distrust from humanity? This is the question that must be answered. We know that it can be eliminated because the fact that it is not present in the non-human species that preceded us in this ecosystem nor among infant indicates that it is not an inevitable part of human nature. However, it is also true that after thousands of years of existence humans have had no success in overcoming it. How can we accomplish today what has resisted our efforts over all these years? I would like to suggest that we have not eradicated distrust because we have not really tried to do so.

Distrust is a problem for humans. I don't think it has any redeeming properties. We also know that every problem humans experience is related to information. Either the information is lacking, is misinterpreted or is misapplied. I am not making any great revelation by saying that the education is the key to eradicating distrust. It is here that things get tricky.

We must differentiate between being educated and being informed. An educated human being will understand his role in the system we call the human race and will not be distrustful of other human beings. As we have seen throughout history many of the people we consider to be educated are merely informed, for they are the ones who have begun our wars and have orchestrated the fleecing of communities.

It is obvious that something has gone wrong in the education of the human species. It is not enough to teach humans that they should trust each other because, even though distrust is the absence of trust the relationship between trust and distrust is not the same as the light and darkness, or even awareness and ignorance. When light is introduced into a dark area the darkness flees. When an ignorant is made aware his ignorance dissipates. But the entrance of trust does not eradicate distrust. This is because trust is a focussed quality. We can trust one individual while simultaneously distrusting another. This is why trust and distrust can exist in the same breast, and trust can be instantly changed into distrust by changing one's perception of the previous object of one's trust.

When I speak of eradicating distrust I am envisioning a society in which we relate to each other as adults in the same way we relate to each other as infants; without having to be reminded that we should trust.

To accomplish that we need to first recognize that distrust is related to inequality. It does not matter whether the inequality is real or imagined. War and crime are violent efforts to achieve equality. They are also violent efforts to impose inequality. War and crime do not exist in a world where equality reigns.

This presents an educational problem. Almost out of necessity, our current educational systems are based on inequality. The teacher is not equal to the student. The student is being "educated" to serve the needs of a small group. The focus of our education is on small groups instead of on the global needs of the species. This environment breeds distrust.

We need a global curriculum that works in tandem with our current system of education and instills in all men the understanding that they are part of one system even though they may operate in a small area. It is possible because it occurs in the animal kingdom. The key to this approach to education is to focus not on what we can be but on what we should be.

The more I have reviewed this in my mind the more difficult it appears to explain it. Instead of laying the foundation I will present it and return to fill in the gaps and details. It is possible for humans to live without distrust as infants and as adults. Getting there may be easier than we think.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Peace: Understanding Distrust III

So far we have provided sufficient evidence to show that distrust is not merely an interesting social discussion subject but a viable research subject. We have shown that distrust is a scientific variable because it appears in varying quantities in nature. It is not present in non-human species but it is present among humans, but only in adult humans. I suggest a line of research that takes advantage of the fact that while distrust is present in humans but not present in non-human species it is also not present in the infant stage of the human species.

The absence of distrust, in favor of trust, from any of the other species that share the earth with us is an indication that distrust is a less desirable trait than trust; an undesirable trait that is harmful to the species. That being so the obvious conclusion is that distrust is not part of the natural identity of any of the non-human species on earth. The fact that distrust is never found in infant humans indicates that distrust also is not part of humanity’s natural identity. Somehow we have become infected by a foreign quality. No other explanation fits the conclusions we have drawn. Both evolutionary theory and creation point in that direction.

I guess one can say that any attempt to eradicate distrust is really aimed at regaining trust as an essential quality of the species. This means that the search for world peace by eradicating distrust is not an effort to become something we are not but an effort to regain a quality that we lost. The process is actually more of a restoration or healing than a transformation or conversion. Distrust is threatening the future existence of the human race. We now have the military capacity to destroy significant portions of our population. If we think of the human race being divided into trusting infant humans and distrustful adult humans it is easy to see that in order to guarantee the survival of the species we must "become as little children" and regain the trust that characterized us in the "infancy" stage of our development as a species.

This highlights the fact that the human species, just like any other species on earth, is a natural system and therefore is one organism, even though it looks like a collection of individual specimens. So, instead of being viewed as an inefficient machine in need of improvement humanity actually is a sick body that is in need of healing. To understand this reality metaphor, we need to take a look at how a body functions. (I call it a reality metaphor to drive home the fact that the species is not being compared to an organism or body; it actually is an organism and ought to function as one.)

We will use the human body to illustrate the point. Each body is made up of trillions of atoms grouped into eleven organ systems. Each moment an unknown number of instructions are being issued and carried out throughout the body. For the body to function in a state of optimal health these instructions must be issued on time and must be carried out on time. It would not do the body any good if the heart were to contract when there was no blood in it. The heart pumps blood to the tissues to supply them with oxygen. The haemoglobin molecule in the red blood cells has instructions to pick up oxygen from the lung and transport it to the rest of the body where it is released for cell use. Good health depends on those instructions being carried out precisely and on time.

Examples of this can be seen all around us. For an orchestra to produce a musical masterpiece its members must carry out thousands of instructions precisely and on time. Each marking on the score is an instruction that must be followed. Each beat of the conductor’s baton is an instruction that must be followed. The conductor trusts each member of the orchestra to follow his instructions and to follow the instruction on the score. The members trust the conductor to read from the correct score and to interpret the score accurately. Without trust among its cells a body is not healthy. Without trust among its members an orchestra cannot perform. Distrust has inhibited the ability of the human race to function as it should.

Peace: In Between

I recently came across this example of the effects of our distrust. Humans are the only species who have to undertake these projects to take care care of their young because we are the only who make such projects necessary. Until we eradicate distrust we have to engage in the work at hand.

http://www.firstgiving.com/riziki




Thank you.

Monday, October 19, 2009

Peace: Understanding Distrust II

Humans have long been aware of the problems associated with a lack of trust. However, we have tended to deal with the issue of trust by seeking ways to overcome distrust or develop and maintain trust in the presence of distrust. The basic assumption seems to be that distrust is part of what it means to be human. We may think of eradicating distrust in a particular situation but never completely from the human condition. But this assumption ignores two important facts about distrust which, to all intents and purposes, have inexplicably been overlooked. However, these two facts play a central role in forging a solution to this scourge on our cultural landscape.

The first fact is that distrust is found nowhere else in nature but among humans. It is a unique human phenomenon. This is an important piece of information for two reasons. First, it is generally accepted that humans are the last species to appear on earth, and second, the very first step of human science is observation of the rest of nature. This means that everything humans learn that is not a part of their nature is copied, in part, from the other species. We can safely conclude that humans did not model distrust from other species and we are the only species who exhibit this nonproductive behavior.

Even though the second fact is generally accepted by most of us not much attention is paid to it. Because distrust has not been extensively studied by our scholars it is an unheralded fact that there is an entire class of humans who, on the question of distrust, are as distinguished from the rest of humanity as are the other species in nature.

The boundary between the absence and presence of distrust represents the only bright white line in the human experience. It is such a bright line that it effectively divides humanity into two distinct species. Distrust is not a pediatric affliction; it does not exist among infants. One only has to observe the interaction among infants and children to recognize that. Distrust of other humans does not exist in the infant mind, nor does the fear that such distrust generates. But among the adult of the species the picture is different. Distrust is a characteristic of the adult stage of the species. Many adult humans make bold attempts to overcome this distrust but it remains a daily effort. This distinction between the infant and adult stages of the species is both interesting and instructive.

These two facts present an interesting research situation that will be useful as we attempt to understand distrust more fully. It is not often in a research situation to find that a quality being studied is the distinguishing factor. On one hand we find that all other non-human species exhibit no distrust and this is contrasted with the sole human species that exhibits distrust. It appears that this difference can be attributed to a human characteristic. But this is countered by the factor that distrust only manifests itself in the adult stage of the species. Because of our relationship with the rest of nature I would expect to find that distrust would be present among the infants of the species and the adults would learn from the other species how to develop trust. There seems to be no reason why humans would gain distrust as they mature into adulthood.

For our purposes, it is not necessary to determine at which point in the transition from infancy to adulthood that distrust becomes a part of human nature. It is sufficient to understand that this situation exists; that in individual human beings the transition from infant to adult also marks a downward shift from a state of trust to one of distrust.

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Peace: In Between

Before I post my next blog in the Peace series I wish to express my appreciation for the comments that have already been made. I would like to encourage you to continue commenting. I would like your input on two issues that have been raised. Trevor has already addressed the first, which would be the costs/benefits associated with distrust, when he wrote that
Greed and associated violence are feeders of distrust and suspicion. Getting rid of distrust means overcoming ethnocentrism, racism, nativism, capitalism, and many other dangerous contributors.


The truth is that it is distrust that is the source of all these. If we get rid of distrust we would get rid of ethnocentrism, racism. I can think of another. I think there are a number of technological advances we dare not make because we don't trust each other to use them honestly. I encourage you to think of such possibilities and share them here.

Another issue would be the three forms of distrust I proposed. What do you think of that idea? In what ways to you see these three forms relating to each other? Thanks for your contributions until my third offering.

Friday, October 16, 2009

Peace: Understanding Distrust

I would like to reiterate that before we can achieve our goal of eradicating distrust among humans we must understand it and clarify how we became infected with it. That discussion will naturally lead to the costs of distrust as well as the intended benefits to humanity of getting rid of distrust.

Distrust is the lack of trust and it works at three levels. The first level is the one that prompted this series of blogs. At this level distrust can be defined as the absence of certain knowledge that you or others who are like you will not harm you.

At the second level distrust can be defined as the absence of knowledge that you or others who are like you will take care of you in your time of need.

At the third level distrust can be defined as the absence of knowledge that you or others who are like you have your best interests at heart.

Those definitions are important. We have no expectation that other species will not harm us, have our best interests at heart or will take care of us in our time of need. But, we have a sense that we should be able to rely on others like us not to harm us, to take of us in our time of need or adversity, or to have our best interests at heart.

All of these affect our behavior and have attendant costs. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive. They may function in isolation or in combination or one or more may give rise to others. We have already discussed how standing armies exist because nations do not have certain knowledge that other nations will not harm them. Standing armies provide a sense of security. On a personal level that need for security takes its toll in stress and violence. Not knowing for certain that others will take care of us in time of need is one of the reason that some take goods and resources out of the market and hoard them. We must save to preserve our future because there is no guarantee that others will take care of us. Not knowing for certain that others have our best interests at heart sometimes causes us to resist new ideas. A good example is Galileo. Because he was at the bottom of the academic pecking order those at the top of the pecking order refused to look in his telescopes.

These examples show that the cost of distrust goes far above the trillions spent in military and crime prevention budgets. The benefits of eradicating distrust are incalculable.

Imagine a world where trust rules and suspicion and fear are distant memories. A world where one can spend his money on food and other necessities instead of on home security systems. A world where we can travel to any exotic locale we desire without making special arrangements for protection. A world where children can go to school without fear of being viciously attacked. It is within our reach.

With this brief review of distrust and its costs we will next take a look at the origins of distrust. This will provide amazing insights into the nature of humanity.

Monday, October 12, 2009

Peace for a Peace Prize

Those who have raised questions about the award of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama may have unwittingly done us a tremendous service. It turns out that if we follow Alfred Nobel's criteria none of the previous winners of the Peace Prize really deserved that prize. In his 1895 will Alfred Nobel stipulated that the peace prize should go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses.” Obama is the 97th individual to receive the Peace Prize, which has been awarded 90 times since 1901, but it is obvious that the award committee has been very liberal in its interpretation of the criteria identified by Alfred Nobel.

Fraternity among nations as well as peace conferences are useful tools in the quest for world peace and no one can seriously doubt that President Obama and other recipients of the Nobel peace prize have to one degree or other demonstrated a commitment to both. But what about standing armies? In the nearly two centuries since Nobel's death fraternity among nations has ebbed and waned, and the impact of peace conferences has been spotty, but standing armies have become larger and more sophisticated.

Maybe President Obama had the correct idea in his response to his nomination. After reminding us that the prize has "also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes," he went on to say:

That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.


Maybe the time has come to recognize as the most urgent challenge of the 21st century the need to reduce and abolish our standing armies.

Standing armies are a drain on the public purse, even when a war is not being fought. Standing armies must be maintained even when they are not fighting. But the billions spent to maintain a standing army could be used to conquer illiteracy and all its ills. Unlike fraternity among nations and peace conferences that can be used in the quest for peace, the abolition of standing armies will only occur after world peace has been achieved. With its granting of the 2009 Peace Prize to President Obama the Nobel Committee may have just called all of us to seriously consider what it will take to get rid of our standing armies.

The first thing to bear in mind is the fact that standing armies, as a deterrent to other humans, are a human invention. There is no equivalent anywhere in nature. The second is that necessity is the mother of invention. Every human invention was made in response to a need. Standing armies are an indication of a lack of trust and national security. A few weeks ago I listened to the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates react to Iran's nuclear buildup. He suggested that Iran may change its posture if they realize that refusing to heed pleas from the global community is not the way to increase their security. He could have mentioned that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons is a response to a perception that they need to protect themselves from a threat from the outside.

The fact that standing armies were invented by humans indicates that we did not always distrust each other. Before we can get rid of our standing armies we must first get rid of the distrust. To get rid of this distrust we must first understand how we acquired it.

In the next few blogs we will try to understand where we got the idea from that other humans are our enemies, and then propose how we can get rid of it along with the need for standing armies.